Wich card is the king of the hill (nv40 or R420)
- Thread starter Rican
- Start date
- Status
Sabastian said:
So what color glasses did ATI send you?
A couple things I've taken away from reviews and the rantings here
1) ATI's AF is definitely more efficient than NVs
2) Nvidia's AF may be more 'correct' but does not look any better than ATI's
3) Nvidia's AA may be more efficient based on reviewers' comments and benchmarks
4) ATI's AA looks better to ATI fans and the same as Nvidia to Nvidia fans
5) ATI supports a higher level of MSAA (6x) than Nvidia so duh it looks better - Nvidia has no equivalent
6) Any argument involving comparison of NV 8xAA performance wise is retarded since ATI has no equivalent so what's the point?
Please feel free to correct me on any of the above
Evildeus said:
Someone's been talking to my wife. <bada bing!>
Just a little humor to lighten the mood. 8)
Comparing ATI 6x and NV 8x is retarded because NV is slower and STILL looks worse (except for the slight increase in texture quailty if you're using 4xM with 2xS).
I was saying that performance comparisons are stupid because they're not even comparable on IQ.trinibwoy said:The Baron said:
Huh? Who? What? Where? When?
L233 said:
Look . save the images to your hardrive.
Open them up and zoom in on the power lines.
Notice that the ati power lines look strait while the nvidia power lines have more of a stair effect going on .
Its obviously there .
Yes its not something easily seen but if u spend enough time with it on you start to notice it when its off .
There are only two differences between NVidia's 2x and 4x AA, and ATI's 2x and 4x AA respectively:
- the patterns are mirrored, which means images will look different, but that's no advantage to anyone.
- ATI offers gamma "correction" which may look better or worse, depending on your monitor and global gamma settings.
Simply stating that one is clearly better only indicates what gamma settings and monitor you're using.
- the patterns are mirrored, which means images will look different, but that's no advantage to anyone.
- ATI offers gamma "correction" which may look better or worse, depending on your monitor and global gamma settings.
Simply stating that one is clearly better only indicates what gamma settings and monitor you're using.
Guys, back up and think..... Those photos happen to show ATI at their best, where the gama correction really shows up. (and those that cannot see the differences better stop playing with themselves! ) And it really does point out that, at the same level of FSAA, ATI is better, but, in most cases, not by a huge amount - I certainly wouldn't buy ATI over nV IFthese were the only differences.... But it's not! Yes, you cannot compare anything nV has with ATI's 6X FSAA....and THAT'S the real point......
) And it really does point out that, at the same level of FSAA, ATI is better, but, in most cases, not by a huge amount - I certainly wouldn't buy ATI over nV IFthese were the only differences.... But it's not! Yes, you cannot compare anything nV has with ATI's 6X FSAA....and THAT'S the real point......Well, I could tell the difference quite clearly. It was supposed to be a wire, and ATI did a better job of making it look like a wire rather than a jagged line. At 4x AA you could see gamma correction making a difference, and 6x AA was actually quite impressive. Elements of that wire really looked like a curving line.
The question is, how many 2004 games will be playable at hi-res and 6xMSAA? Looks to me like it's only an option on older games. And will the majority of the public be sold on a marginal increase in quality?
Despite the fact that you notice it in screenshots, most people won't, especially if they can't run two monitors side by side to see the difference.
Frankly, I can run at 6xMSAA in CounterStrike easily on my R300, but I don't, because the differences aren't that distinguishable when I'm playing. In a flight sim it might be different, but the biggest difference for me is loading up FarCry and then loading up CS. No level of AA makes CS less than butt ugly.
So for me, I'd rather spend transistors on making lighting and shadowing better. I think enough bandwidth and transistors have been burned on AA now, and it's "OK", just like AF. Sure, you go could to higher levels of texture filtering, but the gains are marginal. Time to spend transistors elsewhere.
Different strokes for different folks.
Despite the fact that you notice it in screenshots, most people won't, especially if they can't run two monitors side by side to see the difference.
Frankly, I can run at 6xMSAA in CounterStrike easily on my R300, but I don't, because the differences aren't that distinguishable when I'm playing. In a flight sim it might be different, but the biggest difference for me is loading up FarCry and then loading up CS. No level of AA makes CS less than butt ugly.
So for me, I'd rather spend transistors on making lighting and shadowing better. I think enough bandwidth and transistors have been burned on AA now, and it's "OK", just like AF. Sure, you go could to higher levels of texture filtering, but the gains are marginal. Time to spend transistors elsewhere.
Different strokes for different folks.
Quitch said:
Yes the difference seems quite apparent. The AA on the shots from 3DM2003 also seem obviously better.
If it is a matter of simply these situations showing ATi at their best I would like to see situations where NV's AA is clearly better.. I haven't seen any such thing yet. Xmas suggested it is the gamma on my screen that is effecting the way I see these shots.. (checks gamma.. set at default level.) I am not going to go on and on about this .. particularly if there is little consensus. I am flabbergasted by the suggestion that the AA is comparable though. Maybe a blind test would be appropriate?
- Status
Similar threads
- Deleted member 2197
- PC Hardware, Software and Displays