7900GT or X1900 GT?

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
lol... umm.. ok, whatever...

yes, performance is affected by image quality.

your contention image quality is not affected by performance is.. well, plain dumb.

I understand your point of view. I'm saying that if someone was going to be comparing nothing but the image quality, a single frame is all that is needed. I'm not implying that performance doesn't matter when it comes time to think about buying a card, I'm simply saying that a frame rate doesn't matter when comparing visual screen shots.

that's like stating screen shots tell the entire story of image quality in a game -- that's just not true.

I agree. Shimmering and texture crawling are both aspects to poor IQ that cannont be seen in screenshots.

fluidity is certainly part of image quality in any game -- they all attempt to trick our eyes (since the human eye doesn't see things frame by frame, which is why if you wave your hand in front of your face quickly your hand will 'blur') and simulate motion, and 1 fps would be a complete and utter failure.

Our eyes don't see frame by frame but the video cards do. They process one frame at a time, and when we measure the kind of image quality that AA pertains to we are examining each card's ability to render that frame to its fullest.

your argument would work for comparing photoshop images, but not games.

What did FS just do? What has nitromullet done? I agree that screenshots do not encompass every aspect of image quality and gameplay of a card nor every aspect of a game, but they do present more than enough material to examine the fundamentals. That is all they are intended for, since they are only examining one frame.

...again, we're not comparing static images, and therefore the rendering rate is completely relevant.

Once again, FS did compare single images, as well as nitro and anyone else who takes screenshots. It's just a base, and in order to universally measure IQ a screenshot remains to be the most accurate way.

Sometimes people play without vsync, some do. Even with multiple frames in action two different people could be experiencing vastly different image qualities--one would have ripped textures at certain points while the other would not. Also, sometimes conflicting drivers can create adverse effects that only show in real-time gameplay but are nonexistent in screenshots. Reletive image quality (the IQ one gets while actually gaming) is different than a basic screen shot examination of IQ, that's all I was saying.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: josh6079
Once again, FS did compare single images, as well as nitro and anyone else who takes screenshots. It's just a base, and in order to universally measure IQ a screenshot remains to be the most accurate way.

but you have to take that into context, and it is but only 1 part of the "image quality" equation.

i've never been one to put too much emaphasis on static screenshots (or for that matter, magnified pics), as while they can show minor differences in detail, that only represents a very small part of the overall image quality.

a great example is mip-map transitions which is one of the downsides of nvidia's filtering method. running without HQAF on the x1k cards, there is a very subtle difference in the detail of some textures, where the nv cards ever so slightly appears a bit sharper, which can be seen when comparing static shots. can this difference be noticed when the game is being played? no, because our eyes don't focus on that one aspect when we are looking at the entire screen. but there is something our eyes do notice (for me, to the point of annoyance/distraction): the transition on the nv cards where the filtering decreases dramatically (mipmap transisitions). to me, this degrades the image quality, yet if you only consider the magnified, static shot suggests it improves it.

so does the static shot represent image quality? quite the opposite, as what appears to be a minor advantage in the screenshot is a somewhat major disadvantage in motion.

this is why i argue that static screenshot are in many instances irrelevant when used to compare overall image quality. sure, it helps, but it cannot show the complete picture, and can even mislead...

Reletive image quality (the IQ one gets while actually gaming) is different than a basic screen shot examination of IQ, that's all I was saying.

well, i agree with that, which is exactly why i argue your contention that it only needs to be 1fps (unless the purpose is to compare static images, not games, which include motion).

.