Joe DeFuria
Legend
First,
I have to make a public apology to HardOCP. So here it is: "I Apologize!"
That apology is for my harsh with respect to HardOCPs handling of the 3DMark03 epsiode.
I still strongly disagree with how they handled that, but after reading this review (and then going back and reading the 9800 Pro review), I'll have to withdraw my accusations of blatant nVidia bias and favoritism.
This preview, as did the 9800 Preveiw, showed a legitimate attempt at getting a "fair" comparison, and went specifically against the "suggestions" of nVidia to benchmark the "aggressive" mode.
Kudos to HardOCP. You've won me back as a reader.
In fact, if anything, I'd say this review is slightly biased toward ATI with the aniso comparisons. Why? Because although the mip-map blending aspect was well covered and compared, the other aspect of ansio filtering (the filtering algorithim itself) was not.
And in that aspect the "Application" mode of the FX cards is superior to the ATI card.
I have not seen both cards in action side-by-side, so I do not know which of the two comparisons:
1) FX Application vs. Radeon Qualitry
or
2) FX Balanced vs. Radeon Quality
gives the "best possible" apples to apples comparison. HardOCP says its 1), and that is definitely true with respect to the mip-map blending. However, I'm not sure if they also looked at the filtering algorithm aspect of each as well. (Rotation...) It is celar that NEITHER of those two comparisons is apples-to-apples, but if you had to pick one for comparison, you'd have to see them in motion in several scenarios to make a decision.
In any case, HardOCP benchmarked ALL THREE modes of the GeForceFX, which is something I've been wanting to see. !) Though at the same time, they didn't include benchmarks for the Radeon "Performance" mode, which I think would have been prudent for the same reasons.
The overriding disappointment is with nVidia.
I'm not disappointed that they are offering new filtering options that trade-off performance for quality. More choice is good. I am a bit disappointed that you can no longer "force" the high quality mode from the control panel. Obviously, that's implemented that way for the SOLE reason to make it less likely that reviewers will actually test that mode.
The reason (performance) is obvious.
I am most disappointed though, that nVidia suggested that the aggressive mode be used for benchmarks. That's only a slightly less repulsive than SiS having poorer texture filtering by default.
I have to make a public apology to HardOCP. So here it is: "I Apologize!"
That apology is for my harsh with respect to HardOCPs handling of the 3DMark03 epsiode.
I still strongly disagree with how they handled that, but after reading this review (and then going back and reading the 9800 Pro review), I'll have to withdraw my accusations of blatant nVidia bias and favoritism.
This preview, as did the 9800 Preveiw, showed a legitimate attempt at getting a "fair" comparison, and went specifically against the "suggestions" of nVidia to benchmark the "aggressive" mode.
Kudos to HardOCP. You've won me back as a reader.
In fact, if anything, I'd say this review is slightly biased toward ATI with the aniso comparisons. Why? Because although the mip-map blending aspect was well covered and compared, the other aspect of ansio filtering (the filtering algorithim itself) was not.
And in that aspect the "Application" mode of the FX cards is superior to the ATI card.
I have not seen both cards in action side-by-side, so I do not know which of the two comparisons:
1) FX Application vs. Radeon Qualitry
or
2) FX Balanced vs. Radeon Quality
gives the "best possible" apples to apples comparison. HardOCP says its 1), and that is definitely true with respect to the mip-map blending. However, I'm not sure if they also looked at the filtering algorithm aspect of each as well. (Rotation...) It is celar that NEITHER of those two comparisons is apples-to-apples, but if you had to pick one for comparison, you'd have to see them in motion in several scenarios to make a decision.
In any case, HardOCP benchmarked ALL THREE modes of the GeForceFX, which is something I've been wanting to see. !) Though at the same time, they didn't include benchmarks for the Radeon "Performance" mode, which I think would have been prudent for the same reasons.
The overriding disappointment is with nVidia.
I'm not disappointed that they are offering new filtering options that trade-off performance for quality. More choice is good. I am a bit disappointed that you can no longer "force" the high quality mode from the control panel. Obviously, that's implemented that way for the SOLE reason to make it less likely that reviewers will actually test that mode.
The reason (performance) is obvious.
I am most disappointed though, that nVidia suggested that the aggressive mode be used for benchmarks. That's only a slightly less repulsive than SiS having poorer texture filtering by default.
