yes because the NV card needs a nuclear plant to power it :roll:
the NV card doesnt need two molexs to run...it uses the second one if your gonna oc....when will people learn?
yes because the NV card needs a nuclear plant to power it :roll:
the NV card doesnt need two molexs to run...it uses the second one if your gonna oc....when will people learn?
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,003
- 126
The problem with the issue in general is the coloured mip maps and how they detect them. Some have claimed that auto-generated mip-maps are detected but the problem is that the guy from Epic has said that all the Unreal 2 engine does is change the colour values but the workload is exactly the same. Hence the mip-maps aren't auto-generated at all.
The other problem is that nVidia seems to be suffering performance hits as well when colourmips are used.
As for AF hits in general, that really means nothing. The amount of hit you'll take varies because of a multitude of reasons, depending on what the scene does. A low performance hit from 2x to 16x doesn't necessarily mean anything at all.
The other problem is that nVidia seems to be suffering performance hits as well when colourmips are used.
As for AF hits in general, that really means nothing. The amount of hit you'll take varies because of a multitude of reasons, depending on what the scene does. A low performance hit from 2x to 16x doesn't necessarily mean anything at all.
It's no secret that the NV40 does well in DirectX 7/8 titles that utilize OpenGL (or specifically the Quake III engine). What makes ATi's cards so attractive is that they still run DirectX 9 titles faster, completely tooling the NV40 in some cases. Those old games are running fast enough - it's the newer games that desperately need the performance.
Actually it was.
I could be wrong, but I thought the NV card was using at least 20 watts more at idle. All adds up. Next time i buy amd for the same reason. I agree is only a small savings. Still I would like to see estimates of the actual cost power wise of running different set ups.
There has been a lot of discussion about our trilinear filtering algorithms recently.
The objective of trilinear filtering is to make transitions between mipmap levels as near to invisible as possible. As long as this is achieved, there is no "right" or "wrong" way to implement the filtering.
We have added intelligence to our filtering algorithm to increase performance without affecting image quality. As some people have discovered, it is possible to show differences between our filtering implementations for the RADEON 9800XT and RADEON X800. However, these differences can only be seen by subtracting before and after screenshots and amplifying the result. No-one has claimed that the differences make one implementation "better" than another.
Our algorithm for image analysis-based texture filtering techniques is patent-pending. It works by determining how different one mipmap level is from the next and then applying the appropriate level of filtering. It only applies this optimization to the typical case ? specifically, where the mipmaps are generated using box filtering. Atypical situations, where each mipmap could differ significantly from the previous level, receive no optimizations. This includes extreme cases such as colored mipmap levels, which is why tests based on color mipmap levels show different results. Just to be explicit: there is no application detection going on; this just illustrates the sophistication of the algorithm.
We encourage users to experiment with moving the texture preference slider from ?Quality? towards "Performance" ? you will see huge performance gains with no effect on image quality until the very end, and even then, the effect is hardly noticeable. We are confident that we give gamers the best image quality at every performance level.
Microsoft does set some standards for texture filtering and the company?s WHQL process includes extensive image quality tests for trilinear filtering and mipmapping. CATALYST passes all these tests ? and without application detection, which could be used if you wanted to get a lower-quality algorithm go undetected through the tests.
Finally, ATI takes image quality extremely seriously and we are confident that we set the bar for the whole industry. We don?t undertake changes to our filtering algorithms lightly, and perform considerable on-line and off-line image analysis before implementing changes. This algorithm has been in public use for over a year in our RADEON 9600 series products, and we have not received any adverse comments on image quality in that time. If anyone does find any quality degradation as a result of this algorithm, they are invited to report it to ATI. If there is a problem, we will fix it
The objective of trilinear filtering is to make transitions between mipmap levels as near to invisible as possible. As long as this is achieved, there is no "right" or "wrong" way to implement the filtering.
We have added intelligence to our filtering algorithm to increase performance without affecting image quality. As some people have discovered, it is possible to show differences between our filtering implementations for the RADEON 9800XT and RADEON X800. However, these differences can only be seen by subtracting before and after screenshots and amplifying the result. No-one has claimed that the differences make one implementation "better" than another.
Our algorithm for image analysis-based texture filtering techniques is patent-pending. It works by determining how different one mipmap level is from the next and then applying the appropriate level of filtering. It only applies this optimization to the typical case ? specifically, where the mipmaps are generated using box filtering. Atypical situations, where each mipmap could differ significantly from the previous level, receive no optimizations. This includes extreme cases such as colored mipmap levels, which is why tests based on color mipmap levels show different results. Just to be explicit: there is no application detection going on; this just illustrates the sophistication of the algorithm.
We encourage users to experiment with moving the texture preference slider from ?Quality? towards "Performance" ? you will see huge performance gains with no effect on image quality until the very end, and even then, the effect is hardly noticeable. We are confident that we give gamers the best image quality at every performance level.
Microsoft does set some standards for texture filtering and the company?s WHQL process includes extensive image quality tests for trilinear filtering and mipmapping. CATALYST passes all these tests ? and without application detection, which could be used if you wanted to get a lower-quality algorithm go undetected through the tests.
Finally, ATI takes image quality extremely seriously and we are confident that we set the bar for the whole industry. We don?t undertake changes to our filtering algorithms lightly, and perform considerable on-line and off-line image analysis before implementing changes. This algorithm has been in public use for over a year in our RADEON 9600 series products, and we have not received any adverse comments on image quality in that time. If anyone does find any quality degradation as a result of this algorithm, they are invited to report it to ATI. If there is a problem, we will fix it
You might want to mention that is from ATi, not from you, Bar81.
And thats why you dont jump the gun without proof, or an official word from the source.
And thats why you dont jump the gun without proof, or an official word from the source.
still this isnt gonna stop them selling cards is it..........all those uneducated consumers wanting the latest an greatest when they buy a new PC from radioshack or something....they not gonna know and neither will the salesman....he say this is the best you can buy...now hand over the cash!
Because they're not doing trilinear when they claim they are. All they're doing is dressing it up to sound like an accomplishment when all it is is a cheat to squeeze more performance out of card when that performance isn't there with true trilinear. Also, if this wasn't a cheat then they would give us a brilinear setting and let *us* decided what looks good and what doesn't. If this was nVidia, there would be an outcry en masse.
PS there's no better proof than when a company admits its cheating like ATI has done here.
PS there's no better proof than when a company admits its cheating like ATI has done here.
What the hell that has to do with global warming and oil I don't know what.....All the vid cards in the world could not harm the atmosphere since they put out no such greenhouse gases that are blamed for global warming...If you think do to the higher watts of heat the vid card put out...LOL!!! Not even close....ONe eruption by a volcano in indonesia or someplace like that will far more effects on global warming then heat produced by vid cards or computers......
What is your theory on "oil wars"?? Power plants must use oil to produce electricity to power these "hogs"???
Until my computer comes with an exhaust system emitting hyrdo-flourocarbons I wont worry about it....
You know the fact is most of you gamers with your relentless thirst for FPS, often times way above what is needed for smooth play is what fuels this....YOu ppl have given these card companies the impression speed is more important then IQ...Speed is more important then worrying abount creating these hot, loud and power hungry beasts....Speed at all cost....These companies are simply doing what you want...
My question is and I agree comaratively it is unfair, but if there is little or no noticeable IQ effects then I say it is an optimization as they are putting performance first at only a cost of minor to neglible quality....
I say what if the trilinear for which by accounts appears it may tough to even notice an improvement when in use, is merely a waste as the performance hit is not outweighed by any IQ disadvanatges. Wouldn't that make it clear it is a bad method of filtering.....Maybe Nvidia should just allow us to turn it off and see if Nvidia gains a big boost or not without it....
Nobody saids this had to be apples and apples comparisons...Differences in architecture in cpus shows us that it can be quite different...
The real questions...
1) Is brilinear a better filter if trilinear takes such a hug hit for unnoticeable by the eye IQ enhancements???
2) Is ATI just optimizing things it knows are trivial to use because of the hard to realize IQ advantages....
3) Is ATI actively hiding this or will they step up and just tell us the reason for their implementation....
By the way I am buying an Nvidia (older version card) and I have an ATI card now that I have been pleased with...Either way I can care less....
rbV5
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2000
- 12,632
- 0
- 0
Link to Inquirer article "ATI makes statement on optimising algorithms"
If thats actually ATI's statement, at first glance it "seems" a reasonable explanation. I'll wait till everything sorts out. Its interesting about using the new implementation for over a year with 9600 and nobody reported negative comments (including review sites) I'll see what the big heads figure, it will be interesting next several weeks as the new cards hit the market, new drivers released and intense scrutiny from the community.
If thats actually ATI's statement, at first glance it "seems" a reasonable explanation. I'll wait till everything sorts out. Its interesting about using the new implementation for over a year with 9600 and nobody reported negative comments (including review sites) I'll see what the big heads figure, it will be interesting next several weeks as the new cards hit the market, new drivers released and intense scrutiny from the community.
Wait! Does this mean that a 9600Pro isn't faster than a 5900Ultra like everyone was saying after Shady Days?!?!?
How will I know which card to buy after all this?
LOL
Ahh, but BFG, how do we know the ATI cards are running those couple of DX9 games faster, in light of their cheater drivers? How do we know they're not cheating on other things as well??
Yeah, Quack was a bug that just happened to make the only game anyone ever benchmark at the time run 20% faster with lower IQ. Yeah, that's it, a driver bug, that's the ticket. Again, I say if ATI is cheating on the famous AF and never bothered to tell us while guys like you spent the last year and a half pointing at their AF and pimping it like it was the saviour of mankind, I think I'll assume they cheated with Quack too. (not to mention the 3dmark cheats in their drivers from last year)
Sorry BFG. Those who spent much time trying to make us all think nVidia are criminals on the order of Al Quaeda for their "Brilinear" are probably going to have to hear about ATIs brilinear a few times.......
Personally, I never cared and said that playing the games it was hardly noticeable, but you hammered it in every chance you got about the "butt ugly", "inferior", "lieing" IQ, when what you were comparing it to all along had the same sort of cheats in it.
Am I the only one who sees the irony here?
Its all a cheat and all an illusion. The object is to create the 3D illusion on a 2D screen, thats it. Who cares how its done, as long as its done convincingly. Hyperthis and supersamplethat, its all just crap to me. What I, JoeSixPack, needs is:
1) a card that is available, not vaporware
2) at least 60 fps (for a little cushion) at my maximum monitor setting with all the eye candy on, if it can't be done, who comes closest
3) find the cards that meet the above criteria and narrow down the list
4) read the various reviews on Image Quality and whos eye candy lies the best
5) if the reviews don't produce a clear winner, try them both and sell the one I like the least if I can't see them live
To sum it up, I want the card that lies, optimizes, or what ever you wish to call what Nvidia and ATI are doing, the best. I want to be fooled and fooled in the most grandiose way, and will choose the liar based on the cheapest price for the foolery I want.
What the hell, the $300-$500 card you buy today is worth 20%-50% of that in the very near future when a new round of nonsense is up for debate. Image Quality is very subjective, to each his own. NVidia's illusion is not the same as ATI illusion for sure, but I will not say who fools me more than the other without taking each out for a spin around the block.
I WANT TO BE DECEIVED!! and deceived well for my hard earned jack.
1) a card that is available, not vaporware
2) at least 60 fps (for a little cushion) at my maximum monitor setting with all the eye candy on, if it can't be done, who comes closest
3) find the cards that meet the above criteria and narrow down the list
4) read the various reviews on Image Quality and whos eye candy lies the best
5) if the reviews don't produce a clear winner, try them both and sell the one I like the least if I can't see them live
To sum it up, I want the card that lies, optimizes, or what ever you wish to call what Nvidia and ATI are doing, the best. I want to be fooled and fooled in the most grandiose way, and will choose the liar based on the cheapest price for the foolery I want.
What the hell, the $300-$500 card you buy today is worth 20%-50% of that in the very near future when a new round of nonsense is up for debate. Image Quality is very subjective, to each his own. NVidia's illusion is not the same as ATI illusion for sure, but I will not say who fools me more than the other without taking each out for a spin around the block.
I WANT TO BE DECEIVED!! and deceived well for my hard earned jack.
You're not JoeSixPack. JoeSixPack wants FX5200 or Radeon 9200.[/quote]
So Jethro ain't allowed to have a luxurious cement pond too?? He doesn't know how it works, how its made, or what it is, but he sure do like it. 6800s and X800s are only reserved for the technocrats? Bull.
So Jethro ain't allowed to have a luxurious cement pond too?? He doesn't know how it works, how its made, or what it is, but he sure do like it. 6800s and X800s are only reserved for the technocrats? Bull.
[/quote]It's like poking a bear with a stick
[/quote]
I was thinking more like whacking em over the head with a baseball bat then running away with his honey pot.
Overall I'm stayin out of it lol.
[/quote]I was thinking more like whacking em over the head with a baseball bat then running away with his honey pot.
Overall I'm stayin out of it lol.
Not at all. The irony is quite visible. But in all honesty, if someone chooses to try and make excuses for a company, than it is their loss and their money down the drain. I for one rather look at things constructively and then formulate an opinion either in favor or against a corporation that I have previously done business with....like buying one of their videocards.
After working on Wall Street for three years I can say this with confidence. No one cares about you if you're not buying their products or have tons of money. Stop sticking up for anyone who doesn't give a damn about you, it's a company not your family.
And ATi is cheating. A filter allowing for these optimizations on the X800 and no filter on the 9800xt? "Brinlinear" which is a faster way of optimizing and increasing FPS performance over true "Trilinear" ( yet the end user thinks they are getting trilinear and ironicly there is no option for a brilinear setting in the control settings panel ) is a cheat, and you can slice it any way you like but a duck is still a duck. That in itself in more than enough to see right through their PR BS posted on the Inquirer. (thats PR for Public Relations and BS...well you all get that I am sure
)A statement like that is always released by a corporation in response to something "uncovered" by an outside party that sheds negative light on them. Why? Because they do not want to lose profit or future financial gain. If it wasn't a cheat, they would have released a statement that more or less said, "we can prove to anyone the innacuracy of the findings recently and are 100% positive our line of videocards doesn't use filters or optimizations to gain a performance advantage over the competition". One of their lines said (more or less)....if something is found in the code that optimizes, then we will fix it. Well now, doesn't that leave a lot of leverage in their favor? It's a plausible/deniable statement where no specific side is taken on their end. If no one finds out about it, then F8ck them. If someone does find it, they can say "oh we are happy you pointed that out and will now work relentlessly at fixing the problem and finding a solution". What nonsense. Read between the lines of the Inquirer Post and you can say plently of loopholes and open ended dialogue.
Geesh. You guys are acting like the ATI implementation of Brilinear is the Devil's doing when in fact Nvidia has been going it as well for the past two years(and globally at that).
Rollo, you said that ATI's implementation of quack was a cheat and gave it a speed enhancement of 20%. Show me the proof please as every site I saw showed the FPS to be the same after the so called ?cheat? was removed. What you are saying is an out and out LIE!!
I consider all these Brilinear optimizations to be cheap. I would rather have true tri when I want it but in the holy grail of ?my b@lls are bigger than yours mentality? that has affected the entire graphics card industry, things will only get worse. We will see more from Nvidia and ATI trying to 1-up each other by trying to squeeze as much fps as possible to beat the competition. We saw it on a global incarnation with the NV3X and it will continue this generation.
Rollo, you said that ATI's implementation of quack was a cheat and gave it a speed enhancement of 20%. Show me the proof please as every site I saw showed the FPS to be the same after the so called ?cheat? was removed. What you are saying is an out and out LIE!!
I consider all these Brilinear optimizations to be cheap. I would rather have true tri when I want it but in the holy grail of ?my b@lls are bigger than yours mentality? that has affected the entire graphics card industry, things will only get worse. We will see more from Nvidia and ATI trying to 1-up each other by trying to squeeze as much fps as possible to beat the competition. We saw it on a global incarnation with the NV3X and it will continue this generation.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter