ATI cannot make working video drivers

[audiofreak]

Question is does this cause problems in today's games?

Of course it does, and it looks even worse in motion. Just try looking at detailed terrain textures.

EDIT:
Perhaps this will be a more convincing example

D3D AF-Tester settings for reproducing the following images:
- Use Checkerboard Texture (slider at 2)
- Mipmaps: Normal
- Objects: Plane, distance 3.0, angle 55.0°.

GTX 470:


HD 5870:


Note how with ATI 5xxx series there is a large X-shaped loss of detail on the center of the horizon (same would happen in any game with detailed terrain and that is the point where you would be looking at most of the time in FPS game), and how there is a ball-shaped geometric distortion up close (as if a sphere is protruding from below the terrain).

Don't forget to always look at the full-size samples.

We are talking about a very specific situation here.

"Very specific situation" has been constructed to make you notice how abrupt are the transitions between various filtering stages on latest ATI hardware. Not on all ATI hardware mind you -- you get smooth transitions between filtering stages on 4xxx series. Ironic, eh?

Yes, 5xxx has worse image quality than 4xxx. It's IQ has obviously been sacrificed for speed. Whether this has been done intentionally in driver code (i.e. cheating for FPS and benchmark scores), or is a genuine hardware limitation of 5xxx series which cannot be fixed without taking a performance hit which would bring performance to be in line with NVIDIA (or lower) it remains to be seen.

Luckily I won't have to look at it anymore.

[Blkout]

"Very specific situation" has been constructed to make you notice how abrupt are the transitions between various filtering stages on latest ATI hardware. Not on all ATI hardware mind you -- you get smooth transitions between filtering stages on 4xxx series. Ironic, eh?

Yes, 5xxx has worse image quality than 4xxx. It's IQ has obviously been sacrificed for speed. Whether this has been done intentionally in driver code (i.e. cheating for FPS and benchmark scores), or is a genuine hardware limitation of 5xxx series which cannot be fixed without taking a performance hit which would bring performance to be in line with NVIDIA (or lower) it remains to be seen.

Doesn't appear that the 5xxx series is worse than the 4xxx series here...

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/..._card_review/6

[audiofreak]

Doesn't appear that the 5xxx series is worse than the 4xxx series here...

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/..._card_review/6

How about you get a prescription for glasses? Same thing shown in this thread is clearly visible in that old article, I wonder how nobody picked it up earlier:



On HD 5xxx you still have a huge gray disk killing all the texture details and abrupt transition to unfiltered area, while both HD 4xxx and NVIDIA have gradually increasing filtering towards center of the frame as it should be.

The problem is that everyone keeps staring only at the pretty rainbow colored circle which shows how HD 5xxxx has angle independent anisotropic filtering, but they keep missing the loss of detail and abrupt transitions.

[Blkout]

How about you get a prescription for glasses? Same thing shown in this thread is clearly visible in that old article, I wonder how nobody picked it up earlier:

On HD 5xxx you still have a huge gray disk killing all the texture details and abrupt transition to unfiltered area, while both HD 4xxx and NVIDIA have gradually increasing filtering towards center of the frame as it should be.

The problem is that everyone keeps staring only at the pretty rainbow colored circle which shows how HD 5xxxx has angle independent anisotropic filtering, but they keep missing the loss of detail and abrupt transitions.

I don't need glasses and the colored area is the only area you should be concerned with. This same AF test has been used for years on most tech sites when reviewing video cards and never once that I can recall has a reviewer ever mentioned being concerned with the gray area. The colored circle is the benchmark sample. If you can find information from a credible tech site that says the gray area is important as well, please post it. The colored area is what determines the quality of the filter.

[audiofreak]

I don't need glasses and the colored area is the only area you should be concerned with. This same AF test has been used for years on most tech sites when reviewing video cards and never once that I can recall has a reviewer ever mentioned being concerned with the gray area. The colored circle is the benchmark sample. If you can find information from a credible tech site that says the gray area is important as well, please post it. The colored area is what determines the quality of the filter.

"GRAY AREA" IS THE TEXTURE that the filter is being applied to!

There should be a mandatory intelligence test before granting people Internet access, and it should require an IQ of at least 120. Forums would then be a much better place without all those two-digit-IQ trolls.

EDIT:

I got an advice via PM to stay calm -- I appreciate it, I have toned my post down a bit, and I am doing my best not to lose temper, but it is really hard to tolerate people who know nothing about the subject yet feel invited to comment with authority.

Split screen render of anisotropic filtering as a final proof:

Scale 1.0x (default):
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/681...ghqualityv.png

Scale 0.5x (banding even more obvious):
http://www.abload.de/img/5870tmuvsalu0.5xsduj.png

For uninitiated, left side is rendered by ATI HD 5870, right side is how it should look (rendered by reference rasterizer).

Here is the program if you want to test it yourself:
http://www.3dcenter.org/3dtools/filter-tester

This epic anisotropic filtering fail is present since HD 5xxx series launch, that is obvious from initial filter test screenshots which you can find in numerous reviews.

If it was software problem ATI would fix it silently, and I would not be able to get the same result with the latest ATI drivers.

Think about it, if ATI could not fix this in software for a whole year, then it must be a hardware limitation. What is extremely disappointing for me is that it wasn't present in HD 4xxx series.

[Carfax]

Audiofreak, you're wasting your time dude.. You know the old saying,"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

Well it applies here.

Some people just don't want to admit that ATI (now AMD) has inferior texture filtering to Nvidia.. It's always been like that, since Nvidia came out with the G80.

Anyway, the price for apathy is that AMD will continue to short it's customers in that department.

We'll see in a few weeks whether the 6xxx series has the same problem..

[audiofreak]

Audiofreak, you're wasting your time dude.. You know the old saying,"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

Well it applies here.

Some people just don't want to admit that ATI (now AMD) has inferior texture filtering to Nvidia.. It's always been like that, since Nvidia came out with the G80.

Anyway, the price for apathy is that AMD will continue to short it's customers in that department.

I know, sigh... I am not doing this because of those "horses". I am doing this so that other enthusiasts can make an educated choice if they care about image quality like I do.

We'll see in a few weeks whether the 6xxx series has the same problem..

Well, TwL of Guru3D (the guy who makes modified Catalyst drivers) thinks that the anisotropic filtering problem may be with drivers. If that is true, then it won't work properly on HD 6xxx as well.

On the other hand, if the problem is in hardware (some people speculate it may have to do with too small of a texture cache size), then HD 6xxx might have a fix for that or might not.

[XSAlliN]

Audiofreak, you're wasting your time dude.. You know the old saying,"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

Well it applies here.

Some people just don't want to admit that ATI (now AMD) has inferior texture filtering to Nvidia.. It's always been like that, since Nvidia came out with the G80.

Anyway, the price for apathy is that AMD will continue to short it's customers in that department.

We'll see in a few weeks whether the 6xxx series has the same problem..

Same goes for nVidia and same goes for you... Not that it was a surprise, considering you signature aka 3 x nVidia cards, probably just an nVidia fanboy bashing an ATi thread.

Owning an ATi card - I'm aware it has problems... - which started being obvious since Catalyst and so on... so no, I'm not a fanboy - you don't see me in nVidia dedicated section bashing nVidia for doing similar things, unless I'll become an nVidia card owner - and being on neutral ground "that is possible" - if I'll feel the need to invest in a future VGA (yet currently nothing impressive - on both sides).

[Blkout]

"GRAY AREA" IS THE TEXTURE that the filter is being applied to!

And again, do you have a credible link showing that particular AF test and what part of the image is actually being tested since everyone has been looking at the rainbow circles for as far back as I can recall. As I stated before, post a link to a credible source showing that the gray area is what's being filtered and not the circles. I won't hold my breath. Post a link or give up your ridiculous argument.

[audiofreak]

And again, do you have a credible link showing that particular AF test and what part of the image is actually being tested since everyone has been looking at the rainbow circles for as far back as I can recall. As I stated before, post a link to a credible source showing that the gray area is what's being filtered and not the circles. I won't hold my breath. Post a link or give up your ridiculous argument.

In order to be able to understand the test and significance of its components, you would need to have an in-depth knowledge of the following concepts:

1. Texture mapping
2. Mipmaps
3. Texture filtering

And finally:

4. Anisotropic filtering

From your posts so far it is obvious that you do not possess such knowledge.

Going forward, credibility of the source is determined by the level of knowledge of the person who is judging the source credibility.

In other words -- if you knew what I was talking about and how things (should) work in 3D graphics, it would automatically make sense to you, and you would not have to ask for proof other than the one provided by your own eyes.

[demonkevy666]

Of course it does, and it looks even worse in motion. Just try looking at detailed terrain textures.

EDIT:
Perhaps this will be a more convincing example

D3D AF-Tester settings for reproducing the following images:
- Use Checkerboard Texture (slider at 2)
- Mipmaps: Normal
- Objects: Plane, distance 3.0, angle 55.0°.

GTX 470:


HD 5870:


Note how with ATI 5xxx series there is a large X-shaped loss of detail on the center of the horizon (same would happen in any game with detailed terrain and that is the point where you would be looking at most of the time in FPS game), and how there is a ball-shaped geometric distortion up close (as if a sphere is protruding from below the terrain).

Don't forget to always look at the full-size samples.



"Very specific situation" has been constructed to make you notice how abrupt are the transitions between various filtering stages on latest ATI hardware. Not on all ATI hardware mind you -- you get smooth transitions between filtering stages on 4xxx series. Ironic, eh?

Yes, 5xxx has worse image quality than 4xxx. It's IQ has obviously been sacrificed for speed. Whether this has been done intentionally in driver code (i.e. cheating for FPS and benchmark scores), or is a genuine hardware limitation of 5xxx series which cannot be fixed without taking a performance hit which would bring performance to be in line with NVIDIA (or lower) it remains to be seen.

Luckily I won't have to look at it anymore.

Ok yeah I did do it wrong now I see how you did that.
edit. find this in game, and not just on flat grounds maybe on tress or building or rocks, could show better.