AM3 COMPARISON @ DH - lowered FX IQ confirmed

T

T2k

Veteran
http://www.driverheaven.net/articles/aquamark3/index.htm

compare.jpg


Quoted from page 3:

Now, im sure most of you have read Gabes recent comments regarding the detonator 51.75s, and Nvidia's offical response but I really do have to say, having seen this first hand it confirms to both myself and Veridian that the new detonators are far from a high quality IQ set. Alot of negative publicity is currently surrounding Nvidia, and here at driverheaven we like to remain as impartial and open minded as we possibly can, but after reading all the articles recently such as here coming from good sources and experiencing this ourselves first hand, I can no longer recommend an nvidia card to anyone. Ill be speaking with nvidia about this over the coming days and if I can make anything public I will.
 
I know everyone here will go crazy and explode but I can't see much difference, I see it is darker in the 50's. I went to his site already and watched the flash and I couldn't tell jack crap, I wish it was like at anads where you put the mouse over and it flipped to 9800vs5900 or whatever I really really could not see much of anything by the time the flash had changed and the flickering text was distracting too. Oh well.
 
Wow, I notice it alot, from the missing colour shades most noticable on the side panels, loss of light effects to the loss of detail on the ground.

I just find it incredible that after all thats being going on Nvidia pull this stunt.
I guess by the statement about their auto shader control this is too be expected all the time now.
 
Sxotty said:
I know everyone here will go crazy and explode but I can't see much difference, I see it is darker in the 50's. I went to his site already and watched the flash and I couldn't tell jack crap
Click to expand...

It's not too dramatic, but if you for instance look at the upper right part of the picture, there's this wing or tail thing standing up straight, in the 45.23 picture you can make out the yellow/black stripe pattern, in the 51.75 pic it's a blur..
 
Actually I read this article and I think in many ways its pretty groundbreaking, ive never seen this explained so easily to those of us who arent experts with IQ and I think a visual overlay is a great idea.

Also I think the differences are quite apparent, certainly if you look at the blurred textures, for example the lines on the ship wings, or the line coming from the top right shoulder section of the ship, the differences are more than just a "darker" image.
 
Florin said:
It's not too dramatic, but if you for instance look at the upper right part of the picture, there's this wing or tail thing standing up straight, in the 45.23 picture you can make out the yellow/black stripe pattern, in the 51.75 pic it's a blur..
Click to expand...

Your right I do see it :) Thanks now I don't feel left out I can harangue Nvidia with the best :)

Quite honestly though I do appreciate it and it is something that I would notice in a game, things like stripes that you reckognize as being a specific way are much more noticeable than organic shaped that one never knows how are actually supposed to look (I think you know what I mean).
 
Oh nVidia, I want to love you but you make it so hard!

...

No, wait.. I don't want to love you. Why did I say that?
 
Miksu said:
In one thread at Muropaketti (http://www.muropaketti.com), person called Tertsi created a neat page which you can use to compare the screenshots. His claim is that if you forget the difference in gamma, FX looks better. You can find the page from here: http://www.skenegroup.net/onsekumma/

This works with IE/Netscape.
Click to expand...
95fps 5600
100fps 9800
V sync enabled ?
Imo the 5600 has a sharper image quality, but lower lightning. ( Could be totaly wrong though )
 
Sazar said:
both are LARGE... please wait for imgs to load... when they do.. the animation will clearly show differences...
Click to expand...

Please, TAKE OU these pics - TAKE VERY LONG TIME TO LOAD!
It's simply just useless, meaningless.

(I'm on my full, dedicated T1 at home and it's still loading...)

It's still OK if you just link them, believe me.

EDIT: Sorry, duplication removed.
 
Download the .RARs from DH and flip through the images. You'll note that almost all of them look quite different from the Radeon screens and the older Dets. My first reaction was not actually that the image quality was lower, but that the older Dets and the Radeon screens looked so much more vibrant. :) I don't think any amount of Digital Vibrance will help the Det50s, though. . . ;) :LOL:

AAlcHemY said:
95fps 5600
100fps 9800
V sync enabled ?
Imo the 5600 has a sharper image quality, but lower lightning. ( Could be totaly wrong though )
Click to expand...
I agree, actually. . . Looks like the Dets have an increased default LOD. . .
 
As for the lod of the mipmap

Det 51.75 / Cat 3.4/3.7 < Det 44.03 / 45.23

For other things ...

44.03 are perfect
45.23 are buggy on shadow of the spacecraft (see frame5000 for black shadow - frame3500 for orange shadow - is it a problem with stencil shadow ?). This bug is fixed with 51.75.
With 51.75 the shader for some spacecraft (frame1500) but also for a part of the ground (frame4000) seem to have less quality (less lighting)
 
The colours on the det 51.75 image look like it's been forced from 32bit to 16bit. If you grab the pic and increase the brightness the flaws between the 2 images are even worse.

I't not something thats considered anymore but has anybody ever tested an NV35 in 16bit colour v 32bit colour modes for fps improvements?
 
regarding mipmap lod and texture quality

i would even say that the det45.xx have a different AF level as the cat3.7

i really hope nvidia is not serious about those det51.xx , i mean it must be a joke or something.
 
Some people in other forums are saying they can't spot the difference.. Sheesh.. some people need new eyes :LOL:

Take a look at this one.. from driverheaven this time.

http://81.98.4.56/difference3.gif

From the dets 45.23 to 51.75 its reported to give a massive boost.. around 19fps..

Now take a look at (wrt to the latest dets)

- The mountains behind.. see they are now blurred.
- The ships wing on the upper right.. Before you can make out the black and yellow strips.. Now its a blur.
- Same as before, look at the wing on the upper left, really nice with before.. Now its blurring.
- The Hull is dark yellow-ish.. Now its horrible tan.
- The top of the ship either side of the after burn. Yellow.. Now Tan.

Thats pretty much what I could come up with in a few minutes..
 
Miksu said:
In one thread at Muropaketti (http://www.muropaketti.com), person called Tertsi created a neat page which you can use to compare the screenshots. His claim is that if you forget the difference in gamma, FX looks better. You can find the page from here: http://www.skenegroup.net/onsekumma/

This works with IE/Netscape.

edit: I forgot to mention that those two pictures are taken from 3dgpu's article.
Click to expand...

to me it looks as if range mnight be a problem, and not only gamma

not only is the fx pic darker but there's less variation

texture filtering has a few hot spots that are better on the FX though, though I'd doubt you'd notice it much during gameplay (they cover a minimal part of the screen whereas the lightning affects most of it)
 
Marc said:
As for the lod of the mipmap

Det 51.75 / Cat 3.4/3.7 < Det 44.03 / 45.23

For other things ...

44.03 are perfect
45.23 are buggy on shadow of the spacecraft (see frame5000 for black shadow - frame3500 for orange shadow - is it a problem with stencil shadow ?). This bug is fixed with 51.75.
With 51.75 the shader for some spacecraft (frame1500) but also for a part of the ground (frame4000) seem to have less quality (less lighting)
Click to expand...

Well I think the AF on nv'sside had also something to do with the sharpeness in det4xxx, look at the small angles in the landscape, knowing ATI's AF does no 20 and smaler angles
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top