New det 50s IQ comparisons at gamersdepot using halo + TRAOD

[Cassius]

http://www.gamersdepot.com/hardware/video_cards/ati_vs_nvidia/dx9_rel50/001.htm

the IQ different is really apparant in the waterfall picture in Halo

and the ps 2.0 tomb raider picture looks badly blured on the tomb raider picture

 

[Bjorn]

Re: New det 50s IQ comparisons at gamersdepot using halo + T

What's up with the gamma settings ?

All screenshots i've seen so far with the Det 50's are darker then the screenshots they compare them to. Makes it really hard to know/see what the difference is.

 

[Cassius]

thats part of the image quality drop

it looks like the det 50s are either turning off lights all together or not rendering them properly

thats why all det 50 screenshots are much darker than the det 45s or cat 3.7s

 

[nelg]

Re: New det 50s IQ comparisons at gamersdepot using halo + T

What's up with the gamma settings ?

All screenshots i've seen so far with the Det 50's are darker then the screenshots they compare them to. Makes it really hard to know/see what the difference is.

If you increase the brightness all you will get is lighter blur .

 

[THe_KELRaTH]

Bjorn... maybe dropping the gamma so low so it's not easy to see the difference has been done deliberately. I grabbed the Aquamark 3 pics and reset the gamma and thats when the differences between the previous Dets was so glaringly different. Besides blur, the colours were as though I'd set 32bit to 16bit colour mode in the driver menu.

 

[Natoma]

Hmm. It seems the NV3x problems with PS2 in TR:AOD stemming from problems with DoF implementation are pretty damn severe even with the new drivers. Because I know Dave spoke about DoF issues in that game with the NV3x series during his preliminary testing in the beta articles section, but that was with the 45.xx drivers.

Question is, is DoF supposed to be on in that screenshot, and if so, why doesn't the Radeon display it? Or is this another case of misplaced DoF implementation?

 

[g__day]

I notice the Detonators 51.75 are available to all now, oh an so is Aquamark 3

I'm on an old PC but still got 23,735 is good but some folks are already report close to 50K

This is an awesome benchmark!

* * * *

Detonator 51.75 drivers - yes that right 9.86MB

http://www.3dchipset.com/drivers/beta/nvidia/nt5/5175.php

Aquamark 3

http://www.majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=2105 62 MB

 

[WaltC]

Detonator 51.75 drivers - yes that right 9.86MB

http://www.3dchipset.com/drivers/beta/nvidia/nt5/5175.php

When do you think nVidia might get around to offering them on its website as drivers suitable for all nV3x customers and recommended as such by the company?

 

[Bjorn]

Bjorn... maybe dropping the gamma so low so it's not easy to see the difference has been done deliberately.

Might be. But why didn't the reviewers increase the gamma then ?
Cause the whole point of the screenshots was to show us the difference.

 

[Florin]

Detonator 51.75 drivers - yes that right 9.86MB

http://www.3dchipset.com/drivers/beta/nvidia/nt5/5175.php

When do you think nVidia might get around to offering them on its website as drivers suitable for all nV3x customers and recommended as such by the company?

When everybody is through beta testing them, I guess

 

[Ailuros]

51.75 anisotropic filtering at 3DCenter:

http://www.3dcenter.de/artikel/2003/09-15_a.php

 

[Tim]

51.75 anisotropic filtering at 3DCenter:

http://www.3dcenter.de/artikel/2003/09-15_a.php

That they don't use full trilinear filtering on texture stage 1-7 is not a problem in my book. At least if they respect the application setting.

But is it a problem that they use a lower level of AF on stage 1-7?

 

[PSarge]

51.75 anisotropic filtering at 3DCenter:

http://www.3dcenter.de/artikel/2003/09-15_a.php

That they don't use full trilinear filtering on texture stage 1-7 is not a problem in my book. At least if they respect the application setting.

But is it a problem that they use a lower level of AF on stage 1-7?

YES!

Sorry, but it's annoying me that people don't see that different behaviour (tri-linear/bi-linear) per texture stage is a cheat!.

If I write an app that requests 8 sample Anisotropic trilinear-filtered texturing for stages 0 & 1, I should get 8 sample Anisotropic trilinear-filtered texturing for stages 0 & 1. Nothing less. The only thing I'll except is if the hardware can't support it. Otherwise I should get what I ask for.

 

[Doomtrooper]

When will it end, I mean daily these 'cheats' being exposed is getting OLD.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

That they don't use full trilinear filtering on texture stage 1-7 is not a problem in my book. At least if they respect the application setting.

But is it a problem that they use a lower level of AF on stage 1-7?

Both are problems if the developer requests it, and doesn't get it.

If these are performance tweaks (say in a forced driver panel slider) as a trade-off for speed / quality, then I don't have a real issue with it.

If this behavior happens in the "application controlled" setting of the driver panel, then it is a problem.

 

[Ailuros]

That they don't use full trilinear filtering on texture stage 1-7 is not a problem in my book. At least if they respect the application setting.

But is it a problem that they use a lower level of AF on stage 1-7?

These are D3D driver defaults and I didn't get the impression that the user has actually a choice to enable full trilinear and full aniso samples on all texturing stages while reading the article.

Besides depends what each texturing stage contains in each game/application.

Up to now with Radeon's you can still enable trilinear on stages 1-7 via 3rd party tweaking utilities or forcing it occassionally through game settings. If ATI should hardlock it's own optimisations in their drivers I'd be mighty pissed.

 

[[3dc]Leonidas]

51.75 anisotropic filtering at 3DCenter:

http://www.3dcenter.de/artikel/2003/09-15_a.php

That they don't use full trilinear filtering on texture stage 1-7 is not a problem in my book. At least if they respect the application setting.

They DONT respect the application setting! Our Screenshots was taken with the "Application" setting. The driver force this optimization in every case.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Leonidas]They DONT respect the application setting! Our Screenshots was taken with the "Application" setting. The driver force this optimization in every case.

This is bad.

Seems to be a stark change of stance by nVidia...didn't they tell Kyle that this behavior in UT2003 was a bug that was going to be fixed?

I guess "from a certain point of view", that's right....although the "bug" apparently was that it was tri-filtering all stagnes all along, and the "fix" was to force the same behavior in UT to all D3D apps.

Things like this get me very worried.

ATI has a very legitimate business reason to respond with drivers that "force" this and other things. I hope they don't do it...but if review sites don't expose nVidia and continue to just "benchmark" with no regard to what's going on, ATI may be forced to.

 

[Doomtrooper]

OK let me add more to my previous comment, I simply blame the media for this ongoing charade.
There are a few sites that have 'ethics' towards their readers, they don't need to be named...then there is others like THG latest article that is so far out in left field.
The 'big 3' websites posted little on the DX9 performance issues, instead being quiet and letting possibly millions of its readers to be mislead.

These review sites have been taken for a ride, I don't understand how hard it is not to post facts...it comes down to what is the purpose of a review site

1) To inform its readers, to be a journalist...to be honest.

2) To make lots of money off advertising, to get lots of nice 'freebies', to bend the truth so the supply of $$ is not cut off.

I personally take option TWO as the majority not the minority of review sites, and print magazines are no different.

 

[Ailuros]

ATI has a very legitimate business reason to respond with drivers that "force" this and other things. I hope they don't do it...but if review sites don't expose nVidia and continue to just "benchmark" with no regard to what's going on, ATI may be forced to.

Please God noooooo....