Volari screenshots
- Thread starter vnet
- Start date
Anything you say. If I want to keep things within the first MIPmap borders I know better tricks than those. Instead of hugging walls how about flipping that character by exactly 360 degrees face in order to face the whole yard. Add a pinch of that extraordinairy blur filter thing called SSAA and it's single digit framerate glory. Nice try nonetheless.
See above where I was heading at. And for the record the above paragraph shows well enough whether I am familiar with MP2 or not or have an imagery how said HW behaves on it.
*yawn*
I don't see how posting them proves anything other than how screwed XGI are by not having decent FSAA and AF implementations. They're probably some of the worst-looking MP2 screenshots ever posted on a forum.
There's some pretty funky aliasing in the third picture.
MuFu.
There's some pretty funky aliasing in the third picture.
MuFu.
Funny how everyone somehow come out with bad things against XGI.
First they say that no game works on XGI - you show them some screenshots of games and they say "guess just the fact that two titles work at all is celebration enough for XGI.."
You show that the card does support trilinear unlike what many people suggest (as they always associate Volari with Xabre) and they say that "XGI is screwed for not having FSAA and AF", even though reviews usually show image quality without FSAA or AF as well.
You show some screenshots and they accuse you of using some cheat by "keeping things within the first MIPmap borders and that you should flip the character by exactly 360 degrees face in order to face the whole yard". Once you do it, they say it is invalid as there are no comparison screenshots.
You show Volari's FSAA and they say "but we don't want Supersampling, we want Multisampling!"
You show them screenshots of games perfectly working and they say "they could both be cases of the game being rendered in single digit FPS for all we know."
You post decent framerate figures and they will say that the image quality is most likely horrible or that the person made up the benchmarks.
Sigh.
Seems that some people are so convinced that Volari must be bad that they always come up with some criticism.
First they say that no game works on XGI - you show them some screenshots of games and they say "guess just the fact that two titles work at all is celebration enough for XGI.."
You show that the card does support trilinear unlike what many people suggest (as they always associate Volari with Xabre) and they say that "XGI is screwed for not having FSAA and AF", even though reviews usually show image quality without FSAA or AF as well.
You show some screenshots and they accuse you of using some cheat by "keeping things within the first MIPmap borders and that you should flip the character by exactly 360 degrees face in order to face the whole yard". Once you do it, they say it is invalid as there are no comparison screenshots.
You show Volari's FSAA and they say "but we don't want Supersampling, we want Multisampling!"
You show them screenshots of games perfectly working and they say "they could both be cases of the game being rendered in single digit FPS for all we know."
You post decent framerate figures and they will say that the image quality is most likely horrible or that the person made up the benchmarks.
Sigh.
Seems that some people are so convinced that Volari must be bad that they always come up with some criticism.
Well, you can't please all the the people all of the time. And in this case you haven't even vaguely impressed anyone.
Again - what compelling reasons are there to put up with Volari in the face of the competetive offerings there are at the moment? Showing a few screenshots with rendering quality that boards 2 or 3 years old can do hardly makes me want to ignore all the other +$300 boards currently available and stick that power hungry, jet engine mimicker in my PC.
Again - what compelling reasons are there to put up with Volari in the face of the competetive offerings there are at the moment? Showing a few screenshots with rendering quality that boards 2 or 3 years old can do hardly makes me want to ignore all the other +$300 boards currently available and stick that power hungry, jet engine mimicker in my PC.
Where in the hell is the AA? Are these screens supposed to have any AA on them? If so it REALLY sucks! 
Volari=DOA
Volari=DOA
I never thought you could get more delucional than some Nvidia guys I know. And the pride you take in these cards just makes me laugh, since when was wasting 300-500 bucks on something you could have gotten for much less something to be proud about? XGI = trident any way you slice it
Perhaps you should just note that "they" in case A are not "they" in case B are not "they" in case C etc.xGL said:
Turning a discussion into an "I vs. them" type of argument is a bad habit. You're not arguing with a Borg collective.
Delivering playable framerates with good image quality (plus real AA and AF) in any game (a few lapses/bugs are tolerable) at a competitive price. That's what people expect. Volari currently does not meet those expectations, or at least less so than the competition. It's no surprise if people are disappointed in such a case, is it?
Deathlike2
Regular
The major complaint most of us have with XGI... are the following:
1) Cheating aka "optimizations"... most notably Halo
Although all games will not have the same optimizations, seeing what has been produced in one game for a "supposed" high end card is very disgusting. If such an optimization is applied to all games, this in turn is "lowering" high quality and is a backwards step in 3d graphics.
2) High speed-noisy fans
If the FX5800 was any indication (and even NVidia put a little joke on it), then this is an issue for some.
3) Dual molex connectors requirement
You'd think it would be the last since the Voodoo 5500, but that obviously is the norm now for high end hardware. There isn't any high performing hardware that requires TWO of them. This may change possibly in the future, but for the time being, it's overkill.
4) Lack of TRUE aniso
Negative mip-map LODs are not the answer to what we know aniso to be. The competition has this done hands down, it's very decieving to the consumer to see "fake" aniso.
5) Performance
Only a few games shows performance only CLOSE to the competition. Keyword: FEW I'm not even going to include AA because it would just be unacceptable altogether.
6) Compatibility
It's nice to know it works with all the other benchies. However, when you're trying to get this working on some the more popular games (and lesser).. this becomes a disaster if you're a hard core gamer.
7) Cost
I still don't see why you'd have to pay $100-$200 more than the competition for this hardware.
To sum it up, every pic you've shown us are nice... but you're not making any valid comparison.. visual or performance.
It's nice to know the Volari can "run" Max Payne 2. However, I'm rather uncomfortable knowing that there's too many negatives to even make me WANT to buy one. I shouldn't have to guess whether a game works on the video card, let alone perform well. I also shouldn't have to find out about "missing features" that the competition has. These are the expectations for a high end card.
The XGI Volari fails all expectations. In contrast, even the Deltachrome, although slightly behind, fulfills some expections that for a mid-end card should fulfill.
I think the major complaint is this:
How's the Volari in comparision to the competition?
Answer: Crappy - see above for answers
1) Cheating aka "optimizations"... most notably Halo
Although all games will not have the same optimizations, seeing what has been produced in one game for a "supposed" high end card is very disgusting. If such an optimization is applied to all games, this in turn is "lowering" high quality and is a backwards step in 3d graphics.
2) High speed-noisy fans
If the FX5800 was any indication (and even NVidia put a little joke on it), then this is an issue for some.
3) Dual molex connectors requirement
You'd think it would be the last since the Voodoo 5500, but that obviously is the norm now for high end hardware. There isn't any high performing hardware that requires TWO of them. This may change possibly in the future, but for the time being, it's overkill.
4) Lack of TRUE aniso
Negative mip-map LODs are not the answer to what we know aniso to be. The competition has this done hands down, it's very decieving to the consumer to see "fake" aniso.
5) Performance
Only a few games shows performance only CLOSE to the competition. Keyword: FEW I'm not even going to include AA because it would just be unacceptable altogether.
6) Compatibility
It's nice to know it works with all the other benchies. However, when you're trying to get this working on some the more popular games (and lesser).. this becomes a disaster if you're a hard core gamer.
7) Cost
I still don't see why you'd have to pay $100-$200 more than the competition for this hardware.
To sum it up, every pic you've shown us are nice... but you're not making any valid comparison.. visual or performance.
It's nice to know the Volari can "run" Max Payne 2. However, I'm rather uncomfortable knowing that there's too many negatives to even make me WANT to buy one. I shouldn't have to guess whether a game works on the video card, let alone perform well. I also shouldn't have to find out about "missing features" that the competition has. These are the expectations for a high end card.
The XGI Volari fails all expectations. In contrast, even the Deltachrome, although slightly behind, fulfills some expections that for a mid-end card should fulfill.
I think the major complaint is this:
How's the Volari in comparision to the competition?
Answer: Crappy - see above for answers
Similar threads
- Locked
