FiringSquad does image quality comparisons...again

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: redbox

Originally posted by: Gstanfor

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: GstanforIn ATi's case the rot started with R200 and they have started to address the issue with their new AF mode in r5xx (but not before they triggered the IQ war that led to the situation we see today).

doh! too bad nvidia had neither the engineering skill nor initiative to do something other than follow ati down that same path... but wait, since ati has done something about it with r5xx, maybe nvidia can once again "follow the leader" and take the same direction of ati by improving texture filtering w/ g80...

nvidia will take the initiative once again with G80, you can rest assured of that.

The reason it didn't happen for G7x is because G7x is a refresh product (just like r4xx was a refresh product and ATi users had to wait for R5xx for the improved anisotropic filtering).

So which brand is going to have a unified shader.

Unified can be approached many different ways.

For one, theres a rumour that NV will have dedicated PS/TMU (so a traditional pipeline) and a pool for VS/GS hence unified shaders.

Unfied could be PS/VS/GS or any of the two because DX10 allows you to do this.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: dug777

Oh & that crap you posted notioceably doesn't look at moving images, which is essentially the only placve where you can see shimmerinhg. So yeah, if you bought your card to look at screenshots, maybe the IQ was similar...but i bought mine to play games

do you have any better "crap" that compares the IQ of R4xxx and NV4x? a couple other posters agreed with me that the NV40 and R4xxx IQ is comparable, too

Aside from making a high res video there's very little i can do to show you what mean, but i can assure you that while the screenshot to screenshot comparison may be essentially similar (expcept nvidia shadows, but that is a specific & horrible case ), a freshly installed, default setting AND HQ setting my 6600GT was dramatically more shimmery than my 9800 pro, during gameplay, which is where it mattered to me.

I regularly play on my mates 9550(it's clocked faster than the 9600XT on both core & RAM ) in the same games as i play on my 6600GT, and ATI HQ still seems far less 'shimmery' to me, but again, aside from taking a high res video there's no real way to show you what this means with still screenshots...


EDIT: don't get me wrong, my 6600GT is a great card, overclocks like a banshee, it's dead silent & cool with a zalman vf700CU, and i imagine i enjoy a significant speed bump over my 9800 Pro in newer games, but i'd love to see the day Nvidia Quality setting actually means anything, as i showed recently, there is essentially no performance increase going from Q to HP, but a significant one going from Q to HQ...and i still don't see why i have to fiddle around with LOD Clamp to reduce shimmering, surely that should be default at HQ?

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
feeling confused are we Josh?

The only confusion I have is why you continue to ramble in this thread since your posts are nothing but biased opinions that attempt to glorify Nvidia, even if they have a problem.

As for HDR+AA & revised AF, we've know since well before g70's lauch (and long, long before r5xx's launch) that G80 would have these features (among many others)...

Exactly my point. You claimed:

nvidia will take the initiative once again with G80, you can rest assured of that.

but failed to comment on how ATI has already initiated those features. They can't take the initiative if another company has already been utilizing it for close to a year.

The reason it didn't happen for G7x is because G7x is a refresh product...

You're now supporting that Nvidia has been doing nothing but refreshes since the 6 series and instead have claimed that ATI has furthered their technology and graphical advancments since they have actually introduced something that isn't a refresh:

R5xx is a new design and I never claimed it was a refresh of r3/4xx.

Aside from you're backfiring ATI bashes, the image quality between the two is more dependent on what the gamer wants more (or how sensitive they are to flaws). While some could go and buy a fancy 19" CRT that Phillips makes to disable the shimmering accompanied by any current Nvidia card, others would prefer to move a simple slider bar up from Quality to High Quality.

On the subject of ATI's AA, maybe you can find a monitor that keeps it's alpha textures from disappearing, that or perhaps a OpenGL extension, game glitch fix, or another wonder that cures this fault. Afterall, you seem to know that no image issue like shimmering or disappearing textures could possibly be related to the video card or its drivers.

 

[Gstanfor]

Yep, and lets not forget that the GF-FX series used a pooling approach to vertex shaders, so its not as if its an untried concept.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: schneiderguy
G70 is heavily based off the NV40 architecture, it could be considered a refresh all it adds is worse AF, gamma corrected AA, and transparency AA

Wow, great refresh. ATI fixed more things, and none for the worse, when they did the X1900 refresh.

 

[Gstanfor]

I have never at any stage portrayed G7x as anything other than a refresh of nv40 at anytime on this forum or any other. Good luck trying to find a post of mine that claims otherwise...

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: josh6079

Originally posted by: schneiderguy
G70 is heavily based off the NV40 architecture, it could be considered a refresh all it adds is worse AF, gamma corrected AA, and transparency AA

Wow, great refresh. ATI fixed more things, and none for the worse, when they did the X1900 refresh.

The consumers of the world certainly think so. ATi can only dream of matching g7x's sales...

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: josh6079

Originally posted by: schneiderguy
G70 is heavily based off the NV40 architecture, it could be considered a refresh all it adds is worse AF, gamma corrected AA, and transparency AA

Wow, great refresh. ATI fixed more things, and none for the worse, when they did the X1900 refresh.

Well.. they fixed pure video and made it even better. Probably tweaked SLi to make it more efficent across the two cards. Less heat and power are another things. Not to mention they added 2 full ALUs per pipe and other architectural changes.

Actually, they changed quite abit of stuff, but all in all its all based on NV40. G70 is NV47, and i think G71 is NV48. They simply ran out of names, go i think they resorted into using G7x code names.

 

[josh6079]

I have never at any stage portrayed G7x as anything other than a refresh of nv40 at anytime on this forum or any other. Good luck trying to find a post of mine that claims otherwise...

I never said you did, and I wouldn't excpect you to show me, or anyone, anything regarding evidence. It's just not your nature.

The consumers of the world certainly think so. ATi can only dream of matching g7x's sales...

This is one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever seen. Only you could bring an image quality thread to another commerce discussion.

Well.. they fixed pure video and made it even better. Probably tweaked SLi to make it more efficent across the two cards. Less heat and power are another things. Not to mention they added 2 full ALUs per pipe and other architectural changes.

Actually, they changed quite abit of stuff, but all in all its all based on NV40. G70 is NV47, and i think G71 is NV48. They simply ran out of names, go i think they resorted into using G7x code names.

That's why I found it hard to be considered just a refresh. They are two different beasts, and when you compare a 79 series to a 68 series, the difference is pretty large. I too think they changed quite a lot. If people want to look at those kinds of things as refreshes, that's fine--it just goes to show how much a beating Nvidia can give a dead horse. I just thought that the 7 series deserved a little more than a refresh sticker.

Back to the topic, I would appreciate it if you would enlighten me as to why you

...doubt the video card has anything whatsoever to do with it...

concerning shimmering on Nvidia hardware.

 

[acegazda]

While it is true that nvidia has done a great job with SLi, (and ATi has done a less than spectacular job with xfire) getting quad sli to function as it should, will prove to be a daunting task. They have their work cut out for them really, it's not a fluke at the start, and they should be able far overtake any of ATi's xfire offerings. Another thing, is every computer component is a refresh (except the original product of course) a company makes a product, then makes it better each year, or half year, or when needed. It would be way to expensive to make a totally new product every year. That's why nvidia screwed two 7900gt's together and called it a 7950gx2.

 

[Gstanfor]

You are truly amazing Josh. I suppose for your next trick you will turn around and tell us that R4xx is'nt an R3xx refresh or thatnv25/28 wasn't an nv20 refresh or that rv280 wasn't a refresh of r200...

The "beasts" really aren't all that different from each other actually, as 91.47 enabling T:AA on nv4x demonstrates. I'm willing to bet that g7x's 2nd fullyblown ALU is tucked away inside nv4x also just not fully functional (you can see evidence of that in that nv4x's 2nd alu has an adder but not a multiplier - the bit that was "added" with g7x).

Companies refine and gradually enable all of their silicon designs over time and we know these refinements as refresh products in the graphics world.

 

[CaiNaM]

g70 was not a "refresh" of nv40. while it's heritage is certainlynv40, g70 doesn't use the same core. refreshes have always been nothing more than a tweak/speed bump using the same core.

g70 was simply an evolution of the nv40 architecture, not a revolution. g71 should probably be considered a "refresh", as it's functionally the same as g70, however there was plenty of redesign required as nvidia moved to 110nm to 90nm.

 

[Gstanfor]

No, minor refreshes *can* be nothing more than a speed bump, but that doesn't mean that all refreshes are nothing more than that.

nvidia (and ATi) make it blindingly obvious what happens with their code names (yes, G7x did redefine the naming, however G70's old style name is/was nv47).

 

[josh6079]

If people want to look at those kinds of things as refreshes, that's fine--it just goes to show how much a beating Nvidia can give a dead horse. I just thought that the 7 series deserved a little more than a refresh sticker.

Back to the topic, I would appreciate it if you would enlighten me as to why you

...doubt the video card has anything whatsoever to do with it...

concerning shimmering on Nvidia hardware.

If you want to continue discussing irrelevant material I suggest you make a thread. Otherwise drop the "AF War" that "ATI started", the finite definition of a refresh, your monitor's prestige, and company profits. You have yet to admit that the shimmering issues prevalently found with Nvidia hardware is any problem what so ever. Instead you have side shuffled every remark concerning it and haphazzardly blamed ATI in defense.

 

[Avalon]

As evidenced by the last half of this page worth of posts, the term "refresh" doesn't mean the same thing for everyone. No point in trying to convince each other that your view of a refresh is right.

 

[schneiderguy]

Originally posted by: josh6079

Originally posted by: schneiderguy
G70 is heavily based off the NV40 architecture, it could be considered a refresh all it adds is worse AF, gamma corrected AA, and transparency AA

Wow, great refresh. ATI fixed more things, and none for the worse, when they did the X1900 refresh.

at least they did SOMETHING. all R3xxx ---> R4xxx added was more pixel pipelines and vertex shaders, while nvidia added SM3 support, new AA algorithms, SLI, and HDR support.

 

[josh6079]

I wasn't doubting that Nvidia added much. I was simply remarking on the degrade in image quality that was added instead of subtracted.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: josh6079

Originally posted by: schneiderguy
G70 is heavily based off the NV40 architecture, it could be considered a refresh all it adds is worse AF, gamma corrected AA, and transparency AA

Wow, great refresh. ATI fixed more things, and none for the worse, when they did the X1900 refresh.

at least they did SOMETHING. all R3xxx ---> R4xxx added was more pixel pipelines and vertex shaders, while nvidia added SM3 support, new AA algorithms, SLI, and HDR support.

While the features stayed relatively unchanged, they practically doubled their performance over the R300 by adding those pixel pipelines and vertex shaders. Besides, it's not like they could just take the R300 core and plop the extra units on. I still consider that significant, even if Nvidia went the extra step that round.

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor

Originally posted by: josh6079

Originally posted by: schneiderguy
G70 is heavily based off the NV40 architecture, it could be considered a refresh all it adds is worse AF, gamma corrected AA, and transparency AA

Wow, great refresh. ATI fixed more things, and none for the worse, when they did the X1900 refresh.

The consumers of the world certainly think so. ATi can only dream of matching g7x's sales...

Walmart has awsome sales figures, that still doesn't change the fact that it still sells crap.

Intel graphics sell the pants off both ATI and Nvidia that doesn't mean they are awsome cards.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Avalon

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: josh6079

Originally posted by: schneiderguy
G70 is heavily based off the NV40 architecture, it could be considered a refresh all it adds is worse AF, gamma corrected AA, and transparency AA

Wow, great refresh. ATI fixed more things, and none for the worse, when they did the X1900 refresh.

at least they did SOMETHING. all R3xxx ---> R4xxx added was more pixel pipelines and vertex shaders, while nvidia added SM3 support, new AA algorithms, SLI, and HDR support.

While the features stayed relatively unchanged, they practically doubled their performance over the R300 by adding those pixel pipelines and vertex shaders. Besides, it's not like they could just take the R300 core and plop the extra units on. I still consider that significant, even if Nvidia went the extra step that round.

yes.

although it seems like some people expect the slate to be wiped clean before it's considered something other than a refresh.

by that thinking starting from gf1 thru gf2, gf3 & gf4 were really nothing more than "refreshes" as well, since the core architecture started with the original geforce. features were also mostly the same; the biggest difference was moving to different video memory.. wasn't until fx series that nv took a different approach.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Avalon
As evidenced by the last half of this page worth of posts, the term "refresh" doesn't mean the same thing for everyone. No point in trying to convince each other that your view of a refresh is right.

QFT!!

 

[TanisHalfElven]

who ****** cares whether its a ****** refreash or a new product. ppl pay full price for hence hardly matters.

its a bad mark against nvidia that they are so far behind ati in term of tenchnology.
if they did not make a new product its their fault. not anyone else's.

 

[schneiderguy]

Originally posted by: tanishalfelven

its a bad mark against nvidia that they are so far behind ati in term of tenchnology.

what?

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: josh6079
If people want to look at those kinds of things as refreshes, that's fine--it just goes to show how much a beating Nvidia can give a dead horse. I just thought that the 7 series deserved a little more than a refresh sticker.

Just like the beating ATi continues to give R200 Josh? and nv4x/g7x is far from dead as its popularity with consumers, developers and ability to compete with ATi shows...

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
by that thinking starting from gf1 thru gf2, gf3 & gf4 were really nothing more than "refreshes" as well, since the core architecture started with the original geforce. features were also mostly the same; the biggest difference was moving to different video memory.. wasn't until fx series that nv took a different approach.

See, you're capable of making sense when you put some effort into it...