Don't let low res textures do this to you.

[VIAN]

grrr.

 

[Lonyo]

You mean the way nVidia now does it as well?
Obviously not too crappy.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
You mean the way nVidia now does it as well?
Obviously not too crappy.

NVIDIA had to, everyone was crying about the performance hit, and we all know the the length of the bar = how good the card is.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Lonyo
You mean the way nVidia now does it as well?
Obviously not too crappy.

NVIDIA had to, everyone was crying about the performance hit, and we all know the the length of the bar = how good the card is.

It's just an acceptable compromise.

 

[LTC8K6]

I believe you will be able to choose the type of AF with NV's drivers. So you will still be able to use NV's old way.

 

[VIAN]

If Nvidia does it now then they suck too.

I had to turn it back on to 4x performance, I coudln't stand the blurriness anymore.

I don't think It's that acceptable. did you see the difference between Nvidia and ATI, it's remarkable. After looking at Nvidia's, ATI hurts to look at.

Hopefully, for those of you who will be able to get their hands on a new 6800, they did give an option.

 

[Matthias99]

review

The GeForce 6800 Ultra renders the scene correctly, though,and even enjoys a slight advantage over the Radeon 9800XT.

...

In this scene, there were no discernable differences between the Radeon 9800XT and the GeForce 6800 Ultra.

...

Once again, the 9800XT and the 6800 U offer virtually identical results. While the FX 5950 U does a good job of filtering the area in the foreground, we can see reduced filtering quality on the lid and the landscape in the background .

...

So we see that NVIDIA has come abreast of ATi where anisotropic filtering is concerned with the GeForce 6800 Ultra.

...

It is nothing short of frightening, how far NVIDIA has reduced the filtering quality of the FX 5950 U over the past few months.

Oh yeah, ATI's implementation is clearly awful... not. Look at the shots. There's practically no difference between the 9800XT and 6800U, and the 5950U looks downright blurry even at 8x AF.

 

[VIAN]

yeah but that's with the new drivers.

Let me show you here.

 

[Avalon]

It's easy to see the difference when you've got two pictures stacked on top...but when I'm in the middle of a firefight, I really can't tell the difference :\

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
I believe you will be able to choose the type of AF with NV's drivers. So you will still be able to use NV's old way.

I seriously hope so, i was disappointed when i found out they used the relaxed adaptive AF algorithm.

 

[Mem]

ATI's AF was really annoying me.

I love my 16x AF performance setting, you just got to love the minimal hit on FPS which still looks great IMHO.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: VIAN
yeah but that's with the new drivers.

Let me show you here.

Oh, God forbid they use the new drivers. If NVIDIA is hosing their AF quality in newer drivers, that's not a good thing. I don't want to have to trade bug fixes for performance and IQ hacks.

Yes, there are situations where ATI's adaptive algorithm looks worse. Here's a shot from the site you gave where ATI is clearly not as good on the more distant textures (although it's still not night-and-day, and who builds games with giant single-textured pentagonal hallways?)

comparison (mouseover for comparison)

Also, if you set the LOD bias, the difference is pretty minimal -- ATI is just more aggressive with their filtering by default. Here's their shots with the LOD bias set to -3.0:

picture (mouseover to see the comparison)

That's pretty damn subtle. In most real-world situations, the comparisons I've seen put them about equal, with maybe a *slight* edge to NVIDIA (though ATI takes less of a performance hit, so it's sort of a wash). You can find places where ATI's algorithm looks noticeably worse, but they're pretty contrived.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
I believe you will be able to choose the type of AF with NV's drivers. So you will still be able to use NV's old way.

I seriously hope so, i was disappointed when i found out they used the relaxed adaptive AF algorithm.

no you can't.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yeah, I have been frantically searching for the place where I heard that. Alas, I cannot find it. I suspect TheSnowman is correct.

 

[VisableAssassin]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
review

The GeForce 6800 Ultra renders the scene correctly, though,and even enjoys a slight advantage over the Radeon 9800XT.

...

In this scene, there were no discernable differences between the Radeon 9800XT and the GeForce 6800 Ultra.

...

Once again, the 9800XT and the 6800 U offer virtually identical results. While the FX 5950 U does a good job of filtering the area in the foreground, we can see reduced filtering quality on the lid and the landscape in the background .

...

So we see that NVIDIA has come abreast of ATi where anisotropic filtering is concerned with the GeForce 6800 Ultra.

...

It is nothing short of frightening, how far NVIDIA has reduced the filtering quality of the FX 5950 U over the past few months.

Oh yeah, ATI's implementation is clearly awful... not. Look at the shots. There's practically no difference between the 9800XT and 6800U, and the 5950U looks downright blurry even at 8x AF.

IQ is subjective when will people learn this?
if he doesnt like it...its opinion you can point to a million reviews but if he says it sucks then it sucks...maybe not for you but for him it does.
anymore the IQ is so damn close you have to pretty much nit pick to find a real difference.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: VIAN
yeah but that's with the new drivers.

Let me show you here.

Games are what matters.

 

[Jeff7181]

I believe nVidia has incorporated that texture filtering optimization again... ya know, where they only do trilinear filtering PART of the time... that can be disabled to have trilinear filtering performed all the time, which results in a slight performance hit, and probably increases image quality a tad. I believe Tom's Hardware had some compariosons with that turned on and off.

 

[VIAN]

Games are what matters.

Yes games matter, but games with annoying graphics don't. Let that be the reason why I bought and sold my PS2 after 2 games.




OOOOO, LOD -3. Anyone know how to do that?

 

[Illissius]

I believe you can turn it off. The new drivers have a Quality as well as a High Quality (not sure about the names, but something like that) setting, and the High Quality turns off either brilinear or adaptive AF, can't remember which, while the other is a checkbox option somewhere. If you really want I can dig up an article with it (read about it in more than one), think one of them was at techreport.

 

[Pete]

LOD -3 will give you texture shimmering out the wazoo, IIRC. Avoid it, as texture shimmering was one of the negatives of ATi's transistor-stingy texture filtering with the 8500 and 9800 (per a 3DC article). I'm not sure if that carried over to the X800, or if nV adopted it with the 6800.

 

[VIAN]

That sucks.

That reminds me of the Texture Shimmering with the Voodoo5, but it was nothing the Voodoo5 could clear up with some FSAA. Damn too bad for the Voodoo5, their LOD was nice and didn't really bother with a performance hit. It was like free AF.

 

[BFG10K]

ATI's AF was really annoying me.

Then turn it off.

I had to turn it back on to 4x performance, I coudln't stand the blurriness anymore

Back from what? You didn't like buriness so you lowered the setting to fix it?

After looking at Nvidia's, ATI hurts to look at

Then you shouldn't have any trouble clearly and accurately describing the differences in your own words and using your own situations.

 

[Dman877]

I never understood why people used af anyway, textures in real life get more blurry the farther they are from you. Besides, when you're busy trying to shoot a guy in the head, what does it matter whether the wall surface 50 feet away is a little sharper...

And as to ATI vs Nvidia, the screenshots show similar quality with the one caviat that at certain angles, ATI's af just doesn't get applied. I can't believe people who are actually PLAYING games would get so upset by something as trivial as a few non-af'd surfaces... Certainly the old nvidia way is superior but really, how big a deal is it? In most cases I'm sure it comes down to what type of fanboy you currently happen to be...

Please don't accuse me of fanboy-ism either, I don't use af so the fact that I use an ATI card doesn't factor into this debate.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: VIAN
grrr.

:roll:

trolling again?

Originally posted by: VIAN in this thread:
I still tout that ATI's AF is better because 8x didn't have the non-trilinear mip-maps and ATI also supports 16x, which may be needed in some games where Nvidia failed. Nvidia does, however, provide less texture aliasing with their AF.

 

[VIAN]

Back from what? You didn't like buriness so you lowered the setting to fix it?

In the previous title, I mentioned that I had turned it off.

I still tout that ATI's AF is better because 8x didn't have the non-trilinear mip-maps and ATI also supports 16x, which may be needed in some games where Nvidia failed. Nvidia does, however, provide less texture aliasing with their AF.

With Nvidia, you were able to notice the mip-maps at 8x, which was fixed. ATI's mip-map transitions are much harder to spot. At that time, before I saw the article posted above, I thought that both cards have similar AF, even though many reviews praised ATI for theirs.

And just recently, I started using 16x AF and when the angles get too small it just blurs into one color, which is more annoying than not having AF at all. But without AF everything is too blurry, so I settled at 4x performance. And I don't notice the problem anymore - yet.