Post your NV40 preview predictions

Please... Give me a break.

Does it still have Inferior AA or not. Were the settings the same or Not. If something is true its true its got nothing to do with you not liking it or not. If you dont like someone stating the facts then you are the one with the fanboy issue not me.

And while i am at it, it is STILL TRUE that ATi's 2x FSAA is roughly the same and actually better in many cases than Nvidias 4x AA. Which still has nothing to do with Fanboyism.

 

Take a look at the screen shots and put them each in two different full screen IE boxes... nVidia's 4xAA looks pretty much near the same damn thing as ATi's 4xAA... And after sitting there examining it for 5 minutes to come up with that conclusion, I now believe that it's most likely not going to make a difference in the actual games... For all intents and purposes, they are now even in my book.

 

So effectively it is capped at 60 fps though personally I would prefer to have a 16.7 ms delay and for carmack to damn well interpolate the position vectors it would be damn close enough to being accurate and look much better.

 

I was only trying to state that some of the benchmarks did have the same settings. I said nothing at all about the cause of the scores in question.

I guess you can really decide just how much it is CPU limited when the R420 scores are shown. Then it will be known for sure how to judge the score

 

It seems that a whole bunch of games are CPU limited (even by this generation of GPUs)... what we need, is a more efficient way of running game engines.

Someone should invent a Game Processing Unit (Game -PU for short)for helping out our poor CPUs!

 

I dont know that everyone would agree with that. But, In fairness i will take back my statement about AA for now.

 

with the iq tests most of the screens weren't even taken at the same exact spot :?

 

Hey, I am NOT saying it is right or wrong...that's Brent's call, it's his review.

I was just saying my initial impressions. I'm guessing Brent found the highest possible playable settings for each card and benched 'em like that, I'm reserving any judgements until I read the actual review.

I'm just glad about the NDA info, now I can go to sleep tonight!

 

i looked at the pics and i think the nv 40 and ati's look the same to me no major diference in image quality

 

Hellbinder, I rest my case:

http://mbnet.fi/elixir/NV40/10817474486qLMOmeutS_5_1_l.jpg
http://mbnet.fi/elixir/NV40/10817474486qLMOmeutS_5_3_l.jpg

copy and paste the two to two seperate fullscreen IE windows.

 

Rofl dude they look like frigging 32x AA in most cases because of the high degree of blurring by the lossy compression if you look at the other picture. One of the components in Jpeg is ALWAYS( by default ) sub sampled at half the verticle and horizontal resolution so no matter what you will always get bluring in the picture even if you set it to minimal compression level ( well this is with the default compression set up and those pictures are doing 2x2 1x1 1x1 YCbCr sub sampling ). Now if you zoom the original ( using nearest filtering ) with a power of 2 greater then 0 then your sub sampling won't sample across multiple pixels from the original image so its not really a problem their.

 

Look at the ground in those 2 shots, why is Ati shinier than the 6800?

Unless ATI makes their AA better, which they probably will, even if its just a little bit

 

Dude look at the rest of the pictures, there is clearly a difference between GF FX 5950 screens and Radeon 9800 XT screenshots, but the 6800 and 9800 XT screen shots are almost exactly the same.

 

I don't know, I can tell the difference 'tween the two and I liked the 9800XT better. (Honest, not a fanboy comment...that's how they looked to me.)

 

nvidia definitely improved their AA ....

having said that, ATI's 4xAA mode still looks better (take a look at the UT2k4 blowup shots)

 

It literally is the exact same thing. You have to be one of the biggest nitpicking morons to actually find a difference between the two. And it's FAR from true that ATi's 2x looks anywhere near nvidia's RGM 4x. You'd again, have to be a biased idiot who posts text based garbage nightly preaching the same retardation.

You are literally Chalnoth but twice as bias, which is REALLY saying something.


Find differences in these two, and make sure you note them as much as possible.


http://mbnet.fi/elixir/NV40/10817474486qLMOmeutS_5_1_l.jpg
http://mbnet.fi/elixir/NV40/10817474486qLMOmeutS_5_3_l.jpg

 

can you explain why? the only difference i can see is that they are taken from 2 different spots :?

edit: actually i see something different with the smoke under the stairs, but which one is correct?

 

just wondering... if these are the default settings in the control panel

/removed link

and the RAM is actually only rated @ 500Mhz as seen here

/removed link

does this lend to that they are factory overclocking those RAM chips by 50Mhz with the addition of that monstrous heatsink??

 

Agreed on the AA. Nvidia have really improved here, still ati have a slight edge on 4x and 6x imho. Maybe its the gamma correction? Does nv40 have gamma correct AA?

 

To be honest I think there is something weird with the AA shots, here is why.

The flight sim shots look the same, and certain other ones do as well, but certain ones the R3xx AA does look better IMHO. In any case HB please relax learn to appreciate all good things and not your specific lame infatuation with ATI.

edit:

By the way the character is "breathing" so the gun is moving and the lights are pulsating it makes it look quite different in those other shots perhaps that has something to do with it.