Who has the best looking FSAA?
- Thread starter Pottsey
- Start date
R9700 dimishing quality of FSAA
Without trying to hijack the thread has anyone noticed a disturbing trend for the ATI cards to adopt a slightly worse IQ/faster FSAA implimentation as driver releases continue?
My 8500 FSAA started off well but overtime the IQ diminished alhough the speed was noticeably faster. My 9700 6x FSAA started of even better but seems to have been reduced to in the latest betas and again received a speed improvement? I'm sure the speed boost will be natural but I'm beginning to wonder just how much of it comes from reducing the FSAA quality? Wouldn't it be a lovely trend if FSAA actually improved overtime/driver releases?
BTW, in another thread I stated the 9700 *6FSAA was the new king but with the reduction in IQ quality (in my opinion anyway) and the lack of 16bit FSAA I'm now a little unsure
Thankfully I'm not in the least bit confused which card currently offers the bets IQ and performance on 32bit games. That title firmly belongs to the 9700!
Without trying to hijack the thread has anyone noticed a disturbing trend for the ATI cards to adopt a slightly worse IQ/faster FSAA implimentation as driver releases continue?
My 8500 FSAA started off well but overtime the IQ diminished alhough the speed was noticeably faster. My 9700 6x FSAA started of even better but seems to have been reduced to in the latest betas and again received a speed improvement? I'm sure the speed boost will be natural but I'm beginning to wonder just how much of it comes from reducing the FSAA quality? Wouldn't it be a lovely trend if FSAA actually improved overtime/driver releases?
BTW, in another thread I stated the 9700 *6FSAA was the new king but with the reduction in IQ quality (in my opinion anyway) and the lack of 16bit FSAA I'm now a little unsure
Thankfully I'm not in the least bit confused which card currently offers the bets IQ and performance on 32bit games. That title firmly belongs to the 9700!
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Hmmm...that's the first time I've heard of that.
Is it possible you could take some screenshots (or better yet, use the FSAA progs that B3D used in the 9700 review) with different driver revisions?
Is it possible you could take some screenshots (or better yet, use the FSAA progs that B3D used in the 9700 review) with different driver revisions?
Could my perpective I guess?
Well I suppose I could just be so tuned into spotting jaggies that even the 6*FSAA has worn off or then again maybe the FSAA of the 779 drivers just isn't working as well? I only began to notice crawling edges etc whilst running around Q3 at 1024*768 +6*FSAA+16AF. Looking at the edge of my rocket launcher revealed crawling edges as the 6*FSAA tried to combat the jaggies. With the 776 and 777 drivers I honestly didn't notice this at 6*FSAA. Its edges where completely still and smooth, or so I seem to remember? I then moved onto UT2003 and noticed the stone curved towers on the Antalus map also seemed to exhibit slightly more crawling than normal.
Now I'm certainly prepared to admit that I could simply be scrutinizing the image harder but I can honestly say this scrutiny was not intended! I kind of just noticed. The same can be said to any FSAA veteran. Show them an image with no or a lesser degree of FSAA applied from any game or platform and I'd lay 10 to 1 their first comments will be 'jeez, look at those crawlies' The same can be said for Aniso veterans/proponents. Look at an image with out it and bingo sub- consciously you're brain says 'yuck, the floors blurry!' I clearly remember going from a V5 to an 8500 and my first observation about the FSAA was "what the hell is this supposed to be?" Thankfully it didn't take long to overlook the poorer FSAA and notice the ansio+FSAA combo but again without even trying it wasn't difficult to notice the difference.
Using the 9700 on a daily basis for a few hours each day has certainly left me with an opinion and mental picture of texture sharpness/FSAA etc so even the slightest difference between driver sets normally highlights itself.
I know ppl will want proof in the form of pics etc but I'm not going to go there. Only genuine movement really shows how effective FSAA is so until we've got the methods I'm afraid I can't say whether it’s the drivers implementation changing or my brains just getting pickier and pickier.
Anyway, it's all subjective and I'm not knocking ATIs results in anyway. The card as I've stated many times is simply outstanding, I guess I just need more FSAA?
Well I suppose I could just be so tuned into spotting jaggies that even the 6*FSAA has worn off or then again maybe the FSAA of the 779 drivers just isn't working as well? I only began to notice crawling edges etc whilst running around Q3 at 1024*768 +6*FSAA+16AF. Looking at the edge of my rocket launcher revealed crawling edges as the 6*FSAA tried to combat the jaggies. With the 776 and 777 drivers I honestly didn't notice this at 6*FSAA. Its edges where completely still and smooth, or so I seem to remember? I then moved onto UT2003 and noticed the stone curved towers on the Antalus map also seemed to exhibit slightly more crawling than normal.
Now I'm certainly prepared to admit that I could simply be scrutinizing the image harder but I can honestly say this scrutiny was not intended! I kind of just noticed. The same can be said to any FSAA veteran. Show them an image with no or a lesser degree of FSAA applied from any game or platform and I'd lay 10 to 1 their first comments will be 'jeez, look at those crawlies' The same can be said for Aniso veterans/proponents. Look at an image with out it and bingo sub- consciously you're brain says 'yuck, the floors blurry!' I clearly remember going from a V5 to an 8500 and my first observation about the FSAA was "what the hell is this supposed to be?" Thankfully it didn't take long to overlook the poorer FSAA and notice the ansio+FSAA combo but again without even trying it wasn't difficult to notice the difference.
Using the 9700 on a daily basis for a few hours each day has certainly left me with an opinion and mental picture of texture sharpness/FSAA etc so even the slightest difference between driver sets normally highlights itself.
I know ppl will want proof in the form of pics etc but I'm not going to go there. Only genuine movement really shows how effective FSAA is so until we've got the methods I'm afraid I can't say whether it’s the drivers implementation changing or my brains just getting pickier and pickier.
Anyway, it's all subjective and I'm not knocking ATIs results in anyway. The card as I've stated many times is simply outstanding, I guess I just need more FSAA?
OpenGL guy
Veteran
Re: Could my perpective I guess?
Why don't you reinstall the older drivers at least and see if you are correct?
Screenshots from different drivers can be useful to show image quality. If they look the same still, chances are they look the same in motion.Seiko said:
Why don't you reinstall the older drivers at least and see if you are correct?
OpenGL guy
Veteran
Re: Could my perpective I guess?
You were the one who brought it up, so I thought it would be better if you went and did the investigation yourself. There is no loss of image quality with the newer 9700 drivers that I am aware of. As I suggested: You should check for yourself, then you won't have to take my word for it.Seiko said:You could save me the time and tell me honestly I'm imagining the whole thing, or could you?
Re: Could my perpective I guess?
It was tongue in cheek.
I played around some more last night and I believe I'm being a bit harsh. Fired up Q3 again expecting to notice jaggies immediately and didn't. Only switching to the shot gun showed a few crawling edges. Switched over to UT2003 loaded Antalus and the stone pillars seemed very good. A few angles showed crawling textures but on the whole the image was simply stunning.
How can I explain this blunder, well either I imagined the whole thing or the sessions which I noticed the lower FSAA hadn't utilsied 6*FSAA properly
I'm pretty sure that the settings have always been 6*FSAA as I don't visit the control panel anymore Thats the whole beauty of the 9700. Slide everything to max and let bake for 2 hours gas mark 4! If I find any issues with the 779s and do go back to the 777s or 776s I'll ensure I do a full comparison to clear any confusion (for my own sanity at least).
Finally, are you guys planning on supporting 16bit FSAA?
OpenGL guy said:You were the one who brought it up, so I thought it would be better if you went and did the investigation yourself. There is no loss of image quality with the newer 9700 drivers that I am aware of. As I suggested: You should check for yourself, then you won't have to take my word for it.Seiko said:You could save me the time and tell me honestly I'm imagining the whole thing, or could you?
It was tongue in cheek.
I played around some more last night and I believe I'm being a bit harsh. Fired up Q3 again expecting to notice jaggies immediately and didn't. Only switching to the shot gun showed a few crawling edges. Switched over to UT2003 loaded Antalus and the stone pillars seemed very good. A few angles showed crawling textures but on the whole the image was simply stunning.
How can I explain this blunder, well either I imagined the whole thing or the sessions which I noticed the lower FSAA hadn't utilsied 6*FSAA properly
I'm pretty sure that the settings have always been 6*FSAA as I don't visit the control panel anymore
Thats the whole beauty of the 9700. Slide everything to max and let bake for 2 hours gas mark 4! If I find any issues with the 779s and do go back to the 777s or 776s I'll ensure I do a full comparison to clear any confusion (for my own sanity at least). Finally, are you guys planning on supporting 16bit FSAA?
horvendile
Regular
Seiko said:
Actually, no 16 bit AA is what keeps me from buying this card (I have some old games that I stubbornly refuse to let go of).
Well, that, and a serious shortage of monetary means.
Slightly off topic but the fact that I can play Morrowind with all details to max and with FSAA + AF has improved the whole experience and brought me back into the game in a big way. I even appreciate the gimmicky pixel shader effects on the water now.
I suppose what I am doing is justifying my purchase of an extremely expensive (relatively) piece of equipment. I still ain't told the wife how mich it cost.. hehe
I suppose what I am doing is justifying my purchase of an extremely expensive (relatively) piece of equipment. I still ain't told the wife how mich it cost.. hehe
Couldn't agree more
I'm glad others feel the same. The 9700 really does seem to be the card that gets us to the next level of IQ and performance. Having tried everything from a V3 to a V5, TnT, GF2 Ultra, GF3 Ti200, Radeon, 8500 and 9700 I can honestly say that only the 9700 manages to deliver on all counts.
[ note to Open_GL, except 16bit FSAA which is a real shame ]
I remember moving from my first card (the V3 which had blown me away compared with software rendering) to a V5 left me underwhelmed due to a lack luster performance. Of course overtime it grew on me thanks to it's 4*FSAA and aggressive lod but the initial impact of the card was kinda lame. The so called massive IQ increase moving from 16bit to 32bit just left me wondering what the hell review sites where smoking. Sure no banding but at the time it was an option I could gladly leave off and play in 22bit, could I today? Don't ask awkward questions
Thankfully at the time 3DFX where speaking my kinda language and placed alot of emphasis on the IQ/FSAA and that for me planted the seed for other companies to follow.
As for the so caled TnL revolution that too left me thinking what the hell are these guys saying. The GF2 offered very little to me in terms of increased IQ and jeez the price just blew me away. I'll remember that was the day that the hardcore gamer market was born, and boy I have to say even though the 9700 falls into this category I still regret it
Comparing the GFs, Radeons and V5s left me with one clear winner, the V5. Why? For me at least it actually seemed to offer something tangible, something that changed how my games looked. This feature was of course it's FSAA and - LOD and as I didn't need 100+ frames in Q3 and could use glide in UT the slower speed was easily overlooked.
As for the later cards GF3/GF4/8500 etc they really did seem more of the same with the contining balancing of settings. Some did FSAA fast enough some did AF fast enough but none really could handle them both so a comprimise was always required. I could be accused of being a little harsh on the GF4 here but with its heavy AF hit you won't see too many running UT2003 with all the eye candy.
The fact that the 9700 spits UT2003 out for breakfast even with everything maxed is a real good sign of just how well this thing performs. Most CPUs simply can't keep up with it so for me at least it's got a little bit of future proofing built in. Overall and without trying to sound like a talking billboard for ATI (doh too late) this thing kicks ass!
But get that 16bit FSAA fixed for FIFA200 and Starlancer
oops, sorry for the long post.
I'm glad others feel the same. The 9700 really does seem to be the card that gets us to the next level of IQ and performance. Having tried everything from a V3 to a V5, TnT, GF2 Ultra, GF3 Ti200, Radeon, 8500 and 9700 I can honestly say that only the 9700 manages to deliver on all counts.
[ note to Open_GL, except 16bit FSAA which is a real shame
]I remember moving from my first card (the V3 which had blown me away compared with software rendering) to a V5 left me underwhelmed due to a lack luster performance. Of course overtime it grew on me thanks to it's 4*FSAA and aggressive lod but the initial impact of the card was kinda lame. The so called massive IQ increase moving from 16bit to 32bit just left me wondering what the hell review sites where smoking. Sure no banding but at the time it was an option I could gladly leave off and play in 22bit, could I today? Don't ask awkward questions
Thankfully at the time 3DFX where speaking my kinda language and placed alot of emphasis on the IQ/FSAA and that for me planted the seed for other companies to follow.
As for the so caled TnL revolution that too left me thinking what the hell are these guys saying. The GF2 offered very little to me in terms of increased IQ and jeez the price just blew me away. I'll remember that was the day that the hardcore gamer market was born, and boy I have to say even though the 9700 falls into this category I still regret it
Comparing the GFs, Radeons and V5s left me with one clear winner, the V5. Why? For me at least it actually seemed to offer something tangible, something that changed how my games looked. This feature was of course it's FSAA and - LOD and as I didn't need 100+ frames in Q3 and could use glide in UT the slower speed was easily overlooked.
As for the later cards GF3/GF4/8500 etc they really did seem more of the same with the contining balancing of settings. Some did FSAA fast enough some did AF fast enough but none really could handle them both so a comprimise was always required. I could be accused of being a little harsh on the GF4 here but with its heavy AF hit you won't see too many running UT2003 with all the eye candy.
The fact that the 9700 spits UT2003 out for breakfast even with everything maxed is a real good sign of just how well this thing performs. Most CPUs simply can't keep up with it so for me at least it's got a little bit of future proofing built in. Overall and without trying to sound like a talking billboard for ATI (doh too late) this thing kicks ass!
But get that 16bit FSAA fixed for FIFA200 and Starlancer
oops, sorry for the long post.
Isn't the issue for this primarily due to MSAA and the way the 9700 does it?
How about going ahead and offering two sliders, one for MS AA and one for SS AA, labelled "Edge" and "Pixel" perhaps (as "Performance" and "Quality" don't seem desirable labels IMO). Then, let the "Pixel" (SS AA) AA setting work for 16-bit...wouldn't this be relatively easy to implement? I'm unclear of the hurdles you'd have to overcome for 16-bit FSAA, so if I'm off base please enlighten me.
Oh, it would be nice if the "What's this?" note for the "Pixel" AA mentioned it was much slower, and that the "What's this?" note for both mentioned whether they work with 16-bit graphics or not.
It's not as if the cards won't have the horsepower to handle SS AA well enough, and since it has been mentioned that SS AA and MS AA can be done simultaneously already...it seems to me this will be good enough (atleast for the short term) for those who are using 16-bit games, and will actually offer some benefit to users in general as well.
If "benchmarker blindness" is a concern, you could simply let the "Main Settings" slider never activate the "Pixel" AA.
I don't see how this could be turned against you or distorted any worse than the current situation.
How about going ahead and offering two sliders, one for MS AA and one for SS AA, labelled "Edge" and "Pixel" perhaps (as "Performance" and "Quality" don't seem desirable labels IMO). Then, let the "Pixel" (SS AA) AA setting work for 16-bit...wouldn't this be relatively easy to implement? I'm unclear of the hurdles you'd have to overcome for 16-bit FSAA, so if I'm off base please enlighten me.
Oh, it would be nice if the "What's this?" note for the "Pixel" AA mentioned it was much slower, and that the "What's this?" note for both mentioned whether they work with 16-bit graphics or not.
It's not as if the cards won't have the horsepower to handle SS AA well enough, and since it has been mentioned that SS AA and MS AA can be done simultaneously already...it seems to me this will be good enough (atleast for the short term) for those who are using 16-bit games, and will actually offer some benefit to users in general as well.
If "benchmarker blindness" is a concern, you could simply let the "Main Settings" slider never activate the "Pixel" AA.
I don't see how this could be turned against you or distorted any worse than the current situation.
Bigus Dickus
Regular
This is probably way too easy to be feasible, but why couldn't the 9700 simply default to a SSAA mode for 16-bit? Even if it wasn't available in the control panel, couldn't this "fix" the problem of no 16-bit AA?
And, any game stuck in 16-bit would be old enough that the performance penalty would be a non-issue.
And, any game stuck in 16-bit would be old enough that the performance penalty would be a non-issue.
Sounds like a good Idea to me Bigus. I'm still wanting to play system shock 2 with 6xaa. I fired up crimson skies and it looks horrible without aa. Guess I've gotten so spoiled with aa on all of my 32 bit games that I can't stand to play 16 bit games anymore due to lack of aa. Please Opengl guy, get this moved up in priority. Do it for the children. (works in politics)
Well, the reason for the format of my suggestion was a fews things:
I don't assume the SS AA is anything but OGSS (so it might not be desirable to introduce it as a poorer substitution in 16-bit...the "silent" difference in quality might cause confusion).
The next progress in dialog if OpenGL guy had responded would have been to suggest a "16-bit only" to the right of the slider (going on the assumption that it only went up to "4x" and based off the current layout) so the setting was only applied then.
Since it has been said that the 9700 can do both MS and SS AA at the same time, and since allowing the user to adjust how much of each seems to me to be the ultimate in flexibility for the two methods, I'm trying to propose the implementation of this as a way to offer a "good enough" solution to a seemingly common user complaint (16 bit FSAA), or atleast a complaint that is common among those who know what AA is.
I'm proposing this as a stop-gap solution to the 16-bit FSAA problem, and as an opportunity for some ATi people, if they feel like it, to enlighten us on some of the options being discuss.
I don't assume the SS AA is anything but OGSS (so it might not be desirable to introduce it as a poorer substitution in 16-bit...the "silent" difference in quality might cause confusion).
The next progress in dialog if OpenGL guy had responded would have been to suggest a "16-bit only" to the right of the slider (going on the assumption that it only went up to "4x" and based off the current layout) so the setting was only applied then.
Since it has been said that the 9700 can do both MS and SS AA at the same time, and since allowing the user to adjust how much of each seems to me to be the ultimate in flexibility for the two methods, I'm trying to propose the implementation of this as a way to offer a "good enough" solution to a seemingly common user complaint (16 bit FSAA), or atleast a complaint that is common among those who know what AA is.
I'm proposing this as a stop-gap solution to the 16-bit FSAA problem, and as an opportunity for some ATi people, if they feel like it, to enlighten us on some of the options being discuss.
Similar threads
