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.

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

 

[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

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

 

[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!

 

[crazipper]

Thanks for joining our conversation

My pleasure - I wish everyone shared your sentiment

 

[micron]

Thanks for joining our conversation

My pleasure - I wish everyone shared your sentiment

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.