Firingsquad Publishes HDR + AA Performance Tests

[schneiderguy]

Originally posted by: wizboy11
Is the link bad?

For me, from their homepage I get this:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/hdr_aa_ati_radeon_x1k/

the link in the OP was working earlier

now it doesnt, but yours does

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Actually I would consider FS the most red biased site on the net. It's no suprise that the redfanboys here always quote that site above all others.

Lol. First it was members pulling benchmarks out of their butts because they got results from Hardware.fr. Heaven forbid we get benchmarks from a French site (Behardware.com is their English counterpart). Especially when it shows an ATI card beating an Nvidia product. :disgust: Than it was B3D that was biased and now it's Firingsquad.

I'm sure there are biased reviewers out there but so far you have offered no proof that Firingsquad is one of those sites.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Actually I would consider FS the most red biased site on the net. It's no suprise that the redfanboys here always quote that site above all others.

Lol. First it was members pulling benchmarks out of their butts because they got results from Hardware.fr. Heaven forbid we get benchmarks from a French site (Behardware.com is their English counterpart). Especially when it shows an ATI card beating an Nvidia product. :disgust: Than it was B3D that was biased and now it's Firingsquad.

I'm sure there are biased reviewers out there but so far you have offered no proof that Firingsquad is one of those sites.

I will just bookmark these quotes, when people say the same thing from the red team. So if FS in not biased who is?

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

I will just bookmark these quotes, when people say the same thing from the red team. So if FS in not biased who is?

I'd say NvNews leans to the green side (hard to tell from their name ). I used to think Rage3D leaned towards the red but after just reading their review of the 7950 GX2 I'm rethinking that opinion as they cast the X1900XTX in a very bad light. It was only one review so maybe that reputation is still deserved. VR-Zone leans towards the green team. Shamino is a very talented individual but you can tell he really likes his Nvidia products. Other than that I can't think of any truly biased sites off the top of my head. There are only 7-8 sites that I read reviews from and they all seem fairly even-handed.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: thilan29
Finally there's some evidence from a reputable site that certain crusaders of NVidia cards can't deny and say "but adding AA to HDR will make games unplayable so it's useless anyway".

Of course, this is what ATI X1K users have been saying for a while.

Actually I would consider FS the most red biased site on the net. It's no suprise that the redfanboys here always quote that site above all others.

:Q *gets popcorn*

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: Wreckage

I will just bookmark these quotes, when people say the same thing from the red team. So if FS in not biased who is?

I'd say NvNews leans to the green side (hard to tell from their name ). I used to think Rage3D leaned towards the red but after just reading their review of the 7950 GX2 I'm rethinking that opinion as they cast the X1900XTX in a very bad light. It was only one review so maybe that reputation is still deserved. VR-Zone leans towards the green team. Shamino is a very talented individual but you can tell he really likes his Nvidia products. Other than that I can't think of any truly biased sites off the top of my head. There are only 7-8 sites that I read reviews from and they all seem fairly even-handed.

That was my point. You listed 2 sites that you consider NVIDIA biased. Yet, I guess it's impossible for any site to be ATI biased. :roll:

Only Rage3D's forums are biased. Ratchet does excellent reviews going back several years.

I don't want to continue dragging this thread off topic. My point was made. FS reviews can be taken with a grain of salt. It would be foolish to think that applying AA to HDR would not affect peformance. Other sites of noted this, that's why it is odd for FS to say otherwise.

 

[nts]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
...
FS reviews can be taken with a grain of salt. It would be foolish to think that applying AA to HDR would not affect peformance. Other sites of noted this, that's why it is odd for FS to say otherwise.
...

Wow you are quick to start downplaying features and defending your mighty nvidia. Did you even read the first post or the article linked?

Let me quote the article for you...

Adding 4xAA/8xAF to Far Cry running with HDR had very little effect on the Radeon cards relatively speaking. At 1600x1200 the Radeon X1900 XTX?s performance drops by just 2 fps, or a little over 4%, while the X1800 XT 512MB sees an even slimmer 2% drop off. Even the slower Radeon X1800 GTO and X1900 GT cards see only slight declines once AA is added on top of HDR in Far Cry.

Considering Farcry is old and not as demanding as oblivion, no suprises here

Under the greater demands of Oblivion, the margins are definitely greater, but we still saw manageable frame rates; adding AA to HDR actually comes free at 1024x768 for all cards except the Radeon X1800 GTO, and keep in mind that we could easily turn down the graphics settings a little for even better performance. In our outdoors testing the Radeon X1900 XTX saw a performance dropoff of nearly 30% while the Radeon X1800 XT took at performance hit of 21% once HDR+AA was enabled. Similarly, the Radeon X1900 GT took a greater hit than the GTO.

Performance affected, yes. Still very much playable, yes.

FS claiming no performance affected, NO.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

i can now experience this HDR and AA..... (just installed sapphire X1900XT)

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

That was my point. You listed 2 sites that you consider NVIDIA biased. Yet, I guess it's impossible for any site to be ATI biased. :roll:

Like I said in my first post, I'm sure there are sites out there who are biased towards ATI. I am not debating that. I'm just not personally familiar with any.

I don't want to continue dragging this thread off topic. My point was made. FS reviews can be taken with a grain of salt. It would be foolish to think that applying AA to HDR would not affect peformance. Other sites of noted this, that's why it is odd for FS to say otherwise.

I'd love to read some other reviews about the use of HDR+AA if you wouldn't mind some links (and I'm not being sarcastic here).

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Actually I would consider Wreckage the most green biased forum member on the net. It's no suprise that he always makes stuff out of his @ss.

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: thilan29
Finally there's some evidence from a reputable site that certain crusaders of NVidia cards can't deny and say "but adding AA to HDR will make games unplayable so it's useless anyway".

Of course, this is what ATI X1K users have been saying for a while.

Actually I would consider FS the most red biased site on the net. It's no suprise that the redfanboys here always quote that site above all others.

Feel free to post your results for comparison.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: thilan29
Finally there's some evidence from a reputable site that certain crusaders of NVidia cards can't deny and say "but adding AA to HDR will make games unplayable so it's useless anyway".

Of course, this is what ATI X1K users have been saying for a while.

Actually I would consider FS the most red biased site on the net. It's no suprise that the redfanboys here always quote that site above all others.

The funny thing is that bias (real or imagined) on FS for NVIDIA or ATI simply doesn't even play into this. They didn't include NV in the benches at all. They simply looked at the difference between HDR with and without AA in the X1800/X1900s. Just becasue they published the fact that HDR+AA is playable on these cards doesn't make them biased. It's the truth, those of us who own these cards have been saying it for months.

I've owned more G70 and G71 cards this year than ATI cards, and I have to say that for the moment ATI has a leg up with HDR+AA. Go back a year though, and NV was thrashing ATI with their 7800GTX... ATI couldn't simply couldn't touch it, and didn't for quite a few months. So, relax, just because says something positive about ATI it doesn't make them a fanboy.

 

[imported_Crusader]

The resolution is only maxed out at 1600x1200. And they also only gave the minimum framerate numbers in Foliage for 1280x1024, not 1600x1200.

I'd like to see minimum framerate numbers from FS in both 1600x1200 and 1920x1200 in foliage.

We already knew HDR+AA was playable at low resolutions, and in older less intensive games like FC/HL2.
High resolution, where the power users tend to game at on their 24inch LCDs (1920x1200) are where the numbers truley either make or break this HDR+AA Oblivion hack-job.
I'll give credit where its due if ATI could push 19x12 in the intensive areas of Oblivion like Foliage, but they cannot even with Crossfire.
Let alone a reasonable purchase like a single XT or XTX.

Yet both the 19x12 resolution, and minimum framerates for 1600x1200 are absent.. not surprised.
Nothing to see here.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Crusader
...I'll give credit where its due if ATI...

You would not... I can shens.

 

[imported_Crusader]

Err.. if its the truth I will. I'm highly critical of both ATI and Nvidia. I want the best product, period. But I will champion the best product very proudly and very vocally, no matter what that is, much to the dismay of each camp of fanboys.

Originally posted by: Wreckage
My point was made. FS reviews can be taken with a grain of salt. It would be foolish to think that applying AA to HDR would not affect peformance. Other sites of noted this, that's why it is odd for FS to say otherwise.

Who cares about FS being biased? The truth is the truth.
They are is exposed by what they left out, not by their past reviews or what they said in this one.
They cant lie to much on cold, hard, FPS numbers. Which is why they left out very important information that I detailed above.

Sure, its a biased site probably like most. Theres nothing wrong with being biased.
But you cant lie. And they dont here, they just selectively picked out a very sly way of trying to present HDR+AA in the best light possible. In an effort to further an agenda to promote ATI, as you stated they attempt to do.

It doesnt work, but they probably do feel they've created "cold hard facts" that somehow justifies HDR+AA hackjobs without the developers consent.
They are probably expecting fanboys all over the net to point to this article and say "SEE LOOK, ATI IS FAST ENOUGH FOR HDR+AA!"

Sure it is, in low resolution... and if you conveniently ignore minimum framerates for resolutions above 1280x1024.. Yay for hacked HDR+AA?

I personally prefer games the way the developer intended, without ATIs invasive measures that they do in attempt to one-up Nvidia.
This is the sort of business that NV also did during the FX days. To be fair, its nothing short of Quack 3 either. For those who remember that. Or ATI trylinear.
Its clear from ATIs very, very oversaturated HDR in Oblivion that either NV or ATI are not doing HDR completely properly. I'm guessing its ATI as its far far to washed out and bright to even be considered realistic.
Thats really a non-issue to me though, as maybe someone likes burning out their corneas? I dont like ATIs HDR implementation though with or without AA from the screenshots that Keys hosted. ATI HDR, with or without AA/AF is truley not "HDR done right".

Bottom line is that I'll let Bethesda decide how Oblivion should look and work.

 

[nitromullet]

Those were my screenshots (hosted by Keys), and if you had bothered to read that thread you would have known that the original set were taken with an illumination spell cast. A second set were posted without the spell cast.

scroll down

edit: why the NV card barely even shows the spell is unknown to me....

 

[fierydemise]

Whose surprised by this, after months of downplaying HDR+AA as unplayable (contrary to the posts of those who actually own the cards), the greens are out in force trying to downplay this article as biased and untrue. They've already lost the argument that its under utilized with one of the post popular games today now they've lost the unplayable so they're resorting to just screaming bias and accusing ATI of "invasive measures." Go back under you're rocks, HDR+AA is here, it works, and people are loving it. Take off the fanboy glasses and see this for what it is or go away.

 

[Ika]

As much as I hate to say this, but from my knowledge FS is ATI-skewed. I remember when the X1800s were first coming out, FS did a preview of the 7900GTX vs. the X1800XT. In the FEAR benchmark, FS showed the X1800XT winning by... almost 80%. That was a big fish.

 

[imported_spank]

Originally posted by: Crusader
High resolution, where the power users tend to game at on their 24inch LCDs (1920x1200) are where the numbers truley either make or break this HDR+AA Oblivion hack-job.
I'll give credit where its due if ATI could push 19x12 in the intensive areas of Oblivion like Foliage, but they cannot even with Crossfire.
Let alone a reasonable purchase like a single XT or XTX.

Yet both the 19x12 resolution, and minimum framerates for 1600x1200 are absent.. not surprised.
Nothing to see here.

Taking some 7900gtx numbers from there old oblivion review and comparing to this new one:
Gforce 7900 GTX 1280*1024 8xAF HDR
min 21 max 27

Radeon X1900 XTX 1280*1024 8xAF 4xAA HDR
min 29 max 37

Gforce 7900 GTX 1600*1200 8xAF HDR
avarage 20.3

Radeon X1900 XTX 1600*1200 8xAF 4xAA HDR
avarage 24.5

If you think the performance for ati with hdr+aa is bad, well its even worse with a nvidia card without AA. Or atleast it was back then, to bad they did't inlcude any nvidia numbers in there review without AA, but i guess that would have looked to bad for nvidia, and since FS is nvidia biased, well.

 

[josh6079]

I've learned that it doesn't pay to argue with Nvidiots. If Wreckage and Crusader want to think that HDR+AA is still unplayable, that's for them to decide. Kudos for everyone else who actually gets to enjoy it.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Aflac
As much as I hate to say this, but from my knowledge FS is ATI-skewed. I remember when the X1800s were first coming out, FS did a preview of the 7900GTX vs. the X1800XT. In the FEAR benchmark, FS showed the X1800XT winning by... almost 80%. That was a big fish.

You mean this preview?

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_x1800_xt_xl/page14.asp

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
That's right there are only NVIDIA biased sites, there could never be ATI biased sites. :roll:

I never said there are only NVidia biased sites but every time there is something good posted about ATI some fanboy comes in claiming bias.

Did you see me claiming that all sites are biased towards NVidia because the 7950 performed well?? Didn't think so.

You talking about hyprocrisy is hilarious when an obviously extremely biased person such as yourself claims the site is biased.

It's alright though, keep posting your BS...I think most people here know how you lean.

 

[Tangerines]

Wow, that looks awesome. I'll have to spring for one of those cards soon to replace my aging 6800NU. Which should I get though? The X1800 series or the X1900 series? Advice would be appreciated.

 

[imported_Crusader]

Originally posted by: fierydemise
Whose surprised by this, after months of downplaying HDR+AA as unplayable (contrary to the posts of those who actually own the cards), the greens are out in force trying to downplay this article as biased and untrue. They've already lost the argument that its under utilized with one of the post popular games today now they've lost the unplayable so they're resorting to just screaming bias and accusing ATI of "invasive measures." Go back under you're rocks, HDR+AA is here, it works, and people are loving it. Take off the fanboy glasses and see this for what it is or go away.

First of all, you guys are the ultimate spin doctors.

No one is saying this article is untrue.

It is very much the truth.

Problem is, much is left out. For example: 1920x1200 results (most power users that have rigs capable of HDR+AA, and also are even AWARE of the fact that ATI has hacked the game frequently use 24inch widescreen LCDs). Also minimum framerates above 1280x1024 are missing.

Whats wrong with this? Do you think simply because the article leaves this stuff out, you know.. the stuff that would make HDR+AA in Oblivion look absolutely horrible, that all of us who realize this are somehow your evil tormentors?

Or maybe FS just left alot out for a reason. And you want to buy their conclusion so very badly because you are biased as well?

Give me minimum frames above 1280x1024, and 19x12 in foliage and I'll submit "defeat" (since to most of you its not about the truth, but about winning or losing an argument about the viability of HDR+AA in Oblivion).

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Crusader
I'll give credit where its due if ATI could push 19x12 in the intensive areas of Oblivion like Foliage, but they cannot even with Crossfire.
Let alone a reasonable purchase like a single XT or XTX.

How many people play Oblivion at very high resolutions?? NVidia cards can't do those resolutions either and get good fps in Oblivion but I don't see you bagging them over it?

Originally posted by: Crusader
Give me minimum frames above 1280x1024, and 19x12 in foliage and I'll submit "defeat" (since to most of you its not about the truth, but about winning or losing an argument about the viability of HDR+AA in Oblivion).

It's not about winning or losing an argument(which would have had a reasonable other side to it), it's about calling out people like you who claimed HDR+AA was unplayable without even having tried it yourself. The people that did claim it was playable at the very least had tried it...you hadn't even tried it yet claimed it was simply unplayable.