[H]OCP does Radeon9700 I.Q....

Discussion in 'Architecture and Products' started by martrox, Sep 10, 2002.

  1. martrox

    martrox Old Fart
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,065
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida USA
    Yrs, [H]ard to believe, but the first comparison of ATI 9700 to nVidia TI4600 I.Q. comes from [H]OCP :

    http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MzQ0

     
  2. Hyp-X

    Hyp-X Irregular
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    1,170
    Likes Received:
    5
    I agree that the 3D image quality is exceptionally good.
    2x AA on the R9700 beats 4x AA on the GF4 on most tests :)

    I can't wait to put back the card in my machine. :roll:

    (It's currently sitting on my desk, waiting for ATI to release drivers that work stable enough to permit work...)
     
  3. Xmas

    Xmas Porous
    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    137
    Location:
    On the path to wisdom
    Then obviously we're not looking at the same pictures.
     
  4. Galilee

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Trondheim, Norway
    hehe I was thinking the same :)
     
  5. Dave Baumann

    Dave Baumann Gamerscore Wh...
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    14,079
    Likes Received:
    648
    Location:
    O Canada!
    I thnk the FSAA Gamma correction is another of those things you have to see in action.
     
  6. Xmas

    Xmas Porous
    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,298
    Likes Received:
    137
    Location:
    On the path to wisdom
    Yes, the problem with this is that if you and the one who took the shots have different gamma settings, the shots may even look worse than those from another card without gamma correction.
     
  7. Doomtrooper

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    I think he is looking at the pictures just fine...just look at the verticals on the UT 2003 shots..not to mention the frame counter. This is coming from someone that has a card..unlike some people here [​IMG]

    The 2X comparisons are not even close.

    9700 2X
    [​IMG]

    4600 2X
    [​IMG]


    BTW nice review Brent..
     
  8. darkblu

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    2,642
    Likes Received:
    22
    doom, did you actually bother to read what Xmas said before jumping the gun? or do you really believe those pics you posted actually show how 9700's 2x FSAA beats NV's 4x FSAA??
     
  9. RussSchultz

    RussSchultz Professional Malcontent
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,855
    Likes Received:
    55
    Location:
    HTTP 404
    Is it just me, or is there "something" along those edges of the 9700 2x shot. I don't want to accuse anybody of anything, but it looks like there's been touchup along the edges of the tall spikey thing. Like edge enhancement, or blur or something.

    Also, why are there extraneous green pixels around the 9700 frame counter?

    I hesitate to mention it, because I'm sure to be labeled an NVIDIOT, but something looks out of order to my eye on the 9700 2x shot. Maybe its a different jpeg ratio, or something else, though.
     
  10. Doomtrooper

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Darkblu,

    I never stated beat but very close indeed and certainly 2X vs. 2X is not even close...I would say the 2X 9700 shot looks VERY close to 4X 4600..so close in motion they would look very similar.
     
  11. Bigus Dickus

    Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2002
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    16
    Very likely just jpeg artifacts. Personally, I think if you're going to compare FSAA methods, then jpeg compression should not be used! Modem users be damned, it's not worth compromising the comparison to save a few minutes of download time.
     
  12. KnightBreed

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    203
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wholeheartedly disagree. Based purely on the above pics, I'd say nVidia's 4X is noticeably better than ATi's 2X, as it should be.
     
  13. Brent

    Regular

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2002
    Messages:
    584
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Irving, TX
    Thank you very very much everyone, i do appreciate everyone's comments


    Those are JPEG compression artifacts

    I DO have the NON compressed images and they can be provided through email if you wish brent@hardocp.com

    they are very large in file size though as they are the original .bmp files, i believe some are in the order of 5MB each :eek:

    but if your email server can hold it i'll be glad to rar whatever you want up and send them, just give me a holler...
     
  14. Reverend

    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,266
    Likes Received:
    24
    Whoa... using a warez copy of UT2003 in an article = big ballz!

    GF4 4x is better than 9700 2x based on the shots posted in this thread (just going with the flow here... dunno why anyone started this comparison in the first place).

    Image compression artifacts as noticeable as the ones here (in a IQ article) = bad !

    But a good read nonetheless, Brent! Looks like you've been doing a better job at most things than Kyle since you joined him! ;) :lol:
     
  15. Doomtrooper

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Maybe its hard for people to understand here what I believe I'm trying to point out..the 2X AA 4600 shot is not even close, the 2X 9700 and 4X 4600 shots are actually very close on the vertical pillars and is certainly a MUCH better comparison in IQ than the 2X 4600.

    I will remove the 4X shot to point out the obvious.
     
  16. jandar

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    May 27, 2002
    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    JVille, FLA
  17. MikeC

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    194
    Likes Received:
    0
    Try converting them to PNG formt.
     
  18. Reverend

    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,266
    Likes Received:
    24
    Nah, PNG isn't even required... just be gentle on the compression ratio for JPGs !
     
  19. jb

    jb
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    7
    naw, bmp's zip up nicely :)
     
  20. Hellbinder

    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,444
    Likes Received:
    12
    Completely *FALSE*.... The gama correction is going to be different on *Each* system. therefore getting the *best* results. I cant belive none of you called the guy on a statement like this.

    Hyp-X..

    Dont even go there...... You may be having issues with your specific hardware config.. maybe you are trying to OC... or some other issue.... but the Drivers are Stable and have few issues for 99% of the people. I do *NOT* like the insinuation that the drivers are crap or they are to blame.

    It is quite clear from reading several forums that there are a number of people out there going out of their way to exagerate, overstate..... and imo... intentionally trying to view the 9700 in a bad light. There is a clear difference between people who are havign problems and are objectively, and constructively posting about it.. and those with an *agenda*.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...