Digital-Daily's R350 vs NV35 review

[K.I.L.E.R]

Third note: you won't notice any difference in 3D image quality in real-world applications. Only using specialized test images and their further analysis with Photoshop allows to detect different positions of some pixels which make up the image. By now, the hot debates on the need for using the 32-bit color mode have died down quite a long time ago (in 3DMark2003, the 16-bit mode has been removed) and to date it's absolutely absurd to compare "image quality with the FSAA&AA enabled". The image quality is fantastic in games either, and there's no visible difference between R350 and NV35.

http://www.digital-daily.com/video/fx5900-vs-radeon9800pro/

Hmmm, maybe I should have stayed with my NV20?
They also fail to mention the AF issue with Ati and nVIDIA's cards?
Ati needs the app to set it and nVIDIA, you will never get trilinear filtering.

All the tests were conducted with the 4xAA/8xAF options enabled. The weaker ATI 9700 PRO and Ti4800 were also posed into the same hard conditions.

8xAF + full bilinear on FX cards while 8xAF + 1 stage trilinear and the rest of the satges bilinear on Ati cards.

Really fair way to test.

What a review.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Today's unofficial version are Detonator 44,45 and Catalyst3,5. But unofficial drivers merit a special review.

The article is dated 7/20/03, there is no excuse for the above mistake!

(Well, 'cept either incompetence or bias...mebbe something else, it's late & I'm tired. )

 

[Dean]

They are not anywhere near being biased!. They are simply a losely broken English version of a Russian website. They simply seem out of the loop to me because the 9800 pretty much trashed the 5900 in every benchmark.

"(Well, 'cept either incompetence or bias...mebbe something else, it's late & I'm tired. )"

I would guess incompetence but at least they tried.

 

[Hanners]

All the tests were conducted with the 4xAA/8xAF options enabled. The weaker ATI 9700 PRO and Ti4800 were also posed into the same hard conditions.

8xAF + full bilinear on FX cards while 8xAF + 1 stage trilinear and the rest of the satges bilinear on Ati cards.

Really fair way to test.

What a review.

They didn't even mention whether Quality or Performance AF was used on the cards, so it's impossible to tell how fair the UT2003 tests were.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

All the tests were conducted with the 4xAA/8xAF options enabled. The weaker ATI 9700 PRO and Ti4800 were also posed into the same hard conditions.

8xAF + full bilinear on FX cards while 8xAF + 1 stage trilinear and the rest of the satges bilinear on Ati cards.

Really fair way to test.

What a review.

They didn't even mention whether Quality or Performance AF was used on the cards, so it's impossible to tell how fair the UT2003 tests were.

I would assume in the app it would default to use trilinear. Of course with nVIDIA, they overwrite app and driver settings.
With Ati you have to enable app preference throughCP, most likely he/she had quality AF set for the R3xx.

 

[martrox]

As amaturish as this review was, at least they tried to tell the truth, rather than put out nothing more than PR trash as some of the more "professional" sites have done......That's the longest sentence I've typed in a while!

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

As amaturish as this review was, at least they tried to tell the truth, rather than put out nothing more than PR trash as some of the more "professional" sites have done......That's the longest sentence I've typed in a while!

I literally would have done a better job. I'm not joking either.

My first serious post in a while.

 

[Pete]

Yeah, it's pretty awful.

As Yoda would say, "There is no spoon."

Wait...