Chalnoth said:Yes, the NV3x anisotropic filtering is also a disappointment. But, then again, ATI also drops to bilinear filtering for all but the first texture stage, so I'm not sure you can really say that what nVidia is doing with the NV3x is any worse than what ATI is doing to optimize the anisotropic on a software level.Ailuros said:If you compare NV25 to R3xx then yes. In any other case since the thread is about 3DCenter, the site in question has more than one extensive articles about NV3x texture filtering degradations.
I encourage you to use 16xAF + TF on every texture stage.
sonix666 said:I notice texture aliasing quite good in Max Payne 2 when I play it at 1024x768 with 4xFSAA and 4xperformance anisotropic filtering.
16 degree.Ailuros said:Playing devil's advocate here, it's actually up to 16 sample AF for accuracy's sake. It's fairly known that on 22 and 67 degree angles only about 2x sample AF is being used. Where it then usually leads to endless debates is in which cases it's actually noticable and to what degree. Part of the original debate where the article in question apparently originated.
Yes, but not only single cycle trilinear.One point though I and aths share mindset completely is that future hardware should have single cycle trilinear. There's a lot missing in that article and aths knows it.
Is that per frame or per pixel?5. The ability to switch between MSAA and SSAA "on the fly."
The R300/R350 can never deliver the same output like the RefRast because RefRast is using 32 bit FP.Razor04 said:As others have already mentioned this is getting really really picky and seems rather pointless to me especially when it has been shown that the R300 produces the same output as RefRast.
The R300/R350 can never deliver the same output like the RefRast because refrast is using 32 bit FP.
The RefRast uses allways FP32 even with DX8-shaders.DaveBaumann said:The R300/R350 can never deliver the same output like the RefRast because refrast is using 32 bit FP.
I'm not so sure it doesn't just use integer if integer ops are called for (i.e. < PS2.0 / fixed function). However, this is hardly likely to make much difference where fixed function texturing alone is concerned, which is obviously what the poster was talking about.
bloodbob said:Is that per frame or per pixel?5. The ability to switch between MSAA and SSAA "on the fly."
Exxtreme said:The RefRast uses allways FP32 even with DX8-shaders.DaveBaumann said:The R300/R350 can never deliver the same output like the RefRast because refrast is using 32 bit FP.
I'm not so sure it doesn't just use integer if integer ops are called for (i.e. < PS2.0 / fixed function). However, this is hardly likely to make much difference where fixed function texturing alone is concerned, which is obviously what the poster was talking about.
Errm, the RefRast is more a diagnose tool for developers. I don't think, it is suitable for image quality comparisons.bloodbob said:Exxtreme said:The RefRast uses allways FP32 even with DX8-shaders.DaveBaumann said:The R300/R350 can never deliver the same output like the RefRast because refrast is using 32 bit FP.
I'm not so sure it doesn't just use integer if integer ops are called for (i.e. < PS2.0 / fixed function). However, this is hardly likely to make much difference where fixed function texturing alone is concerned, which is obviously what the poster was talking about.
You seriously saying it doesn't have integer support thats lame I would have hoped that the refrast would have support both signed 32bit int and doubles. If microsoft isn't willing to support optional data types why should IHVs.
Exxtreme said:Errm, the RefRast is more a diagnose tool for developers. I don't think, it is suitable for image quality comparisons.
Almost every image quality comparison with RefRast is useless because the most hardware implementations are too different to the RefRast. RefRast renders every(!) shader with FP32. ATi's R200 and R300 doesn't support FP32, a GF1/2/3/4 supports integer precision only etc.[maven said:]Exxtreme said:Errm, the RefRast is more a diagnose tool for developers. I don't think, it is suitable for image quality comparisons.
I strongly disagree. Yes, it is not intended for end-users, but it is the "reference" against which the IHVs have to stack up. Thus it is perfectly valid to do image quality comparisons IMO.
[maven said:]Exxtreme said:Errm, the RefRast is more a diagnose tool for developers. I don't think, it is suitable for image quality comparisons.
I strongly disagree. Yes, it is not intended for end-users, but it is the "reference" against which the IHVs have to stack up. Thus it is perfectly valid to do image quality comparisons IMO.
Which is a very stupid kind of test.PSarge said:...and that's exactly what the WHQL tests do. greater than x percent of the pixels match equals WHQL pass.
It is fairly misleading to say they designed the R300 according to "the minimum spec" (I presume you mean DX9 spec) which didn't even exist at that time.Quitch said:I have to say, I think using the phrase "cutting corners" when you're designing something which meets the minimum spec, is rather misleading. nVidia chose to do more; pretending ATi decided to do less is nonsense when it's fairly obvious they held to the minimum spec wherever they could.