the first review to use Nvidias *new* Quality settings..

[Hellbinder]

here we go... Tech-Report. used ballanced. ooops i mean *Quality* mode to bench agaisnt the 9800pro. Suprise.. what do you know.. its pretty fast.. :roll:
Taken from the new Tech-REport 9800pro Vs 5800 Ultra Review..

The GeForce FX runs Quake III especially well, so it has a bit of advantage here in overall performance. In terms of scaling, there aren't many surprises, either. The FX takes a little more of a performance hit with trilinear filtering than the GeForce4 does, but it's so much faster overall, no one will complain.

Incidentally, I used the "Quality" setting in the NVIDIA "Performance & Quality Settings" control panel throughout my performance testing. There are two other options, "Application" and "Performance". Let's take a look at what the three settings do.

He runs all his benchmarks with the *Quality* mode on the FX. Not suprising the FX performs pretty darn good against the 9800pro running *Quality* mode. Total and complete Deception by the [N]. Nice job lowering their standards even further..

This is only the begining fellas..

Btw, this is not an overly bad comparrison/review. He is pretty hard in some areas on the FX.. so its not a biased review imo. There is stiill the silly comments like "if only" etc... to deal with. simply shows that Nvidia has successfully now.. degraded for the forseeable future any Benchmark comparrisons done by a majority of sites and magazines..

http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2003q2/geforcefx-5800ultra/index.x?pg=1

[Richthofen]

go to rage3d.
better place for your ATI fanboy shit.

Rich, I was tempted to delete your post... what you posted isn't needed here. -- Rev

[Hellbinder]

Why is this *ATi shit* ??? :roll:

Did they or did they not rename Their AF mode.. Answer yes they did. Does this skew benchmark results?? yes.. yes it does...What is the problem. eh?? Why is this not a MAJOR topic for discussion at a site liek this??? well???

Lame dude really, really lame.. :roll:

[Richthofen]

i meant ATI damn this word is forbidden here *f*a*n*b*o*y* shit.

as long as nvidia still offers me the application setting for AF everything is just fine. I like quality something their AA modes above 2x are missing.
But in the AF space their sollution is supperiour to the one offered by ATI.
Thats why this discussion is nonsense.

Go and get a life.

[Hellbinder]

i meant ATI damn this word is forbidden here *f*a*n*b*o*y* shit.

as long as nvidia still offers me the application setting for AF everything is just fine. I like quality something their AA modes above 2x are missing.
But in the AF space their sollution is supperiour to the one offered by ATI.
Thats why this discussion is nonsense.

Go and get a life.

Ah, now I see where you are comming from.... thanks for the insite.

and im the Fanboii eh? :roll:

[Pete]

I take more issue with nV 4xAA vs. ATi 4xAA than with nV "Qual" AF vs. ATi Qual AF, as Damage's AF screenshots (including his MIP-maps) show the two settings are comparable. Pity he didn't include AA screens, but he just got the card (and at a steep price, I might add).

[Hellbinder]

No, the Application mode screenshots and the ATi quality screenshots are comparable. As shown by this guys pics.. and Beyond3d's analasys and Hardocp.

[demonic]

i meant ATI damn this word is forbidden here *f*a*n*b*o*y* shit.

as long as nvidia still offers me the application setting for AF everything is just fine. I like quality something their AA modes above 2x are missing.
But in the AF space their sollution is supperiour to the one offered by ATI.
Thats why this discussion is nonsense.

Go and get a life.

why is this guy not banned?

1) for the language and his posts?
2) For not having a clue?
3) For attacking another member?

Thanks :roll:

[Neeyik]

4) For his mediocre spelling, punctuation and grammar?

[gkar1]

Agreed

[MuFu]

go to rage3d.
better place for your ATI shit.[/i]

Isn't this "nVidia shit" more than anything else?

MuFu.

[Thowllly]

go to rage3d.
better place for your ATI shit.[/i]

Isn't this "nVidia shit" more than anything else?

MuFu.
As mentioned in the posts further up, he tried to say "better place for your ATI fanboy shit", but was censored by the forum, the poor SOB. :P

[MuFu]

Ahhh... yes I see now.

MuFu.

[Hellbinder]

Yeah.. but IMO it does not change the fact that what i posted was not "fanboi ****".... Nor does it make MuFu's point above any less true.

[Althornin]

i meant ATI damn this word is forbidden here *f*a*n*b*o*y* shit.

as long as nvidia still offers me the application setting for AF everything is just fine. I like quality something their AA modes above 2x are missing.
But in the AF space their sollution is supperiour to the one offered by ATI.
Thats why this discussion is nonsense.

Go and get a life.
The problem is in what is used in benchmarks.
Why cant you comprehend that?

[Randell]

The problem is in what is used in benchmarks.
Why cant you comprehend that?

Because green or red all fan-boys are the same underneath

[K.I.L.E.R]

Well, I if they want to go around renaming everything and calling low IQ modes high IQ, then I am sure they have a right. Not too sure how many people would pick it up. Not too sure if it would effect their relationship with nVidia in any way nor am I sure how much credibility they would lose.

Remember, not everyone with a computer/video card knows what the settings all mean. You can even tell some people that a high LOD bias makes the image sharper and they would believe that.

[Ante P]

http://www.nordichardware.se/recensioner/grafikkort/2003/Gainward_FX_5800_Ultra/Quake3MaxAF.gif

nV:
A = Application
MQ = Maximum Quality
ATi:
P = Performance
Q = Quality

Pretty ok scores no matter if you use Application or Maximum Quality... but then...

http://www.nordichardware.se/recensioner/grafikkort/2003/Gainward_FX_5800_Ultra/UT2003MaxAF.gif

http://www.nordichardware.se/recensioner/grafikkort/2003/Gainward_FX_5800_Ultra/Quake3Tri.gif

http://www.nordichardware.se/recensioner/grafikkort/2003/Gainward_FX_5800_Ultra/UT2003Tri.gif

Personally I used both modes when benchmarking Aniso. I can't really say that I think it would be meaningfull to benchmark the card with "application" when not using AF. The difference (except when using colored mip maps) is just not there when it comes to quality.

BTW what do you guys think about that extreme drop when using Application in UT2003. Perhaps the good old GF4+AF+D3D bug is back, but only when using Application?
(On the other hand, the difference between Application and Maximum Quality is also greater when it comes to IQ in D3D compared to OGL.)

[mboeller]

]Why is this *ATi shit* ??? :roll:

Did they or did they not rename Their AF mode.. Answer yes they did. Does this skew benchmark results?? yes.. yes it does...What is the problem. eh?? Why is this not a MAJOR topic for discussion at a site liek this??? well???

Lame dude really, really lame.. :roll:

Dont worry :D

Richthofen is an "nice" Nvidiot²; even more so than you are an FanATic².

[Bambers]

How come the gigabyte 9700pro is slower than the ati one? :-? I assume being pros they're both at 325/310?

[Ante P]

How come the gigabyte 9700pro is slower than the ati one? :-? I assume being pros they're both at 325/310?

Ehmm, put on your glasses Bambers. :)
One is a 9800 Pro the other is a 9700 Pro. That's the difference, not the brands. ;)

[Dave Baumann]

Personally I used both modes when benchmarking Aniso. I can't really say that I think it would be meaningfull to benchmark the card with "application" when not using AF. The difference (except when using colored mip maps) is just not there when it comes to quality.

So you have no concern that you are not comparing Trilinear with Trilinear on another board?

BTW what do you guys think about that extreme drop when using Application in UT2003. Perhaps the good old GF4+AF+D3D bug is back, but only when using Application?
(On the other hand, the difference between Application and Maximum Quality is also greater when it comes to IQ in D3D compared to OGL.)

UT2003 has proven itself to be very texture intensive, and this is purely as a result of the lower bandwidth utilisation (I'm pretty sure the number of texture layers required exceed the texture cache's on most chips) and the amont of texture sampling required for true Trilinear - precisly the reas why Application should be used IMO.

[Ante P]

So you have no concern that you are not comparing Trilinear with Trilinear on another board?

Of course, I'm just saying that I don't think that the actual visual difference is very great. As my reviews are geared towards avarage joe consumers I doubt they'd see the differences without someone pointing them out. (And yes I do point it out in the review of course and provide screenshots etc.)
I do have the scores in the review though, I just take them "lightly" when discussing the results.

In any case, I do reviews with the standard settings as a "base" of judgement. If the card is using some hacks to gain performance at the expense of IQ then I'll give it a low grade in IQ.
I could trun it upside down and turn on application as the default setting and then I'd lower the grade for Performance but raise it for IQ.
Same shit different toilet though. :)

Oh and yeah, another problem. Application does more than just effect texture filtering. Or else it effects it in very strange ways.
Switching from "half ass trilinear" to "real trilinear" can't really account for the _extreme_ fps drops that Application incurs.
It's easily verifyable with a Ti4600. Turn on application and performance is down the drain, but there's no visable change at all.

nVidia should add a fourth mode called "Normal". ;)

[Bambers]

How come the gigabyte 9700pro is slower than the ati one? :-? I assume being pros they're both at 325/310?

Ehmm, put on your glasses Bambers. :)
One is a 9800 Pro the other is a 9700 Pro. That's the difference, not the brands. ;)

lol :| :oops:

I meant to check for that after I hit the submit button and then delete the post if that was the case but I got completely distracted :lol:

[K.I.L.E.R]

UT2003 has proven itself to be very texture intensive, and this is purely as a result of the lower bandwidth utilisation (I'm pretty sure the number of texture layers required exceed the texture cache's on most chips) and the amont of texture sampling required for true Trilinear - precisly the reas why Application should be used IMO.

That explains why my friend was running out of texture cache while playing UT 2003. He enabled 1024x768 everything maxed and 6x FSAA. Got around 10-30fps on Face 3. On the other hand I was getting 40-100fps.

He had his PC to defaults but I overclocked.