"just spoke to an ATi guy and an nVidia guy"

[Wunderchu]

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=39e778f61179e280def2b866c4c2e93a&threadid=33766214

 

[jvd]

thats kinda sad

although i too hear that the 6800ultra yields are very bad with the gts being the sweet spot .

if this is true ati may have this round of the generation

 

[Tim Murray]

in the highest-end, though... GT still seems superior to Pro, although I haven't had a chance to play with either.

 

[jvd]

in the highest-end, though... GT still seems superior to Pro, although I haven't had a chance to play with either.

I dunno i posted in another thread about using both . The pro and gt are both very nice but the pro has better usable features. I left it in that thread that right now iw ould recommend the pro but that might change if and when sm 3.0 games come out and how the perfromance and image quality is compared to p.s 2.0b .

the x800pro easily runs 4x temporal aa non overclocked while the gt has problems with 8x both give similar image quality.

WHen overclocked the gt still can't play 8x at resonable speeds while the pro can play 6x fsaa and temporal 6x fsaa in most cases .

 

[digitalwanderer]

the x800pro easily runs 4x temporal aa non overclocked while the gt has problems with 8x both give similar image quality.

WHen overclocked the gt still can't play 8x at resonable speeds while the pro can play 6x fsaa and temporal 6x fsaa in most cases .

I thought nVidia had improved their AA and it was now comparable to ATi's, you saying that ain't so? :|

 

[Tim Murray]

not above 4x, stupid

 

[jvd]

the x800pro easily runs 4x temporal aa non overclocked while the gt has problems with 8x both give similar image quality.

WHen overclocked the gt still can't play 8x at resonable speeds while the pro can play 6x fsaa and temporal 6x fsaa in most cases .

I thought nVidia had improved their AA and it was now comparable to ATi's, you saying that ain't so? :|

2x is slightly lower than ati's , 4x is equal , 8x fsaa is extremly slow and is 2x ss / 4x rgs . So its better than ati at alpha but is behind 6x from ati in everything else .

But then ati has temporal aa. (not avalible in drivers yet but u can hack it) that will change the sample pattern every other frame to give the apearance of higher fsaa. example is 2x temporal looks very close to 4x temporal but performs exactly like 2x from ati . Only downside is you need to have fps faster than your refresh and you have to turn vsync on.

4x looks like 8x with 4x perfromance and 6x looks like 12x . Very very nice feature. YOu just can't see it in screenshots .

 

[digitalwanderer]

not above 4x, stupid

? :? ?

So you are saying that nVidia's 4xAA=ATi's 4xAA in image quality? It isn't the huge delta like 'tween the nV3x & R3xx?

I don't really think that's a stupid point to seek clarity on Baron, it's a deal-breaker for me anymore.

 

[jvd]

not above 4x, stupid

? :? ?

So you are saying that nVidia's 4xAA=ATi's 4xAA in image quality? It isn't the huge delta like 'tween the nV3x & R3xx?

I don't really think that's a stupid point to seek clarity on Baron, it's a deal-breaker for me anymore.

ati and nvidia use the same type of jittered rotated grid msaa for 4x . Ati's is gama corrected though.

 

[dizietsma]

That link made me laugh, a fanboys report on what Ati and nvidia said and guess what, Ati came out well and nvidia came out badly.

Well knock me down with a feather .. LOL

 

[jvd]

That link made me laugh, a fanboys report on what Ati and nvidia said and guess what, Ati came out well and nvidia came out badly.

Well knock me down with a feather .. LOL

well not for nothing but nvidia is spreading fud about ati's pci-e set up claiming its a bridge and not native. Ati is saying it is native and thsoe are buffers and what not for it .

So he got that much right .

 

[ANova]

That link made me laugh, a fanboys report on what Ati and nvidia said and guess what, Ati came out well and nvidia came out badly.

Well knock me down with a feather .. LOL

Nvidia seems to be in a bit of a pickle atm. I see a clear motive for them to initiate all out FUD mode, which I don't think is too absurd considering they've done it in the past to a large extent.

 

[nutball]

That link made me laugh, a fanboys report on what Ati and nvidia said and guess what, Ati came out well and nvidia came out badly.

Well knock me down with a feather .. LOL

Nvidia seems to be in a bit of a pickle atm. I see a clear motive for them to initiate all out FUD mode, which I don't think is too absurd considering they've done it in the past to a large extent.

IMO FUD and marketing BS is a problem that's only worse from both companies. With all that's flying around the rest of the semi-industry I reckon the days of super-Moore performance increases are over, and as the market starts to slow the battle of the products will be overtaken by a battle of words.

Just my feeling.

 

[ANova]

IMO FUD and marketing BS is a problem that's only worse from both companies. With all that's flying around the rest of the semi-industry I reckon the days of super-Moore performance increases are over, and as the market starts to slow the battle of the products will be overtaken by a battle of words.

Just my feeling.

It does indeed seem to be heading in that direction, sadly.

 

[IbaneZ]

 

[PaulS]

not above 4x, stupid

So you are saying that nVidia's 4xAA=ATi's 4xAA in image quality? It isn't the huge delta like 'tween the nV3x & R3xx?

I don't really think that's a stupid point to seek clarity on Baron, it's a deal-breaker for me anymore.

How did you miss this point in the last few months? It's been noted all the time since April or so :?

 

[digitalwanderer]

not above 4x, stupid

So you are saying that nVidia's 4xAA=ATi's 4xAA in image quality? It isn't the huge delta like 'tween the nV3x & R3xx?

I don't really think that's a stupid point to seek clarity on Baron, it's a deal-breaker for me anymore.

How did you miss this point in the last few months? It's been noted all the time since April or so :?

Yeah, but not by anyone I really know and trust yet...if JVD tells me it's so, it's so.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, but not by anyone I really know and trust yet...if JVD tells me it's so, it's so.

Careful, you're going to be branded a JVDisciple.

Seriously, this ATi v nVidia is starting to resemble politics.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Seriously, this ATi v nVidia is starting to resemble politics.

Sorry, it just became a huge issue with me because I recently picked up a 5900 and discovered first-hand just how bad the nV3x's AA was.

Reading about how ATi has better image quality just ain't the same as seeing the difference for yourself, and the difference literally shocked me.

I'm about to go put the rebuilt 5900nu that I pulled apart, cleaned up, remounted everything a bit better, and flashed to a 5950u (and she does 470/950 clean) and put it into my seven year olds PIII800 rig to replace his GF4ti4400 because my wife prefers her AIW 9600 pro for gaming. (She's playing NFSU and she couldn't handle the jaggies the 5900 had)

It's a big deal to me, sorry.

 

[Geeforcer]

the x800pro easily runs 4x temporal aa non overclocked while the gt has problems with 8x both give similar image quality.

WHen overclocked the gt still can't play 8x at resonable speeds while the pro can play 6x fsaa and temporal 6x fsaa in most cases .

I thought nVidia had improved their AA and it was now comparable to ATi's, you saying that ain't so? :|

2x is slightly lower than ati's , 4x is equal , 8x fsaa is extremly slow and is 2x ss / 4x rgs . So its better than ati at alpha but is behind 6x from ati in everything else .

Nvidia's 2x FSAA is worse then ATis? That's interesting, considering that the two have identical sampling pattern.