3dmark05 & ATI - Sacrificing Image Quality for Speed?

Screenshot X800XT with AF forced by Ati's CP:

http://members.chello.nl/h.appel1/X800.jpg

I think Ruined's case is closed.

Normally I get 5836 (no overclocks/high quality in CP), with 4xAA and 8xAF i get 4562.

 

Impressive he can actually post the same exact thread across multiple forums. L33t copy/paste skillz.

Funniest part is the nvidiots at [H]forum actually jumped on the bandwagon.

 

Is the 5836 without any AA/AF? Would be interesting to know what the score is with AA/AF set in CP vs. set in the application.

 

Yeah I got a good laugh out of that thread. As for ruined, hard to take him seriously at all. I think the guy sits up all night examining every single detail about ATi cards so he can create threads like this thinking he's found a flaw. If he's not paid by nV to do this then I worry for him.

 

So it's down to if AF is forced through app or control panel?
From what has been provided it seems like it.

BTW that zoom in picture rocked

 

Let's hope Charlie doesn't pick up on this and write another "article". The screenshot by Apple seems to shut the book on Ruined.

 

Apple, can ya take a screenshot with no aa and af same spot with bilieaner full, trilinear, and optimal? Just want to see the difference from that and with aa and af on through the ap.

 

I noticed problems with both cards IQ. The one that bothered me the most was the poor AA on the ATI cards in the Bjorn3D review. I made a post about it in a now closed thread. My claim was dismissed after a ATI employee sent a pic of the same scene with AA working properly to Chris Ray. One of the problems is that the driver version and settings used were not listed. Chris Ray just claimed that AA was not enabled for the shots. The problem is that the pics show some AA enabled but nothing like OGLGuy sent to him. My original post and Chris Ray's response after OGLGuy sent him screen's below. It could just be the way AA was applied either thru the control panel or the app. but there is something funky with those screens. Does anyone else agree that some AA was applied to the screens below when you compare the ATI no AA shots to the 4XAA shots? It just does not look like 4XAA. It is a little easier to see on the Proxycon shots that there is some AA. It's just not at the level of the NV card.

"Speaking of the screenshots, did you see the horrible AA the ATI cards are outputing? At first I thought that Bjorn did not actually have AA on for the shots but looking closer at the shots it appears that AA is only being marginally applied. It looks like it is 2X in some places but there are other area's that look like they have none. If you look at the bottom right of the balloon in the no AA/AF picture you see jaggies. In the 4XAA pic the jaggies are slightly smoothed but the ropes and many other areas have none. The NV cards AA shot looks much better.
Conspiracy theory hat on. Is this a new type of adaptive AA that lowers the level of AA as the framerates drop to maintain higher minimum framerates? "
http://www.bjorn3d.com/photos/showphoto.php/photo/10/sort/1/cat/503/page/2 ATI No AA
http://www.bjorn3d.com/photos/showphoto.php/photo/7/sort/1/cat/503/page/3 ATI 4XAA
http://www.bjorn3d.com/photos/showphoto.php/photo/24/sort/1/cat/503/page/1 NV 4XAA

http://www.bjorn3d.com/photos/showphoto.php/photo/12/sort/1/cat/503/page/2 ATI No AA/AF
http://www.bjorn3d.com/photos/showphoto.php/photo/9/sort/1/cat/503/page/3 ATI 4XAA/8XAF
http://www.bjorn3d.com/photos/showphoto.php/photo/32/sort/1/cat/503/page/1 NV 4XAA/8XAF

ChrisRay

"OpenGL Guy was kind enough to send me screenshots from his X800XT, And after seeing them. I'm inclined to agree. The shots showed above dont appear to have anti aliasing enabled.

It looks similar to the above screenshot on my 6800, W/o AA enabled.

In Any Event here the pics OpenGL Guy sent me. He sent them to me in .bmp format but I went ahead and made them .png.


Both with 4x AA

http://members.cox.net/omega1979/0000.png

http://members.cox.net/omega1979/0001.png

Clearly AA is doing fine on the ATI card."

 

There is a problem with the x800xt pe but its not on the floor. Its that the walls above the doors in that sceen flash

 

So according to your theory based on rumor and subjective opinion you've decided that all ATi scores are in fact inflated by 10%?

Hmmm, that almost makes up for the 10-15% bump that nVidia gets by having DST enabled by default....

 

Whats the point in comparing IQ in 3dm05 if the cards are using different rendering paths?

 

No clue, I'm already really having my doubts about 3dm2k5 as a benchmark now anyways. :?

Damn it, and I BOUGHT this one! Do you have any idea on how badly that pisses me off? I took a chance on FM and they totally screwed me.

 

Refrast wouldn't be the same as NV's default path either.

 

HEHE, there is a keygen floating around

 

There wasn't when I bought my license, I checked.

 

So what will the refrast be the same as? Sounds like there isn't any point to having a refrast if neither of the major viddy card makers cards will match it. :?

 

The refrast will probably calculate the shadows in a mathematically similar way to ATI's rendering path (or DST disabled); Futuremark don't check anything but the default settings when checking if the drivers are approved though.

 

The refrast is the not the Holy Grail of rendering - it is simply as it's name suggests, a reference point. A renderer that produces a visual output independent of any other variables; the only thing that varies with it is performance. There is no requirement, either technically or idealogically, that a piece of hardware must match the refrast.

Alter the variables within 3DMark05 to such a point that the only things left to affect IQ are drivers and hardware features.

 

Thanks Dave and Neeyik, I understand better now.