ATi vs. Nvidia IQ showdown at Firingsquad

[micron]

Good stuff. Everyone here will hate it though....
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/imagequality2/default.asp

[Doomtrooper]

Why would that be ??

I've never seen ATI's AA blur..either. Other than that it was 'ok'..UT 2003 is not the only application that uses the Pseudo Filtering, ALL applications do now. I have tested it myself, seen the videos provided by Mike Chambers of Nvnews and I don't agree that it doesn't affect IQ in UT 2003..let alone all games.

[OpenGL guy]

Good stuff. Everyone here will hate it though....
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/imagequality2/default.asp
"Good stuff"? No way.

Comparing 6x MSAA to 8xS is completely ridiculous, especially without an explanation of what the differences are. Take http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/imagequality2/page5.asp for example.
Then, something interesting happens. We cranked the GeForce FX 5950 up to 8x anti-aliasing and the RADEON 9800 XT to 6x anti-aliasing, the maximum settings for both cards. The GeForce FX 5950 is remarkably clear, while the RADEON 9800 XT suffers an interesting blurry effect on the grass. The sides of the race cars are similarly distorted and the audience in the back is collectively headless! Finally, the track is more detailed in the NVIDIA shot. It looks like ATI’s anti-aliasing is still superior to that of NVIDIA’s, but the discrepancies in detail are so distracting that it’s hard to tell.
First, the people are "headless" because that's the way they are without AA. MSAA does nothing to address texture aliasing. The "blurry" grass is exactly how it looks without AA. These guys didn't think to compare to the original non-AA images! These guys are acting like ATI is doing something incorrect when AA is enabled...

Similar problem abound on every one of the comparisons done between MSAA and mixed modes.

Then the conclusion is totally borked.
That said, in certain games, ATI is experiencing a blurring effect with anti-aliasing enabled.
Blurring? No, it looks just like it does without AA.

This article is terrible because it's so wrong on nearly every technical point.[/url]

[digitalwanderer]

Sorry, I can't participate in this thread much...my doc said I gotta cut down on my irrational stress levels. :roll:

That article = teh noes.

[micron]

Of course it was technically wrong in every aspect in your eyes OpenGL guy, thats why I said people here would hate it. Doomtroopers mellow post was a suprise to me though...

[digitalwanderer]

Doomtroopers mellow post was a suprise to me though...
Why? It's kind of tiring to hear the same BS over and over about how we can't tell a difference even though we can, what's the use of getting worked up about it anymore?

[Slides]

I found that to be a good article. Not sure if it's 100% technically correct, but it's still a good read.

[micron]

Have you personally played a bunch of games with an FX5950 using 8x AA dig to actually know that there is a discernable difference in image quality between it and ATi's top of the line card?

[bloodbob]

Good stuff. Everyone here will hate it though....
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/imagequality2/default.asp
"Good stuff"? No way.

Comparing 6x MSAA to 8xS is completely ridiculous, especially without an explanation of what the differences are. Take http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/imagequality2/page5.asp for example.
Then, something interesting happens. We cranked the GeForce FX 5950 up to 8x anti-aliasing and the RADEON 9800 XT to 6x anti-aliasing, the maximum settings for both cards. The GeForce FX 5950 is remarkably clear, while the RADEON 9800 XT suffers an interesting blurry effect on the grass. The sides of the race cars are similarly distorted and the audience in the back is collectively headless! Finally, the track is more detailed in the NVIDIA shot. It looks like ATI’s anti-aliasing is still superior to that of NVIDIA’s, but the discrepancies in detail are so distracting that it’s hard to tell.
First, the people are "headless" because that's the way they are without AA. MSAA does nothing to address texture aliasing. The "blurry" grass is exactly how it looks without AA. These guys didn't think to compare to the original non-AA images! These guys are acting like ATI is doing something incorrect when AA is enabled...

Similar problem abound on every one of the comparisons done between MSAA and mixed modes.

Then the conclusion is totally borked.
That said, in certain games, ATI is experiencing a blurring effect with anti-aliasing enabled.
Blurring? No, it looks just like it does without AA.

This article is terrible because it's so wrong on nearly every technical point.[/url]

They also said it was blurry then the FX cards WITHOUT AA.

[micron]

bloodbob, last thread of mine you joined, you pissed all over in it.
I'm only bringing it up in hopes that this wont be a repeat.

[micron]

UT 2003 is not the only application that uses the Pseudo Filtering
I know.
I wonder why that fact hasnt really caught on with reviewers yet?

[OpenGL guy]

Good stuff. Everyone here will hate it though....
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/imagequality2/default.asp
"Good stuff"? No way.

Comparing 6x MSAA to 8xS is completely ridiculous, especially without an explanation of what the differences are. Take http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/imagequality2/page5.asp for example.
Then, something interesting happens. We cranked the GeForce FX 5950 up to 8x anti-aliasing and the RADEON 9800 XT to 6x anti-aliasing, the maximum settings for both cards. The GeForce FX 5950 is remarkably clear, while the RADEON 9800 XT suffers an interesting blurry effect on the grass. The sides of the race cars are similarly distorted and the audience in the back is collectively headless! Finally, the track is more detailed in the NVIDIA shot. It looks like ATI’s anti-aliasing is still superior to that of NVIDIA’s, but the discrepancies in detail are so distracting that it’s hard to tell.
First, the people are "headless" because that's the way they are without AA. MSAA does nothing to address texture aliasing. The "blurry" grass is exactly how it looks without AA. These guys didn't think to compare to the original non-AA images! These guys are acting like ATI is doing something incorrect when AA is enabled...

Similar problem abound on every one of the comparisons done between MSAA and mixed modes.

Then the conclusion is totally borked.
That said, in certain games, ATI is experiencing a blurring effect with anti-aliasing enabled.
Blurring? No, it looks just like it does without AA.

This article is terrible because it's so wrong on nearly every technical point.[/url]

They also said it was blurry then the FX cards WITHOUT AA.
Really? I don't see that.
There is nothing notable here, folks. Both cards display very similar images, and the only discernable difference is between the quality of the blurry background image. {I don't see any significant difference. -OpenGL guy}
Then, something interesting happens. We cranked the GeForce FX 5950 up to 8x anti-aliasing and the RADEON 9800 XT to 6x anti-aliasing, the maximum settings for both cards. The GeForce FX 5950 is remarkably clear, while the RADEON 9800 XT suffers an interesting blurry effect on the grass. {There is no difference in the grass with AA and without AA, because that's how MSAA work. - OpenGL guy} The sides of the race cars are similarly distorted and the audience in the back is collectively headless! {They were headless without AA too! And the sides of the cars are not distorted anymore than they were without AA. - OpenGL guy} Finally, the track is more detailed in the NVIDIA shot. It looks like ATI’s anti-aliasing is still superior to that of NVIDIA’s, but the discrepancies in detail are so distracting that it’s hard to tell.
It's one thing to say that the result on the FX is sharper (it should be with mixed MS and SS), but to say that the Radeon "suffers an interesting blurry effect" is misrepresenting the facts.
Just as this statement is:
That said, in certain games, ATI is experiencing a blurring effect with anti-aliasing enabled.

[nelg]

Come on OpenGL Guy, you and the other ATI boys are just jealous that the new Cats. Are not as advanced as the new Dets. Who would have thought that technology was at the point that we could have predictive assumptive rendering (P.A.R. (Tm)). You guys really better pick up the pace before nV introduces drivers that include all past and future games built right in, created on the fly.

BTW, just where is Corwin B? We need a press release about this!

[crazipper]

Thanks for the feedback guys. As I'm sure you can imagine, deciphering countless iterations of similar screenshots for any period of time can get frusterating.

The way the shots were organized, I had competing solutions grouped for ease of comparison. Thus, cross references were a bit tougher, and in the instance of the R9800 GFFX5950/NASCAR combination, the headless audience wasn't apparant because it actually affects BOTH cards in the baseline comparison (which hadn't previously been observed by anyone, including myself). In a direct comparison, that doesn't immidiately jump out - it was only after comparing the MaxAA shots that I picked up on it.

I've made some changes, cleared up the "blurry texture" wording, and, with Brandon's help, updated the piece. Of course, I'm just as interested in writing technically accurate information as you are reading it, so constructive feedback is always welcome and appreciated.

OpenGL guy, I appreciate your candor. However, if you are truly concerned with proper representation of fact, please note that my email address is readily accessible in the article's byline. That is the most efficient way to bring an issue to my attention, and I always reply. Also, note that while the article has been updated, I did mention the differences between 6x MSAA and NVIDIA's 8xS implementation previously, contrary to your prior claim. That said, thanks for at least caring enough to comment :D

[Hellbinder]

OpenGL guy, I appreciate your candor. However, if you are truly concerned with proper representation of fact, please note that my email address is readily accessible in the article's byline. That is the most efficient way to bring an issue to my attention, and I always reply. Also, note that while the article has been updated, I did mention the differences between 6x MSAA and NVIDIA's 8xS implementation previously, contrary to your prior claim. That said, thanks for at least caring enough to comment :D
If you had "Already noted the differences" than why did you go on in your article to make one innacurate statement about what was hannening in the screenshots after the next?

Seems to me like according to you, you should have known. what was going on and reprted accordingly.

[micron]

Thanks for the feedback guys.
Thanks for joining our conversation :wink:

[crazipper]

If you had "Already noted the differences" than why did you go on in your article to make one innacurate statement about what was hannening in the screenshots after the next?

Seems to me like according to you, you should have known. what was going on and reprted accordingly.

From where are you quoting me as saying "Already noted the differences," and to what are you referring? There are several issues being discussed.

And what does 'hannening' mean? :)

I can be a critic too! :lol:

[crazipper]

Thanks for joining our conversation :wink:

My pleasure - I wish everyone shared your sentiment :wink:

[micron]

Thanks for joining our conversation :wink:

My pleasure - I wish everyone shared your sentiment :wink:
It might seem like their coming down hard on your article, but they value you being here, and discussing things with us. This is a fabulous forum.

[gkar1]

From what i gather this is another subpar article aspiring to be one from beyond3d. In other words not worth anyone's time.

[crazipper]

*nudge* Hey micron, hear that?

Thanks gkar1!

[micron]

Gkar1, from what I gather you have no problem acting like a jerk on a forum where people all over the web should feel comfortable meeting....what an ass.

[micron]

Sorry crazipper.....

[OpenGL guy]

TI've made some changes, cleared up the "blurry texture" wording, and, with Brandon's help, updated the piece. Of course, I'm just as interested in writing technically accurate information as you are reading it, so constructive feedback is always welcome and appreciated.
Thanks for the quick response.
OpenGL guy, I appreciate your candor. However, if you are truly concerned with proper representation of fact, please note that my email address is readily accessible in the article's byline. That is the most efficient way to bring an issue to my attention, and I always reply.
Sometimes it's easier to be vocal on the proper forum... ;)
Also, note that while the article has been updated, I did mention the differences between 6x MSAA and NVIDIA's 8xS implementation previously, contrary to your prior claim. That said, thanks for at least caring enough to comment :D
Sorry if I missed it, I was just concerned that things were being interpreted incorrectly.

[micron]

**Edit**

:wink:

[micron]

I'm having browser troubles :wink:
I think I'll go to bed.

[demalion]

A few unfortunate things about the article remain:

For one thing, some performance disparity is noted throughout the article, and some judgements are made by the writer, but the actual performance disparity is witheld from the reader such that they aren't able to make an evaluation themself (unless I just missed it?). The basic premise of this complaint is this: image quality and performance are intrinsically linked, and, without assuring an accurate representation of the relationship between them, an analysis of either in enforced isolation is prone to rather extreme distortion, no matter how thorough. I don't understand at all why the information was not provided.

For each comparison:

3dmark, scene 01 - seems a pretty accurate assessment of the way the screenshots compare.

3dmark, scene 04 - I don't understand the "ATI is darker" commentary, as it seems to actually be the opposite to me (perhaps someone could clarify more for me). However, the comments on the item details in foreground and background details in the screenshots seem particularly accurate, which is an important part of the comparison.

NASCAR - the context of the continuing discussion of spectator heads is still confused with the prior commentary about ATI having some sort of anomaly, and the "but the discrepancies in detail are so distracting that it’s hard to tell" seems to be wholly political commentary (Why is the writer telling readers how distracted they are? Why does more detail in one section of grass make AA harder to evaluate anywhere else?). The texture detail commentaries seem accurate, however.

IL-2 - I'm still not understanding why the writer is saying the performance for 8x AA is "just fine" instead of showing some sort of performance indication for the reader to evaluate for themself. The performance in a scene with more graphical effects (water?) with supersampling would have been informative as well.

UT2k3 - I'm more than slightly puzzled here. First, it takes a close up for AA being on, and focuses on comparing texture quality in that closeup, and categorizes the AA difference as unremarkable. At the same time, I can actually see a difference in the AA without a closeup, especially on the stair edges the the left/middle of the screen. This doesn't mean the texture quality difference isn't accurate, it means that the texture quality difference is placed in the most distorted context possible: with an enforced separation of performance and image output, with one card trying to improve texture quality and another not trying at all, with the only zoomed image presented focusing on highlighting that situation, and with the writer telling the reader that AA is equivalent while concentrating on a shot picked to focus on something else. To conclude, this statement is made: "Fortunately, the texture blurring we previously saw on the ATI card isn’t a problem at all here, and for all intents and purposes, we’d call this a tie", which just tacks on a prior mistake(?) to all of the above.

The texture filtering discussion after that is a bit odd as well, since trilinear filtering's benefit is usually primarily for aliasing in motion, and the commentary focuses solely on the still screenshots, and actively works against recognizing the issue of evaluating in motion by reaching a conclusion that ignores the issue completely.


...

For the conclusion:

I don't understand how nVidia is in a "much better position today than it was several months ago" based on the above...I'm not aware of anything that has changed for the presented information: supersampling had better texture quality than no supersampling before, 8x AA was better than 4x AA for nVidia before, and full trilinear's benefit was primarily in motion before.
Perhaps it is in reference to a prior FiringSquad article, but wouldn't the "better position" be the result of the AA and supersampling being turned up while not discussing the impact this has on performance? I do think the bandwidth of the NV35 cards allows significantly better performance with the supersampling AA than, for example, the NV30 cards, but I wasn't provided performance figures to see that, just fed a performance conclusion (I really don't understand the merit of this).

Also, is this true: "That said, in certain games, ATI texture quality has dipped below what we witnessed in our first image quality piece". I didn't understand this to be supported by the examinations, but perhaps I missed something? If so, what? Does the writer understand the significance of supersampling, and why texture detail comparing less favorably when it is added doesn't mean texture filtering got worse, or is the issue something else? Was the function of LOD bias adjustment, and the drawbacks it can offer, considered, and how this relates to why considering still screenshots alone is inadequate for the conclusions proposed in the piece? I'm worried that we'll see default negative LOD bias forever as the result of continued comparisons with these faults, or maybe even worse: encourage LOD bias adjustment as an unannounced replacement for AF.

This discussion isn't an accusation of malicious intent or dishonesty, as there are choices made and information presented that leave significant room for some other interpretation. But it does relate to how there seem to be, AFAICS, significant issues resulting from some very prominent discrepancies made evident in what was written and how some decisions were made in presenting (and not presenting) information. I hope it can be received with thorough consideration.

[Tim]

Good stuff. Everyone here will hate it though....
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/imagequality2/default.asp

Nope, the article is terrible. You simply don't compare texture quality of MSAA and SSAA. MSAA is only supposed to remove aliasing and then be used together with AF for sharper textures. The whole point of MSAA is that it is only done on the edges.

That SSAA is improving textures is actually a bad thing because you can reach basicly the same result with much higher performance using MSAA+AF.

Edit:
The conclusion is also way of. The texture quality is exactly the same as always (with R3x0 cards) because that is the way MSAA works.

[madshi]

Hi crazipper,

it's nice to see you here! I hope you can filter out the positive constructive criticism you got here and just ignore the negative destructive criticism! :)

Here are my 2 cents on your article:

(1) When comparing a multisampled screenshot with a supersampled screenshot, it should be clear to everyone that the texture quality is better on the supersampled screenshot. The average reader of your article might be tempted to say: "Why does ATI not use supersampling? It seems to be superior in every way!". The article fails to make clear (enough) that multisampling is used for a reason - and that is a much less performance impact! Or let's say it differently: When using multisampling instead of supersampling you can do anisotropic filtering for free while getting similar performance. And the article doesn't mention this at all (or at least doesn't stress it enough), which puts ATI somehow in a bad light.

(2) Why doing seperate AA / aniso screenshots? I would have much *much* preferred, if the article would have compared only screenshots with full AA + anisono settings. The article was about maximum IQ, wasn't it? So why bother with half baken settings? The time you could have saved by only using full settings, could have been spent better on adding some performance numbers. The problem with the half baken settings is that ATI's approach (multisampling) strictly seperates edge and texture antialiasing, while NVidia's approach (mixed multisampling+supersampling) mixes both antialiasing effects. So comparing AA alone doesn't make much sense to me.

(3) I would like to see some proof for the claim "That said, in certain games, ATI texture quality has dipped below what we witnessed in our first image quality piece". That's a serious claim and it should not be stated without backing it up.

(4) You didn't seem to have understood that with Det5x.xx not only UT2003 gets no full trilinear filtering, but NO DirectX game does!! Also the differences between full trilinear and half trilinear filtering is noticable in motion more than in still screenshots.

Thanks for listening!

[K.I.L.E.R]

You didn't seem to have understood that with Det5x.xx not only UT2003 gets no full trilinear filtering, but NO DirectX game does!! Also the differences between full trilinear and half trilinear filtering is noticable in motion more than in still screenshots.

I see a big difference under a lot of circumstances.
UT03 looks better at least with full trilinear rather than 1 stage trilinear.
BTW I'm talking in motion.

[Tim]

(3) I would like to see some proof for the claim "That said, in certain games, ATI texture quality has dipped below what we witnessed in our first image quality piece". That's a serious claim and it should not be stated without backing it up.


They made to claims "Ati texture quality is down" and "nVidia AA quality is up" neither of these claims seems to true. The only thing that has changed since their last article is the conclusion.

[THe_KELRaTH]

With regards the UT2003 images I would find more useful information if screenshots were of a similar position as used in older comparative reviews as it would better show how things have moved on for both ATI and Nvidia.

Here's 2 screenshots from H (Jan 27th) using max IQ
www.jlmay.f2s.com/H-UT2003%20NV30.jpg NV30 x8xSaa x 8af
www.jlmay.f2s.com/H-UT2003%209700Pro.jpg 9700Pro x6aa x16af

Here's some updated image using a 9700Pro with Cat 3.8 Max IQ settings
www.jlmay.f2s.com/UT2003%209700Pro%2010-03-.jpg x6aa x16af (app)

I've included this one as it offers a better performance comparison with current NVidia drivers
www.jlmay.f2s.com/UT2003%20-%209700Pro%20F16af.jpg x6aa x16af (Quality setting via drivers)

All 9700Pro images look almost identical - the main area of enhancement is in performance as fps is up - especially as the screenshots were taken on a slower PC. (H's test rig was an AMD XP2800+ (166) with Dual DDR333 while I used a P4-2.4b (533) Granite Bay.)

What we need now is a similar screenshot using an NV5950 with max IQ so we can see if the AA problem is fixed, performance is now at playable fps and if haze effects are now working.

Edit: I have set DefaultTexMipBias=-0.600000 rather than -0.5 to compensate for Nvidia's texture sharpening.

[Simon F]

That SSAA is improving textures is actually a bad thing because you can reach basicly the same result with much higher performance using MSAA+AF.

...Only under certain conditions. If, OTOH you have some of the following
The SSAA also using Anistropic filtering, or
Alpha test textures, or
Dependent texturing

then you may find that SSAA results in a much better image.

[crazipper]

Hi crazipper,

it's nice to see you here! I hope you can filter out the positive constructive criticism you got here and just ignore the negative destructive criticism! :)

Here are my 2 cents on your article:

(1) When comparing a multisampled screenshot with a supersampled screenshot, it should be clear to everyone that the texture quality is better on the supersampled screenshot. The average reader of your article might be tempted to say: "Why does ATI not use supersampling? It seems to be superior in every way!". The article fails to make clear (enough) that multisampling is used for a reason - and that is a much less performance impact! Or let's say it differently: When using multisampling instead of supersampling you can do anisotropic filtering for free while getting similar performance. And the article doesn't mention this at all (or at least doesn't stress it enough), which puts ATI somehow in a bad light.

(2) Why doing seperate AA / aniso screenshots? I would have much *much* preferred, if the article would have compared only screenshots with full AA + anisono settings. The article was about maximum IQ, wasn't it? So why bother with half baken settings? The time you could have saved by only using full settings, could have been spent better on adding some performance numbers. The problem with the half baken settings is that ATI's approach (multisampling) strictly seperates edge and texture antialiasing, while NVidia's approach (mixed multisampling+supersampling) mixes both antialiasing effects. So comparing AA alone doesn't make much sense to me.

(3) I would like to see some proof for the claim "That said, in certain games, ATI texture quality has dipped below what we witnessed in our first image quality piece". That's a serious claim and it should not be stated without backing it up.

(4) You didn't seem to have understood that with Det5x.xx not only UT2003 gets no full trilinear filtering, but NO DirectX game does!! Also the differences between full trilinear and half trilinear filtering is noticable in motion more than in still screenshots.

Thanks for listening!

Thanks madshi,

I'll just go one at a time...

1) Performance impact of various modes will be explored in the next article I work on. The reason it wasn't explored this go 'round is because a majority of the requests I received after the first piece asked for max'ed out settings. The only reason I was able to talk about playability is because I enabled the settings and played around in the game. I didn't take frame rate numbers; rather, I checked for fluidity "just to see what I could see." Granted, not scientific, but performance wasn't the aim of my weekend at the lab.

2) I did seperate AA and AF screenshots to explore the two topics seperately. Considering there are plenty of combined shots in there as well, I don't see any reason not to do the "half baked (though I might use another term for it)" shots. I agree that performance numbers are useful, and I'll be working on that next. Hopefully, with the feedback I'm getting here, it will be a better article as well.

3) In the first article, I found ATI's texture quality, specifically in NASCAR, to be consistent through the baseline, 4xAA, and 8xAF settings, with the exception of the AA shot, which throws the logos out of focus toward the end of the track. This time, there was a significant deviation from the baseline, 6xAA (both very similar), and 16xAF settings. This was taken on a different map, so I realize it isn't scientific, but there seems to be a discrepency there. I'll continue looking into this as well.

4) In 3) you're upset that I don't have proof for something and am making a claim and in 4) you are asking me to make a claim without proof. I read HardOCP's 5950 piece and saw that the new Det's play with the filtering settings on at least the D3D apps tested there, however, I didn't have any way of testing that, and therefore, according to the logic you used previously, wouldn't be qualified to make the claim this time either, right? After all, it's pretty serious to say a driver is messing with filtering settings for every D3D app when I don't think ANYONE here has tested every D3D app, right?

Nevertheless, thank you for wording your comment in such a way that I feel welcome to voice my opinion. I certainly don't see any way I can debate my way out of some of these other posts...[/i]

[madshi]

Hi crazipper,

first of all thank you for taking the time to respond to my comment!

2) I did seperate AA and AF screenshots to explore the two topics seperately.
Could you please name the two topics you are talking about? That's where the problems begin. I mean I see where you're coming from. You have one AA slider and one anisotropic filtering slider on both NVidia's and on ATI's control panel, that's where you make two topics from. But please think about what effect those two sliders have: They effect (1) edge AA and (2) texture AA. Now SSAA effects both. While MSAA effects only edges. And anisotropic filtering effects only textures. Do you see what I mean? Comparing SSAA to MSAA is not unfair per se, but MSAA was always meant to be only one piece of the puzzle. It was always meant to be companied by anisotropic filtering for maximum IQ. So I don't see much sense in comparing SSAA vs MSAA quality *without* anisotropic filtering. Man, hard to express what I mean. I hope you understand my point... :D

In 3) you're upset that I don't have proof for something and am making a claim
Right.

and in 4) you are asking me to make a claim without proof.
No, that was not what I was asking for.

I read HardOCP's 5950 piece and saw that the new Det's play with the filtering settings on at least the D3D apps tested there, however, I didn't have any way of testing that
Why were you not able to test that? Look here: http://www.3dcenter.de/downloads/d3d-af-tester.php
If Det52.16 doesn't produce full trilinear filtering with this test tool, then it probably won't do full trilinear filtering in *any* Direct3D program. Can you agree to that? Or do you think that NVidia intentionally makes itself looking bad by cutting the trilinear filtering in this test application - while in games they use full trilinear filtering? That doesn't make any sense. Also you can check the filtering IQ tests in 3DMark2003 to check for full trilinear filtering.

I mean your article was about maximum IQ. So full trilinear filtering is something which is important, or is it not? Maybe NVidia's "quasi trilinear" filtering is invisible to lots of people in UT2003. But there claim to be some people who do see a significant difference (can't check that myself). And UT2003 doesn't have that hard mip map breaks. So it's quite probable that in some other games the IQ tradeoff will be more significant than in UT2003, don't you think so?

Nevertheless, thank you for wording your comment in such a way that I feel welcome to voice my opinion.
You're welcome! I never understood the sense of negative destructive comments.

[demalion]

...
Nevertheless, thank you for wording your comment in such a way that I feel welcome to voice my opinion. I certainly don't see any way I can debate my way out of some of these other posts...[/i]

Why are you tackling this from the standpoint of whether you can "debate your way out of" something, and that you're not being able to debate what someone said makes criticism "destructive"? Where did this as a "construcitve" option disappear to: taking on board things you can't argue against as places where you just might actually need to reconsider and maybe reach a modified conclusion (about what is necessary for achieving an accurate image quality comparison article) from what you did before? Did you misspeak, or do you just not believe there is a problem with that phrasing?

Taking my discussion as an example...was there something rude about my wording, other than you didn't feel you could "debate your way out of it"? :-? Again, if you misspoke with that phrase, or didn't mean to include me and didn't respond elsewhere for some other reason, please clarify...as it stands, it strikes me as a bit "inflammatorily" concerned with something besides what I understood to be the stated purpose: passing on good and accurate information to the reader...and, for this thread, of having some informed readers offer their opinion on where an article succeeds and fails in achieving that.

[Mariner]

After all, it's pretty serious to say a driver is messing with filtering settings for every D3D app when I don't think ANYONE here has tested every D3D app, right?

Perhaps this is so, but has anyone seen a D3D app where the current NVidia drivers don't hack the trilinear quality? We know that the drivers hack trilinear on UT2003, Serious Sam SE and in synthetic tests. Do we have any indication that they do actually produce proper trilinear filtering in any application?

It may be wrong to assume that the drivers hack trilinear in all D3D applications but there is at least some evidence towards this end. I've not seen any evidence to back up the NVidia PR viewpoint that this is just a 'bug' which doesn't affect actual applications.

Just something that should have been mentioned in the IQ article, I feel.

[Dave Baumann]

Hey Chris - hows it going? Have you settled the bet with Doug yet? ;)

One thing...

After all, it's pretty serious to say a driver is messing with filtering settings for every D3D app when I don't think ANYONE here has tested every D3D app, right?

You don't really need to do this, in fact yoiu can do the reverse. All you need is an application that hasn't been seen before by the drivers that shows off the filtering and then you can see what the drivers are doing by default. this is more or less what we have done with the Aniso tester program that we used in the 5700 preview here.

Cheers,
Dave

[Tim]

That SSAA is improving textures is actually a bad thing because you can reach basicly the same result with much higher performance using MSAA+AF.

...Only under certain conditions. If, OTOH you have some of the following
The SSAA also using Anistropic filtering, or
Alpha test textures, or
Dependent texturing

then you may find that SSAA results in a much better image.

With high levels of AF there are very little difference between the texture quality with MSAA and SSAA. Comparing the following screenshots shows the difference in texture quality with and without SSAA.

http://www.firingsquad.com/media/article_image.asp?fs_article_id=1366&pic_id=18 (no-AA 8AF)
http://www.firingsquad.com/media/article_image.asp?fs_article_id=1366&pic_id=22(8xAA 8AF)

The difference in texture quality is very slim. Putting the Ati texture quality down because the textures look better with SSAA than with MSAA when AF isn’t used is unacceptable.

The only max-quality-shot from the article where I can see any difference in the texturing quality is the one from Nascar racing but the 8xAF nVidia shots proves that the low quality on the grass textures with the Ati card is caused by the angle dependent AF not by the lack of AF.

http://www.firingsquad.com/media/article_image.asp?fs_article_id=1366&pic_id=21(Ati)
http://www.firingsquad.com/media/article_image.asp?fs_article_id=1366&pic_id=22(nVidia)

Criticizing Ati based on the angle dependent AF scheme would be perfectly OK based on the screenshots in the article.

Edit: Replaced direct links.

[SirPauly]

Sometimes it's easier to be vocal on the proper forum

Agreed.:)

[digitalwanderer]

Anyone notice that they changed the article a bit? Notice they don't have the blurry comments there anymore?

Did you yell at them OpenGL guy? :twisted:

[crazipper]

Hey Chris - hows it going? Have you settled the bet with Doug yet? ;)

One thing...

After all, it's pretty serious to say a driver is messing with filtering settings for every D3D app when I don't think ANYONE here has tested every D3D app, right?

You don't really need to do this, in fact yoiu can do the reverse. All you need is an application that hasn't been seen before by the drivers that shows off the filtering and then you can see what the drivers are doing by default. this is more or less what we have done with the Aniso tester program that we used in the 5700 preview here.

Cheers,
Dave

Hey Dave,

The bet was with Godfrey, and no, it hasn't been settled yet. Don't tell him, but I've had several modifications done to my car that should at least make it more competitive. He is, after all, a race car driver :lol:

You're absolutely correct on the applications note. This is not something I had at the time of writing, or was aware of. Thus, I'll download the aforementioned app and give it a look-see.

I wish I could know all about everything, but at the time I was working with the tools at my disposal. Thanks for the tip, though, Dave, every bit of info certainly helps!

[crazipper]

Anyone notice that they changed the article a bit? Notice they don't have the blurry comments there anymore?

Did you yell at them OpenGL guy? :twisted:

From the first page of this thread:

I've made some changes, cleared up the "blurry texture" wording, and, with Brandon's help, updated the piece. Of course, I'm just as interested in writing technically accurate information as you are reading it, so constructive feedback is always welcome and appreciated.

Thanks, though.

[SirPauly]

That SSAA is improving textures is actually a bad thing because you can reach basicly the same result with much higher performance using MSAA+AF.

...Only under certain conditions. If, OTOH you have some of the following
The SSAA also using Anistropic filtering, or
Alpha test textures, or
Dependent texturing

then you may find that SSAA results in a much better image.

Agree. Hopefully ATI will offer some level of SSAA support in future drivers.

[crazipper]

Why are you tackling this from the standpoint of whether you can "debate your way out of" something, and that you're not being able to debate what someone said makes criticism "destructive"? Where did this as a "construcitve" option disappear to: taking on board things you can't argue against as places where you just might actually need to reconsider and maybe reach a modified conclusion (about what is necessary for achieving an accurate image quality comparison article) from what you did before? Did you misspeak, or do you just not believe there is a problem with that phrasing?

Taking my discussion as an example...was there something rude about my wording, other than you didn't feel you could "debate your way out of it"? :-? Again, if you misspoke with that phrase, or didn't mean to include me and didn't respond elsewhere for some other reason, please clarify...as it stands, it strikes me as a bit "inflammatorily" concerned with something besides what I understood to be the stated purpose: passing on good and accurate information to the reader...and, for this thread, of having some informed readers offer their opinion on where an article succeeds and fails in achieving that.

I'm definitely not "tackling this" as something to debate myself out of. I enjoy *thoughtful* discussion with a group of people who I have no problem admitting have more technical know-how in the realm of 3D rendering than I myself have, and would likely be able to make very useful contributions to either the existing piece or further works concerning image quality/performance. What I don't enjoy is comments like, this sucks, this is terrible, the author was clearly kidnapped from a mental hospital at birth and given a keyboard or anything to that effect. Not only to responses like that *not* help the situation, but they don't help *me* in my sincere desire to follow up with the technically correct explanation to visual quality discrepencies that clearly exist (because there isn't any argument on whether I'm making the differences between ATI's RADEON 9800 XT and NVIDIA GeForce FX 5950 up, but how they are being explained), and they don't help the less informed readers, whom many of you seem worried will get the wrong impression.

There's no question of "just might;" the conclusion has already been edited to reflect the changes OpenGL guy pointed out. Of course, I appreciate his help there.

And so you know, I did not have your discussion in mind in my previous commentary. If you look both above and below your post, you'll see plenty of abrasive banter. That's what I was referring to. Many of your points, such as performance, were addressed in different messages, which is why I haven't responded. Some of the others, I can address here. For instance, in NASCAR, the comment about "so distracting that it's hard to tell" is a reference to *my* ability to differentiate between the filtering quality of two images, one of which isn't as clear. I'm certainly not trying to hypnotize anyone into believing the image is too distracting to make any judgement for *themselves.*

Besides, it seems for every one message I'm able to hammer out, I wind up with 10 to reply to :wink:

[bloodbob]

They do support SSAA in drivers just not on PC :/

[Simon F]

Agree. Hopefully ATI will offer some level of SSAA support in future drivers.
Actually, I don't really care if they do or not :-)

[andypski]

Agree. Hopefully ATI will offer some level of SSAA support in future drivers.
Actually, I don't really care if they do or not :-)
Simon, I'm shocked!

Surely you have one of our fine products in your machine? ;)

[Simon F]

Simon, I'm shocked!

Surely you have one of our fine products in your machine? ;)
I think people would be shocked- I've got a Graphics Star 700 (a circa 1995 Videologic/S3) and a PCX2 in my work PC :-) . My home machine's a little more advanced though but, sorry, still no ATI I'm afraid.

[Dio]

"I'm selling these fine leather jackets..."

[cthellis42]

the author was clearly kidnapped from a mental hospital at birth and given a keyboard or anything to that effect.

I knew it! :wink:

BTW: Tim, Firingsquad not like your direct linking too much.

[fallguy]

I would like to see FS 2004 in there. To see if you come to the same conclusion that [H] did in regards to AF. The ATi card looked far, far better in AF, in their 5950 review.

[AzBat]

"I'm selling these fine leather jackets..."

What a bizarre quote. :D Had to google to find out what it was about. Here's what I found...

August 30, 2002
Q: In what game did the line "I'm selling these fine leather jackets" first appear?
A: Indiana Jones® and the Last Crusade™
The phrase ''I'm selling these fine leather jackets'' first appeared in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. At the time, Lucasfilm was selling sheepskin bomber jackets to company employees, and the team decided to joke about this within the game. The joke reappeared in other games such as: The Secret of Monkey Island®, Monkey Island® 2: LeChuck's Revenge®, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis™ and Full Throttle®.

Funny. :)

Tommy McClain

[Tim]

What I don't enjoy is comments like, this sucks, this is terrible,
When you write something like:

"That said, in certain games, ATI texture quality has dipped below what we witnessed in our first image quality piece."

This not substantiated in any way by anything in the article. I have a hard time labeling any article where central parts of the conclusion don’t any connection to the results shown in article it self as good or even decent, when such discrepancies are present I don’t think that “terrible” was completely unwarranted. It might have been a bit to harsh thou (it is not like I think you are evil or stupid or anything like that).
Not only to responses like that *not* help the situation, but they don't help *me* in my sincere desire to follow up with the technically correct explanation to visual quality discrepencies that clearly exist (because there isn't any argument on whether I'm making the differences between ATI's RADEON 9800 XT and NVIDIA GeForce FX 5950 up, but how they are being explained),
If you only where drawing conclusions about the difference between the nVidia and Ati (or other stuff actually shown in the article) people might not have been so discontent with the article but you continue and draw conclusions about the Cat3.6 vs. the Cat 3.8.
and they don't help the less informed readers, whom many of you seem worried will get the wrong impression.
People reading the article might very well get the impression that Ati has a texture quality problem. When the reality is that MSAA just isn’t meant to stand alone. As I see things it is simply not relevant to compare texture quality without AF.
Some of the others, I can address here. For instance, in NASCAR, the comment about "so distracting that it's hard to tell" is a reference to *my* ability to differentiate between the filtering quality of two images, one of which isn't as clear. I'm certainly not trying to hypnotize anyone into believing the image is too distracting to make any judgement for *themselves.* When you write "...are so distracting that it’s hard to tell" it seems that you are trying to underline a point (that the texture quality is bad).

[banksie]

Agree. Hopefully ATI will offer some level of SSAA support in future drivers.

The strange thing is, they do for Macintosh owners. Rage3D forum goers report that the Mac drivers allow at least a 2xSSAA mode.

Why this isn't in the Windows version of the drivers is a slight mystery.

[SirPauly]

Agree. Hopefully ATI will offer some level of SSAA support in future drivers.
Actually, I don't really care if they do or not :-)

Hehe, I was just using your quote for my selfish agenda: A Super-sampling option for the R3XX products. Sorry. :)

[SirPauly]

Why this isn't in the Windows version of the drivers is a slight mystery.

So true........but if enough people voice their views in the right forum an answer to this question may be revealed.:)

[MikeC]

I wanted to let you folks know that I included a variety of high quality PNG screenshots from the GeForce FX 5950 Ultra and Radeon 9800 Pro in our GeForce FX 5950 Ultra preview that can be used for image quality comparisons.

I was pressed for time and antialiasing and anisotropic filtering were always configured using the respective driver control panels.


3DMark03 - Comparison of frame 1100 from Game 1, frame 219 from Game 2, frame 1643 from Game 3, and frame 805 from Game 4 at 1024x768 with no AA / no AF and 4X AA / 8X AF. Also have the corresponding images from the reference rasterizer.

http://www.nvnews.net/previews/geforce_fx_5950_ultra/page_2.shtml

AquaMark3 - Comparison of frames 1000, 1500, and 3500 at 1024x768 with 4X AA / 8X AF.

http://www.nvnews.net/previews/geforce_fx_5950_ultra/page_3.shtml

First Person Shooters - Various screenshots from Unreal 2 and Serious Sam The Second Encounter at 1600x1200 with 4X AA / 8X AF.

http://www.nvnews.net/previews/geforce_fx_5950_ultra/page_6.shtml

Morrowind - 1600x1200 with 4X AA / 8X AF

http://www.nvnews.net/previews/geforce_fx_5950_ultra/page_7.shtml


If you have time, I'd appreciate any comments on pointing out any differences that I haven't already mentioned.

Also, if you have ideas for additional comparisons, let me know.

[Althornin]

Mike, my only beef is with your conclusion.
you denigrate the usefullness of synthetic benchmarks, while ignoring the glaring downside to the GFFX - slow shader performance (currently highlighted by mostly synthetic benchmarks and a few games).
I feel that the downplay of synthetic benchmarks does a disservice to your readers, who might want to buy a card that is still "top of the heap" in 6 months to a year.
I feel that the current trend to ignore synthetics and idolize "rela gameplay" is a red herring. Both are useful - and they tell you two totally different things!
One tells you how the card performs NOW - certainly important (and you ahve this covered very well). The other gives you an idea of how the card will perform in the future - this is the aspect you are lacking.

[Xmas]

What I don't enjoy is comments like, this sucks, this is terrible,
When you write something like:

"That said, in certain games, ATI texture quality has dipped below what we witnessed in our first image quality piece."

This not substantiated in any way by anything in the article. I have a hard time labeling any article where central parts of the conclusion don?t any connection to the results shown in article it self as good or even decent, when such discrepancies are present I don?t think that ?terrible? was completely unwarranted. It might have been a bit to harsh thou (it is not like I think you are evil or stupid or anything like that).
The sad thing is that it is substantiated by the errors of the first article, where several screenshots that were labeled "No AF" clearly showed AF on. So if you compare "NoAF" in both articles, it will seem like a quality drop.
I wrote a feedback mail and several lines in the comments section to that first article pointing out that these screenshots didn't show what they're supposed to show, but there was no reaction.

[MikeC]

Mike, my only beef is with your conclusion.
you denigrate the usefullness of synthetic benchmarks, while ignoring the glaring downside to the GFFX - slow shader performance (currently highlighted by mostly synthetic benchmarks and a few games).
I feel that the downplay of synthetic benchmarks does a disservice to your readers, who might want to buy a card that is still "top of the heap" in 6 months to a year.
I feel that the current trend to ignore synthetics and idolize "rela gameplay" is a red herring. Both are useful - and they tell you two totally different things!
One tells you how the card performs NOW - certainly important (and you ahve this covered very well). The other gives you an idea of how the card will perform in the future - this is the aspect you are lacking.

Thanks for the feedback Althornin. While I did test with 3DMark03 and Aquamark3, I'm sure that you're talking about ShaderMark and Rightmark3D when you stated that I ignored synthetic benchmarks. I did mention the importance of DirectX 9 and syntehtic benchmarks and provided links to the ShaderMark and Rightmark3D web sites. At the minimum it gives the reader an opportunity to do further research by searching on that particular topic.

There was no conspiracy on my part not to include those benchmark results. The reality is that I was pressed for time and made a decision not to include test results from ShaderMark and Rightmark3D since I've never used them before. There would have been a learning curve on my part, which would have further delayed the preview. I always spend time researching a topic that I'm not familar with before I write about it.

I don't think the preview is necessarily lacking in how the card will perform in the future since I included results from Halo. I realized that I hadn't included performance from a DX9-based game and picked up Halo last weekend. But my ignorance in testing Halo showed since I failed to mention that the GeForce FX 5950 Ultra resorts to "mixed mode rendering" when using the pixel shader 2.0 path. But I plan to follow through on Halo and update the preview based on my findings.

In my haste I had planned on mentioning DirectX 9 performance in the conclusion as I did in our Creative GeForce FX 5900 Ultra review. But in my haste, it was overlooked. But my previous are not set in stone and I do update them as required.

[Althornin]

Oh, i wasnt thinking "conspiracy" or anything like that! :P

I was mainly refering to this:
Now that I look back at what I've accomplished during the past three weeks, I believe that the gameplay results and screenshots I've provided speak for themselves. While synthetic benchmarks and non-gameplay based benchmarks may skew the results of one product in favor of another, actual gameplay reveals that both of these high-end graphics cards aren't that much different after all.

Where it reads to me like this:
"Synthetic benchmarks are worthless, the differences they show are meaningless, the cards perform simlilarly" along with an implication that this will continue in the future.
Now, thats just how it struck me.
I must say, again, that i thought your article treated CURRENT game performance quite well (and i agree, in current games, not much seperates the two products, perf wise). I just maintain that that is only half the picture :D

[Reverend]

I don't think the preview is necessarily lacking in how the card will perform in the future since I included results from Halo. I realized that I hadn't included performance from a DX9-based game and picked up Halo last weekend. But my ignorance in testing Halo showed since I failed to mention that the GeForce FX 5950 Ultra resorts to "mixed mode rendering" when using the pixel shader 2.0 path. But I plan to follow through on Halo and update the preview based on my findings.
While you're updating it, throw in TRAOD as well.

Although I'd understand it if you don't, or can't.

[THe_KELRaTH]

With regards UT2003 detail textures

Can anybody confirm whether detail texture quality is effected by altering the DetailTexMipBias setting in the UT2003.ini file on the FX59x0 cards?