how come no one builds a test that properly shows AF? is it that hard to have a pattern on different shapes and it shows you how each shape handles it?
The irony is ATI has their driver setting default to max texture IQ yet Nvidias dont. If anything by default Nvidia is cutting themselves short in the IQ deparment ( but my bet is this is done for performance reasons which could be considered equally retarded ) but as mentioned in the article they offer comparable texture quality at their default setting of "quality". The moment you use the "high quality" preset, the ball is in their court ( not by much but it is regardless ), simple enough. Ive owned / used / tested more Nvidia cards in the last 2 years ( although the bulk of my personal time has been with a 4870x2 and my current 5870 ) and I'd argue subjectively that even the GT200 cards provide better texture quality (AA quality is another debate of which I still feel this is in ATIs court but thats neither here nor there ). Now I'd wager if someone were to test a range of games, and focus on AF / texture quality alone, that you'd see the differences are subtle, if there at all, most of the time ( excluding this obvious concern with regards to Crysis )
What I want to know now is if this effects both Warhead and the first game ( don't have warhead installed currently )
Last edited by Chickenfeed; 04-05-2010 at 01:28 PM.
Feedanator 7.0
CASE:R5|PSU:850G2|CPU:i7 6850K|MB:x99 Ultra|RAM:8x4 2666|GPU:980TI|SSD:BPX256/Evo500|SOUND:2i4/HS8
LCD:XB271HU|OS:Win10|INPUT:G900/K70 |HS/F:H115i
i use to use atitool or ati tray tools, whichever it was, to turn mipmap detail to the lowest setting to get an extra few hundred points out of 3dmark06, even though it looks like crap
You couldn't be more wrong. This needs to stop because it's getting annoying.
RV870 @ 16x AF + 8x SGSSAA:
GF100 @ 16x AF + 4x4 OGSSAA:
Not only is that particular area noticeably better on GF100 at highest quality AF setting vs. the RV870, but the entire image. If you go to this page, it allows you to compare the images by putting them on top of each other, and you can clearly see the image is better on GF100. So please, stop saying it isn't.
ATI has sacrificed filtering quality in order for their angle independent algorithm to work with a reasonable hit on performance, and this translates to lower overall AF quality than GF100 in practice.
i7 920 D0 / Asus Rampage II Gene / PNY GTX480 / 3x 2GB Mushkin Redline DDR3 1600 / WD RE3 1TB / Corsair HX650 / Windows 7 64-bit
Do note super sampling AA effects texture quality so making any texture quality comparisons when super sampling is used is somewhat pointless. AF comparisons are best made without any form of anti aliasing.
Feedanator 7.0
CASE:R5|PSU:850G2|CPU:i7 6850K|MB:x99 Ultra|RAM:8x4 2666|GPU:980TI|SSD:BPX256/Evo500|SOUND:2i4/HS8
LCD:XB271HU|OS:Win10|INPUT:G900/K70 |HS/F:H115i
lol. nvidia is really bad at games that are tunnels of colored circles.
i have done an AF test here with a 8192x8192 res texture. nvidia wins for about 90% of angles. not until it is extremely angled does ATi look better.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...7&postcount=12
i concur, the gf100 looks smoother but the closer section is not smooth so it looks strange (for the above images)
on a side note why dose it even matter i would bet that no1 who is arguing ether way would notice this while playing, and its subjective on what looks better
5930k, R5E, samsung 8GBx4 d-die, vega 56, wd gold 8TB, wd 4TB red, 2TB raid1 wd blue 5400
samsung 840 evo 500GB, HP EX 1TB NVME , CM690II, swiftech h220, corsair 750hxi
I said nothing about cheating, I would not care either way if it was NV seeing as your asking because you are noway telling more or thinking you can put words in my mouth would you now.
All i see is a bunch of girls arguing over the slight shades of make-up.
Some of you seem to have ATI v NV stamped in your forehead as that's all you seem to see & say no matter what is said.
Oh my god the differences are infinitesimally minute. You people are insane.
Someone give me a detailed explanation of why the GF100 image looks better in the red circle.
Last edited by cegras; 04-05-2010 at 05:57 PM.
E7200 @ 3.4 ; 7870 GHz 2 GB
Intel's atom is a terrible chip.
Go on the website and compare the two images directly on top of each other and it would be obvious, as would the whole image, the textures are not as blurred.
As for the red circle, the black line between the tiles is straighter and not as blurry as it is in the ATI image. Seriously, go compare them on top of each other as you are supposed to do and it will be obvious. As would the image of the ground texture in Crysis being sharper and crisper on GF100 and the zones being not nearly as visible.
i7 920 D0 / Asus Rampage II Gene / PNY GTX480 / 3x 2GB Mushkin Redline DDR3 1600 / WD RE3 1TB / Corsair HX650 / Windows 7 64-bit
that line shouldn't be straight its a jagged line of bricks with offsets, like hand made walkway. if u look one has integrity and one is a blurred straight line that looks out of place. in both the mortar line is close to content width but on the NV its missing curves that classic hand made and laid masonry would have. but its subjective, to really compare u need something with clean straight lines like a flight sim
5930k, R5E, samsung 8GBx4 d-die, vega 56, wd gold 8TB, wd 4TB red, 2TB raid1 wd blue 5400
samsung 840 evo 500GB, HP EX 1TB NVME , CM690II, swiftech h220, corsair 750hxi
It looks like nv might be cheating and not rendering that joint correctly.
[edit]
![]()
Last edited by flippin_waffles; 04-05-2010 at 06:39 PM.
Bookmarks