7900GT or X1900XT

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
http://www.tech-hounds.com/review18/ReviewsComplete.html

It boils down to this. ATI's adaptive antialiasing is somewhat a mixed bag. In Performance mode, the image quality it offers is better than NVIDIA under the same setting. However, this is not the preferred mode of use. In Quality mode, which corresponds to supersampling on the GeForce 7 series, the Radeon adaptive antialiasing is not as effective. It only works well on objects that are near to the camera. There's still very noticeable aliasing (more so in motion) on faraway objects with transparent textures. Gamers looking for the best image quality in games with transparent textures, should be more happy with the GeForce 7 than the Radeon X1900

There is virtually no discernable difference between the majority of the screenshots they posted! Bit-tech's review with updated Catalyst drivers comes to the opposite conclusion of this website:

Essentially, both ATI and NVIDIA are doing the same thing and, not surprisingly, the final result is virtually the same too. In a blind taste test, you're not going to be able to tell the difference between the two supersampled alpha tested texture anti-aliasing techniques. That's good to hear, because we feel fairly confident in saying that if you've got a choice between two video cards and they're both playable with supersampled transparency/adaptive anti-aliasing, you couldn't have a better choice as either card is more than likely to satisfy your needs.

Then there's HardOCP's examination (older review with dated drivers):

n the third screenshot, we have a comparison with some vegetation and a tree that have alpha tested textures. With no AA, the tree branches and vegetation are very jagged. Adaptive AA really cleans up the image producing a very clean picture with 6X Adaptive AA. The GeForce 7800 GT also improves the image quality with a very clean picture with 8xS TR SSAA. However, as we have seen above, the Radeon X1800 XL seems to edge out the 7800 GT slightly by producing better image quality at default settings using anti-aliasing.

Source: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=ODIyLDgsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0

Then look at tech-hounds's clueless conclusion:

ATI's adaptive antialiasing is not as effective as NVIDIA's transparency anti aliasing. You don't really gain that much image quality improvement, even with Quality setting.

Gee who to believe? An article from a no-name site that provides screenshots which show hardly any difference between the filtering modes and claims quality AAA makes very little difference over performance AAA (they must be blind) or a respected site like bit-tech? Are you sure you're not the one that wrote that article because nobody with a pair of eyes would agree with their laughable conclusion.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Gee who to believe? An article from a no-name site

I predicted your response 3 pages back.

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
8XSS is a pure super sampling mode with a huge performance impact and negligible IQ gains over using adaptive AA. That article is also outdated compared to the one I linked you to. Nice try Trollage.

You asked for proof and I gave you proof.

I could spend all day proving your wrong but you will either say the article is outdated or from a biased site or some other BS. How about I just post a link to a story about denial and you can feel right at home.

Originally posted by: Jack Nicholson - A Few Good Men
You can't handle the truth!

I'm sure I could find more proof, but you will just wallow in your denial.

Anytime someone posts a link to a site you don't agree with, that site sucks and is biased :roll:

What a sad little world you live in :thumbsdown:

 

[BFG10K]

There is virtually no discernable difference between the majority of the screenshots they posted!

Likewise the same applies to AF shimmering yet you don't seem have any trouble believing nVidia shimmers more than ATi with AF.

I think you're well aware of the fact that moving aliasing can't be captured with still images which is why AF and AA screenshots are totally useless for motion.

And again you appear to be forgetting that ATi cannot do SSAA under OpenGL unless you run a Crossfire setup.

Even 6xAA adaptive is generally no match for nVidia's 16xAA in terms of image quality because unlike 16xAA, 6xAA adaptive only applies SSAA to alpha textures but doesn't AA any other textures.

 

[Cookie Monster]

I do think 8xTR S looks better than 6xAAA. I do believe IQ is really up to the user.

 

[Zebo]

i'm leaning that way... but i like $100 too

Whats $100? One night out with the girl or oblivion bliss for months not to mention other D3D games.. I say screw her I'm playin.

 

[Ackmed]

ATi has better IQ overall to me. Many reviews have stated as such, I dont know why its so hard to believe.

Originally posted by: BFG10K

There is virtually no discernable difference between the majority of the screenshots they posted!

Likewise the same applies to AF shimmering yet you don't seem have any trouble believing nVidia shimmers more than ATi with AF.

I think you're well aware of the fact that moving aliasing can't be captured with still images which is why AF and AA screenshots are totally useless for motion.

And again you appear to be forgetting that ATi cannot do SSAA under OpenGL unless you run a Crossfire setup.

Even 6xAA adaptive is generally no match for nVidia's 16xAA in terms of image quality because unlike 16xAA, 6xAA adaptive only applies SSAA to alpha textures but doesn't AA any other textures.

False, do I need to quote HardOCP about it? Under certain circumstances, NV shimmers much worse than ATi. That is a fact. Obviously you have not played with each card at 1920x1200 on a 24" WS LCD, or you wouldnt believe they are both the same.

NV's 8x is virtually useless. Yes it looks very nice, but getting playable frames in any sort of new game is not going to happen. Unless you like a slide show. Its nice for very old games, and thats about it. There is zero chance of me getting playable frames in virtually any game at 1920x1200.

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

False, do I need to quote HardOCP about it? Under certain circumstances, NV shimmers much worse than ATi. That is a fact. Obviously you have not played with each card at 1920x1200 on a 24" WS LCD, or you wouldnt believe they are both the same.

NV's 8x is virtually useless. Yes it looks very nice, but getting playable frames in any sort of new game is not going to happen. Unless you like a slide show. Its nice for very old games, and thats about it. There is zero chance of me getting playable frames in virtually any game at 1920x1200.

I agree. 8xAA does look better than 6xAA but, like Ackmed, I found that it was virtually unuseable in any of my modern games (including UT2004@1920x1200) even with oced 7800GTs. I was pretty excited to use 8xAA after I sold my X850XT for a 7800GTX but I couldn't get playable framerates so it became a useless feature for me.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: Zebo

i'm leaning that way... but i like $100 too

Whats $100? One night out with the girl or oblivion bliss for months not to mention other D3D games.. I say screw her I'm playin.

Hahah.. Hilarious.. :beer:
On a side note it's pretty funny that some of the Nvidiots are trying to equate X1900XT with 7900GT ...
That is simply amazing.. Period..
I don't want to o/c. I don't want to volt mod. I don't want to void my warranty.
Or these cases do not play role? Do you forget that a very considerable percentage of users don' t want to do all these? Do you honestly expect that the average user has the knowledge or wants to risk his card to reach a point where he can equate or even surpass the performance of a stock XT? And you want to pass this as a valid argument to an average user? Jesus Christ..
This is simply amazing.. I can accept the price /performance argument easily for lower than UXGA resolutions, but everything else is beyond my comprehension and extremely biased opinion...

It all comes down to these as far as concerns performance (keeping IQ outside)..
For resolutions till 1280x1024 get the 7900GT and keep the rest of your money. 7900GT is a great card..
For resolutions greater than 1280x1024 go for the x1900xt. Period. Everything else is fanatic BS.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Whats $100? One night out with the girl or oblivion bliss for months not to mention other D3D games.. I say screw her I'm playin.

well, first off.. to zebo: I nail the girl and play oblivion!

Originally posted by: jim1976
Hahah.. Hilarious.. :beer:
On a side note it's pretty funny that some of the Nvidiots are trying to equate X1900XT with 7900GT ...
That is simply amazing.. Period..[/b]

why is that? i can't understand it either. heck imo the 1900XT is better than the GTX, let alone the GT....

Originally posted by: jim1976
I don't want to o/c. I don't want to volt mod. I don't want to void my warranty.
Or these cases do not play role? Do you forget that a very considerable percentage of users don' t want to do all these? Do you honestly expect that the average user has the knowledge or wants to risk his card to reach a point where he can equate or even surpass the performance of a stock XT? And you want to pass this as a valid argument to an average user? Jesus Christ..

what's even funnier is that, for the most part, these exact people you are talking about (those that don't want to o/c, voltmod, etc. and make up the largest part of the market) are ALREADY buying the GT. thank nv's marketing i suppose, but seems to me the less knowledgeable, avg. consumer is the reason many places are stating nv is outselling ati.

Originally posted by: jim1976
This is simply amazing.. I can accept the price /performance argument easily for lower than UXGA resolutions, but everything else is beyond my comprehension and extremely biased opinion...

It all comes down to these as far as concerns performance (keeping IQ outside)..
For resolutions till 1280x1024 get the 7900GT and keep the rest of your money. 7900GT is a great card..
For resolutions greater than 1280x1024 go for the x1900xt. Period. Everything else is fanatic BS.

i disagree. for 1280x1024 imo the x1800XT is the better option considering you can get a 512mb version for $300. it's at least as fast as the 7900GT (they trade victories depending on game, but even then perf. is generally comparable), offers more features, and much better texture filtering.

the only downside would be if you need a single slot cooler, or you are sensitive to the power consumption/noise issue.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
well, first off.. to zebo: I nail the girl and play oblivion!

Roflmao.. You're so nasty I think he means that 100$ is nothing more than a night out with your girl..
And quite frankly I'd spent these 100$ (if this was a dilemma) to the card not to teh girl.. :laugh:

I disagree. for 1280x1024 imo the x1800XT is the better option considering you can get a 512mb version for $300. it's at least as fast as the 7900GT (they trade victories depending on game, but even then perf. is generally comparable), offers more features, and much better texture filtering.

the only downside would be if you need a single slot cooler, or you are sensitive to the power consumption/noise issue.

Well of course X1800XT is a great card for teh money as well, but I left it out of the equation since this was his original dilemma.. 7900GT or X1900XT.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Gee who to believe? An article from a no-name site

I predicted your response 3 pages back.

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
8XSS is a pure super sampling mode with a huge performance impact and negligible IQ gains over using adaptive AA. That article is also outdated compared to the one I linked you to. Nice try Trollage.

You asked for proof and I gave you proof.

I could spend all day proving your wrong but you will either say the article is outdated or from a biased site or some other BS. How about I just post a link to a story about denial and you can feel right at home.

Originally posted by: Jack Nicholson - A Few Good Men
You can't handle the truth!

I'm sure I could find more proof, but you will just wallow in your denial.

Anytime someone posts a link to a site you don't agree with, that site sucks and is biased :roll:

What a sad little world you live in :thumbsdown:

I made no mention of them being biased rather just being clueless. They claim Quality AAA makes no difference over Performance AAA, that is enough to tell me they have no idea what they're talking about. Then when you take into account they ARE a no-name website coming to the opposite conclusion of established sites like bit-tech (and even HardOCP..a pro-nV site) that is enough to dismiss their review outright. At least find a credible website to backup your claims.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
I made no mention of them being biased rather just being clueless. They claim Quality AAA makes no difference over Performance AAA, that is enough to tell me they have no idea what they're talking about. Then when you take into account they ARE a no-name website coming to the opposite conclusion of established sites like bit-tech (and even HardOCP..a pro-nV site) that is enough to dismiss their review outright. At least find a credible website to backup your claims.

Well you are a "no-name" forum poster and your claims are no more credible. You asked for proof, I gave you proof and as predicted you still can't get past yourself to see it.

I backed up what I said (as always). So any claims you make are just the desperate act of a losing argument.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
I made no mention of them being biased rather just being clueless. They claim Quality AAA makes no difference over Performance AAA, that is enough to tell me they have no idea what they're talking about. Then when you take into account they ARE a no-name website coming to the opposite conclusion of established sites like bit-tech (and even HardOCP..a pro-nV site) that is enough to dismiss their review outright. At least find a credible website to backup your claims.

Well you are a "no-name" forum poster and your claims are no more credible. You asked for proof, I gave you proof and as predicted you still can't get past yourself to see it.

I backed up what I said (as always). So any claims you make are just the desperate act of a losing argument.

You've got one no-name website claiming Q AAA makes no difference over P AAA while I have two credible sites saying the opposite. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: jim1976
Well of course X1800XT is a great card for teh money as well, but I left it out of the equation since this was his original dilemma.. 7900GT or X1900XT.

that's true.. but then it begs the question why is he comparing the GT to the 1900XT?

the problem with this who scenario is that, at least in the US, ati has an advantage at various pricepoints (apparently in europe and other parts of the world they aren't enjoying the same pricepoints for ati as we are here - the nv parts are less expensive).

when the g71's were first coming out, with their msrp's it seemed they were the better value. however since ati (or at least their partners) dropped the x1800xt to the $300 pricepoint, to me it became a better value than the GT's. really only the OC'd versions were as fast as the XT, and they generally run $330 or higher.

the 1900XT and XTX dropped to the <$450 range, while the GTX's are still >$500 (and frankly a bit harder to come by, tho there now seem to be in stock in many places), giving ATI a win there.

while NV's architecture does have some strengths, I just can't see how they have the advantage when they are at higher pricepoints. while certainly subjective, to me the x1k features (better filtering, HDR+AA) outweigh 7900's power consumption/heat output.

add to that ati at this time can beat nv at both pricepoint, and i can't see how you can say ati doesn't have the edge here. they are at least as fast or faster at both pricepoints, offer more features, and are less expensive.

until/unless nv changes the pricing landscape, ati offers the best value at the high end and "entry" high end.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
I made no mention of them being biased rather just being clueless. They claim Quality AAA makes no difference over Performance AAA, that is enough to tell me they have no idea what they're talking about. Then when you take into account they ARE a no-name website coming to the opposite conclusion of established sites like bit-tech (and even HardOCP..a pro-nV site) that is enough to dismiss their review outright. At least find a credible website to backup your claims.

Well you are a "no-name" forum poster and your claims are no more credible. You asked for proof, I gave you proof and as predicted you still can't get past yourself to see it.

I backed up what I said (as always). So any claims you make are just the desperate act of a losing argument.

You've got one no-name website claiming Q AAA makes no difference over P AAA while I have two credible sites saying the opposite. The burden of proof is on you.

do you consider bit-tech reputable?

"It's hard to compare ATI and NVIDIA's highest Anti-Aliasing setting, as they use different Anti-Aliasing techniques for their highest settings. NVIDIA have 8x SuperSampled AA, while ATI use 6x MultiSampled AA. As you'd expect, without any additional alpha texture Anti-Aliasing, 8xSAA looks slightly better than 6xMSAA.

When we do apply Adaptive AA and Transparency SuperSampled AA, the 7800 GT still looks better in our opinion. The windows on the building to the right and the tree left of centre look much better on the 7800 GT.

However, we mustn't forget ATI's temporal Anti-Aliasing method, which can be used if you enable Vsync and have a frame rate above 60 frames per second. Unfortunately, its impossible to capture that in a screen shot.

On the whole, the image quality between the two is pretty comparable - 4xAA is ATI's strength, while NVIDIA have a better solution at the top end."

overall they are comparable (in their opinion), and an argument can be made that, at least with newer games, the highest AA settings may not offer "playable" gameplay.

they both offer similar AA quality, however it's not like you can call someone out as being "wrong" if he feels NV has a slight edge here. there are "reputable" sites that support that opinion...

still, as close as they are in quality, arguing over which has better AA seems a bit of a waste as not only is "splitting hairs", but it is a bit subjective, and close scrutiny is required to see the minor differences..

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: jim1976
Well of course X1800XT is a great card for teh money as well, but I left it out of the equation since this was his original dilemma.. 7900GT or X1900XT.

that's true.. but then it begs the question why is he comparing the GT to the 1900XT?

the problem with this who scenario is that, at least in the US, ati has an advantage at various pricepoints (apparently in europe and other parts of the world they aren't enjoying the same pricepoints for ati as we are here - the nv parts are less expensive).

when the g71's were first coming out, with their msrp's it seemed they were the better value. however since ati (or at least their partners) dropped the x1800xt to the $300 pricepoint, to me it became a better value than the GT's. really only the OC'd versions were as fast as the XT, and they generally run $330 or higher.

the 1900XT and XTX dropped to the <$450 range, while the GTX's are still >$500 (and frankly a bit harder to come by, tho there now seem to be in stock in many places), giving ATI a win there.

while NV's architecture does have some strengths, I just can't see how they have the advantage when they are at higher pricepoints. while certainly subjective, to me the x1k features (better filtering, HDR+AA) outweigh 7900's power consumption/heat output.

add to that ati at this time can beat nv at both pricepoint, and i can't see how you can say ati doesn't have the edge here. they are at least as fast or faster at both pricepoints, offer more features, and are less expensive.

until/unless nv changes the pricing landscape, ati offers the best value at the high end and "entry" high end.

QFT. Very nice post at each and every comment.

 

[secretanchitman]

7900GT because of single slot cooling, quietness, high OCing, and better drivers (IMO).

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
I made no mention of them being biased rather just being clueless. They claim Quality AAA makes no difference over Performance AAA, that is enough to tell me they have no idea what they're talking about. Then when you take into account they ARE a no-name website coming to the opposite conclusion of established sites like bit-tech (and even HardOCP..a pro-nV site) that is enough to dismiss their review outright. At least find a credible website to backup your claims.

Well you are a "no-name" forum poster and your claims are no more credible. You asked for proof, I gave you proof and as predicted you still can't get past yourself to see it.

I backed up what I said (as always). So any claims you make are just the desperate act of a losing argument.

You've got one no-name website claiming Q AAA makes no difference over P AAA while I have two credible sites saying the opposite. The burden of proof is on you.

do you consider bit-tech reputable?

"It's hard to compare ATI and NVIDIA's highest Anti-Aliasing setting, as they use different Anti-Aliasing techniques for their highest settings. NVIDIA have 8x SuperSampled AA, while ATI use 6x MultiSampled AA. As you'd expect, without any additional alpha texture Anti-Aliasing, 8xSAA looks slightly better than 6xMSAA.

When we do apply Adaptive AA and Transparency SuperSampled AA, the 7800 GT still looks better in our opinion. The windows on the building to the right and the tree left of centre look much better on the 7800 GT.

However, we mustn't forget ATI's temporal Anti-Aliasing method, which can be used if you enable Vsync and have a frame rate above 60 frames per second. Unfortunately, its impossible to capture that in a screen shot.

On the whole, the image quality between the two is pretty comparable - 4xAA is ATI's strength, while NVIDIA have a better solution at the top end."

overall they are comparable (in their opinion), and an argument can be made that, at least with newer games, the highest AA settings may not offer "playable" gameplay.

they both offer similar AA quality, however it's not like you can call someone out as being "wrong" if he feels NV has a slight edge here. there are "reputable" sites that support that opinion...

still, as close as they are in quality, arguing over which has better AA seems a bit of a waste as not only is "splitting hairs", but it is a bit subjective, and close scrutiny is required to see the minor differences..

You should provide a link to the article. The one I linked to from bit-tech is their newest investigation of AAA vs TRAA (dated 4/7/06) and they conclude with:

Essentially, both ATI and NVIDIA are doing the same thing and, not surprisingly, the final result is virtually the same too. In a blind taste test, you're not going to be able to tell the difference between the two supersampled alpha tested texture anti-aliasing techniques.

Of course 6xAA doesn't look as good as 8xSS nor was that even contested here. Wreckage was trying to point out that TRAA is superior to AAA and he hasn't provided any credible proof yet - just one website that tested BF 2 and came to the laughable conclusion that performance AAA and quality AAA look the same.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
You should provide a link to the article. The one I linked to from bit-tech is their newest investigation of AAA vs TRAA (dated 4/7/06) and they conclude with:

Essentially, both ATI and NVIDIA are doing the same thing and, not surprisingly, the final result is virtually the same too. In a blind taste test, you're not going to be able to tell the difference between the two supersampled alpha tested texture anti-aliasing techniques.

Of course 6xAA doesn't look as good as 8xSS nor was that even contested here. Wreckage was trying to point out that TRAA is superior to AAA and he hasn't provided any credible proof yet - just one website that tested BF 2 and came to the laughable conclusion that performance AAA and quality AAA look the same.

true, i forgot to link.. but the while the article is older, their newer reviews (7900 GTX roundup dated 3/16/06) links to it, and the reason they gave:

"The antialiasing quality on both ATI and NVIDIA hardware is something that has remained the same for some time now and it's horses for courses, generally speaking. If you want a detailed break down in antialiasing quality, we suggest that you look at our Radeon X1800XL review."

(i did better on the link this time!).

and the issue to me wasn't which one is actually better (as i stated before some close scrutiny is required, and the differences are quite subtle, making them comparable - not to mention it's also somewhat subjective), but rather the fact that going back and forth on this is silly, as for one thing it's a little subjective, and the secondly it's not that difficult finding some post/review somewhere to support either opinion.

neither side is "wrong", and trying to "prove" either opinion false is something that can't really be done.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
You should provide a link to the article. The one I linked to from bit-tech is their newest investigation of AAA vs TRAA (dated 4/7/06) and they conclude with:

Essentially, both ATI and NVIDIA are doing the same thing and, not surprisingly, the final result is virtually the same too. In a blind taste test, you're not going to be able to tell the difference between the two supersampled alpha tested texture anti-aliasing techniques.

Of course 6xAA doesn't look as good as 8xSS nor was that even contested here. Wreckage was trying to point out that TRAA is superior to AAA and he hasn't provided any credible proof yet - just one website that tested BF 2 and came to the laughable conclusion that performance AAA and quality AAA look the same.

true, i forgot to link.. but the while the article is older, their newer reviews (7900 GTX roundup dated 3/16/06) links to it, and the reason they gave:

"The antialiasing quality on both ATI and NVIDIA hardware is something that has remained the same for some time now and it's horses for courses, generally speaking. If you want a detailed break down in antialiasing quality, we suggest that you look at our Radeon X1800XL review."

(i did better on the link this time!).

and the issue to me wasn't which one is actually better (as i stated before some close scrutiny is required, and the differences are quite subtle, making them comparable - not to mention it's also somewhat subjective), but rather the fact that going back and forth on this is silly, as for one thing it's a little subjective, and the secondly it's not that difficult finding some post/review somewhere to support either opinion.

neither side is "wrong", and trying to "prove" either opinion false is something that can't really be done.

Well I'm not disagreeing with you (first in a long time eh). I'm simply contesting Wreckage's blanket statement about TRAA being superior to AAA. I think they look equivalent as well and finding differences between them is splitting hairs.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: secretanchitman
7900GT because of single slot cooling, quietness, high OCing, and better drivers (IMO).

Sorry, the 7900GT is not quiet.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: ST
overclock or no overclock?

yes - 7900gt volt mod

no - x1900xt

Ya, because X1900XT's don't oc very well.


OP- Go for the X1900XT. I went from two 7800GTs@550/1300 (which would be faster than a heavily oced 7900GT) to my current card and I'm very happy with the choice. IMO it's well worth the extra $100.

hey same thing I did. I definitely feel this one card (x1900xt) is better than those 2 cards I had.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Well I'm not disagreeing with you (first in a long time eh).

OMG! wtf is going on!!!!

maybe i need to rethink my opinion!

 

[jiffylube1024]

Texture quality is a wash. X1900 is faster for games (what I assume you'll be using such a high end card for). Keep the X1900, return the 7900GT if this is the case.

Btw (not like I need to tell you this), Wreckage will post anything to convince you to buy Nvidia. He's the next Rollo (or the next of a generation of Rollos).

 

[BFG10K]

False,

Sorry? What's false? That still images can't demonstrate shimmering?

Under certain circumstances, NV shimmers much worse than ATi. That is a fact.

Agreed, nVidia's default driver settings shimmer far more than ATi. I am not disputing this at all.

Obviously you have not played with each card at 1920x1200 on a 24" WS LCD, or you wouldnt believe they are both the same.

I regularly game at 1920x1440 with 16xAA.

In any case I didn't say they were the same, that's simply a strawman argument you've concocted. I simply stated still images are useless for showing the problem like Joker was attempting to do with AA.

And you do know that the xS modes reduce texture shimmering, right?

NV's 8x is virtually useless.

I totally disagree. Maybe in the past but not now as the G7x series is fast enough to use it in a lot of games, even in single card configurations. Also if you can run 8xAA you can generally run 16xAA as the performance hit between the two is surprisingly small.

Yes it looks very nice, but getting playable frames in any sort of new game is not going to happen.

Vampire Bloodlines is a 2004 game it it runs well on just a regular 7800GT with 16xAA enabled. It also looks gorgeous.

Its nice for very old games,

Yes, it is. The image quality of 16xAA has to be seen to be believed and a very large chunk of my gaming library is now being enjoyed at 16xAA.

There is zero chance of me getting playable frames in virtually any game at 1920x1200.

The same applies to 6xAA (especially adaptive) unless you run Crossfire, at which point you can bring SLI into the picture.

The fact is on single cards ATi has no equal to nVidia's 8xAA and 16xAA and given how ATi fanboys always harp on about ATi's superior IQ they conveniently like to downplay nVidia's AA superiority.