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

[Wunderchu]

the two have identical sampling pattern.

that statement is not true, AFAIK

 

[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 .

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

2x from nvidia has not been changed.

Ati still looks much better than nvidia's 2x and they are on par with 4x though would give ati an edge for having gamma correction . In other threads (not i) people have stated that ati's 6x is on par with nvidia's 8x , sometimes better , sometimes worse but provides much faster speed.

I also talked about temporal aa where if your framerates are high enough your getting almost double the setting. i.e 2x temporal looks close to 4x , 4x looks close to 8x , 6x looks close to 12 x

Thus ati still has the better aa this round .

don't know the problem with i have siad

 

[Geeforcer]

2x from nvidia has not been changed.

Ati still looks much better than nvidia's 2x and they are on par with 4x though would give ati an edge for having gamma correction . In other threads (not i) people have stated that ati's 6x is on par with nvidia's 8x , sometimes better , sometimes worse but provides much faster speed.

I also talked about temporal aa where if your framerates are high enough your getting almost double the setting. i.e 2x temporal looks close to 4x , 4x looks close to 8x , 6x looks close to 12 x

Thus ati still has the better aa this round .

don't know the problem with i have siad

So ATi's 45% RG 2x looks much better then Nvidia's 45% RG 2x? Sigh...

 

[jvd]

2x from nvidia has not been changed.

Ati still looks much better than nvidia's 2x and they are on par with 4x though would give ati an edge for having gamma correction . In other threads (not i) people have stated that ati's 6x is on par with nvidia's 8x , sometimes better , sometimes worse but provides much faster speed.

I also talked about temporal aa where if your framerates are high enough your getting almost double the setting. i.e 2x temporal looks close to 4x , 4x looks close to 8x , 6x looks close to 12 x

Thus ati still has the better aa this round .

don't know the problem with i have siad

So ATi's 45% RG 2x looks much better then Nvidia's 45% RG 2x? Sigh...

please show me where nvidia uses the rgms gamma corrected 2x ?

 

[Richard]

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.

<snip>

It's a big deal to me, sorry.

Hmm sorry, I wasn't too clear. I didn't mean that. I meant we discussing what a guy asked ATi and nVidia guys and how the original poster is biased because <insert conspiracy theory here>, and how this forum is all biased and going to hell, and so on. That's why it reminds me of politics.

I'd rather have (another) thread about how SM 3.0 sucks/rocks and how 3Dc is so useless/relevant (strike what you don't agree with) than this.

In fact, what you were discussing about AA is what matters IMHO, not what some PR guy said about competitors or what a particular attendee thought of the PR guys. Or what hidden comments a leaked presentation did or did not have.

Just getting a little tired of the soap opera. :|

 

[kyleb]

So ATi's 45% RG 2x looks much better then Nvidia's 45% RG 2x? Sigh...

nvidia's is rotated grid, but it is not gamma corrected and the sampling positions are somewhat different.

 

[pat777]

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 .

What about 3t temporal? 18x(6x3t) AA sounds nice.

 

[jvd]

never used it .

 

[pat777]

2x from nvidia has not been changed.

Ati still looks much better than nvidia's 2x and they are on par with 4x though would give ati an edge for having gamma correction . In other threads (not i) people have stated that ati's 6x is on par with nvidia's 8x , sometimes better , sometimes worse but provides much faster speed.

I also talked about temporal aa where if your framerates are high enough your getting almost double the setting. i.e 2x temporal looks close to 4x , 4x looks close to 8x , 6x looks close to 12 x

Thus ati still has the better aa this round .

don't know the problem with i have siad

So ATi's 45% RG 2x looks much better then Nvidia's 45% RG 2x? Sigh...

please show me where nvidia uses the rgms gamma corrected 2x ?

Maybe in future drivers.
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11868

 

[pat777]

The thing I like about SS is how it sharpens textures. Combine that with some full trillinear 16x AF and you got some very clear textures. nVIDIA should use RGSS. That would look great.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Maybe in future drivers.
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11868

No offense meant to you Pat, but I HATE it when people use that line.

"Maybe in future drivers" is one way to say it, "No" is another.

 

[jvd]

Maybe in future drivers.
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11868

No offense meant to you Pat, but I HATE it when people use that line.

"Maybe in future drivers" is one way to say it, "No" is another.

how will it become gamma corrected ? thats done in hardware


Btw we had a 4x /2x - 8 x mode and in new drivers it became 2x/4x = 8x mode and the image quality dropped .

So i'm not to sure you should use mabye in future drivers as a defense

 

[PeterAce]

So ATi's 45% RG 2x looks much better then Nvidia's 45% RG 2x? Sigh...

nvidia's is rotated grid, but it is not gamma corrected and the sampling positions are somewhat different.

Both Nvidia and ATI used rotated sampling positions for x4 MSAA.

The difference is that the NV40 use a fixed sampling position where as ATI (on R3X0 and R4X0) use a programmable "sparse" sampling pattern with gamma correction (which gives better IQ).

 

[pat777]

Maybe in future drivers.
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11868

No offense meant to you Pat, but I HATE it when people use that line.

"Maybe in future drivers" is one way to say it, "No" is another.

Ok, it won't happen. I still think AA on textures is an advantage of SSAA.

The 6800 series has 16x SSAA. I think it'll kill performance to less than 1 FPS in Far Cry. However, I'll be interested in seeing the image quality of 1600x1200, 16x SSAA, and 16x AF(trillinear optimizations off). I'm sure the textures will be very clear. I doubt Far Cry will even run with 16x SSAA.

 

[Zvekan]

Maybe in future drivers.
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11868

No offense meant to you Pat, but I HATE it when people use that line.

"Maybe in future drivers" is one way to say it, "No" is another.

Ok, it won't happen. I still think AA on textures is an advantage of SSAA.

The 6800 series has 16x SSAA. I think it'll kill performance to less than 1 FPS in Far Cry. However, I'll be interested in seeing the image quality of 1600x1200, 16x SSAA, and 16x AF(trillinear optimizations off). I'm sure the textures will be very clear. I doubt Far Cry will even run with 16x SSAA.

16x SSAA requires 4x4 bigger rendender buffer than the final image so you would need ability to handle 6400 x 4800 - GeForce 6800 AFAIK support only resolutions up to 4k x 4k.

Situation is similar to Radeon 8500, 9200 that offer 6x SSAA but only on 800 x 600 and lower as they suport a maximum of 2k x 2k.

Zvekan

 

[ChrisRay]

So ATi's 45% RG 2x looks much better then Nvidia's 45% RG 2x? Sigh...

nvidia's is rotated grid, but it is not gamma corrected and the sampling positions are somewhat different.

The sampling patterns are actually reversed. From an edge removal standpoint they should have an equivalent edge removal.

Gamma correction could be considered an advantage for ATI in this field.

16x SSAA requires 4x4 bigger rendender buffer than the final image so you would need ability to handle 6400 x 4800 - GeForce 6800 AFAIK support only resolutions up to 4k x 4k.

Situation is similar to Radeon 8500, 9200 that offer 6x SSAA but only on 800 x 600 and lower as they suport a maximum of 2k x 2k.

This is managed because what he said is not entirely true. Both the old and new 16x modes combine multisampling with their respective super sampling modes. Not requiring nearly as much fill rate.

 

[jvd]

This is managed because what he said is not entirely true. Both the old and new 16x modes combine multisampling with their respective super sampling modes. Not requiring nearly as much fill rate.

which means they really aren't 16 x modes

 

[ChrisRay]

This is managed because what he said is not entirely true. Both the old and new 16x modes combine multisampling with their respective super sampling modes. Not requiring nearly as much fill rate.

which means they really aren't 16 x modes

No, They are, They are oversampling modes. Multisampling doesnt require the fill rate that Super Sampling does. Hence why they can achieve 16x with hybrid modes.

http://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/multisampling_anti-aliasing/index7_e.php


This article should give you a general idea of how oversampling works.

Chris

 

[Rys]

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

The ATI 2X pattern is offset from the diagonal ever so slightly. They're not identical in that respect, at least to my eyes.

Rys

 

[Xmas]

Not identical, but equivalent. Same for 4x. But ATI still has the advantage of 6xAA, temporal dithering and "gamma correction" if your monitor/gamma settings require it. And NVidia has the advantage of supersampling and mixed modes if your games require and allow it.