Firingsquad Publishes HDR + AA Performance Tests

[imported_spank]

Originally posted by: Crusader
First of all, you guys are the ultimate spin doctors. SNIP

I posted some numbers above.

 

[akugami]

Originally posted by: 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.

Just make sure your PSU can support it. One of the negatives of the X1k series from ATI is they are power hungry like a mofo. It's a very good bang for the buck card. If you want lower than this, try to get an X1800XT 512MB or barring that a 7900GT.

 

[flashbacck]

Originally posted by: Crusader

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...

Have you seen any review or article with a direct comparison of nvidia and ati HDR?

 

[LittleNemoNES]

The performance drop from AA and HDR in oblivion is prob because they used AAA. I get a 5 fps drop from using 4xAA in outdoor scenes. No one should be using AAA for this game untill SLI next gen.

 

[mylok]

so FS claims that HDR+AA is playable on current ATI cards and they are biased? i guess i am biased to because i already knew that. where in the article does it state nvidia sucks? to all the nv fanboys your epenis is still the biggest, now move on. oh ya i own both a x1900xtx and a 7900gtx and i prefer the ati just like when i owned a 6800gt and a 800xt and i prefered the 6800gt. grow up people.

 

[Ackmed]

The same prople trolling, and trying to spread misinformation I see. Typically, its the same few people. Jealousy is a bad thing. Calling FS bias, with zero proof is pure ignorance.

FS always shows 1280x1024 and the minimum, not 1600x1200. 1280x1024 is still be far the most used res in gaming. While I have not used it in a long time, many still do. They also have never tested 1920x1200 as far as I can remember, in fact, most reviews do not show anything higher than 1600x1200. I get very playable frames at 1920x1200 with HDR+AA, no matter what the trollers say.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: gersson
The performance drop from AA and HDR in oblivion is prob because they used AAA. I get a 5 fps drop from using 4xAA in outdoor scenes. No one should be using AAA for this game untill SLI next gen.

Did they seriously use AAA? Yeah no wonder. I will say this, the XTX has been wonderful in every area for me except noise, AND adaptive anti-aliasing which I've noticed takes a big performance hit. Regular AA takes very little hit at all, they need to work on their AAA.

 

[CelSnip]

Do they say what settings they're playing on? I don't think they could achieve those frame rates with shadows and the draw distance at high settings.

 

[coldpower27]

That's nice though this does come at a cost, in exchange for the ability to do OpenEXR HDR + MSAA these cards draw quite a bit more power, not to mention they have enormous die sizes.

Though it is nice to see OpenEXR HDR + MSAA as a playable feature at 12x10. Though there are other issues to consider before I go get an ATI card.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: thilan29
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.

When a less biased site posts it, then it's good news. If I hear it from Tech Report, Hardocp, Xbit or even Rage3D I will find it more credible.

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

Because ALL sites are reporting it peforming well, not just one.

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

Someone has to counter all this FUD and BS that gets posted.

I think most people here know how you lean.

And how you lean. :thumbsdown:

 

[imported_spank]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
When a less biased site posts it, then it's good news. If I hear it from Tech Report, Hardocp, Xbit or even Rage3D I will find it more credible.

hardocp also thinks that hdr+aa is playable, link

 

[CelSnip]

Originally posted by: spank

Originally posted by: Wreckage
When a less biased site posts it, then it's good news. If I hear it from Tech Report, Hardocp, Xbit or even Rage3D I will find it more credible.

hardocp also thinks that hdr+aa is playable, link

:shocked: Much more info in these benchmarks.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: spank

Originally posted by: Wreckage
When a less biased site posts it, then it's good news. If I hear it from Tech Report, Hardocp, Xbit or even Rage3D I will find it more credible.

hardocp also thinks that hdr+aa is playable, link

2XAA plus crossfire. :roll:

I would hope at the very least that should work.

 

[imported_spank]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

2XAA plus crossfire. :roll:

I would hope at the very least that should work.

Sorry, mixed you and Crusader up

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.

 

[tuteja1986]

Originally posted by: spank

Originally posted by: Wreckage

2XAA plus crossfire. :roll:

I would hope at the very least that should work.

Sorry, mixed you and Crusader up

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.

crusader and Wreckage are in the same category : ) both em them want the roll for rollo

 

[dug777]

Wreckage and Crusader yet again demonstrate why they are the absolute lowest common denominators of Video..

I wonder if the Jason could simply setup a script that replaced everything they posted with:

"Nvidia pwns all ATI ar3 teh sux0rs11!1oneeleven!!1!"

Not only would it be more intelligent than most of what they post now, and contain exactly the same message, but it would be far more amusing & much easier to ignore

It amazes me that the fact x1900s can do HDR+AA playably should annoy them quite so much, i guess having no life & worshipping Nvidia does that to a kid...

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

When a less biased site posts it, then it's good news. If I hear it from Tech Report, Hardocp, Xbit or even Rage3D I will find it more credible.

Quite funny that you say FS is ati biased and name Hardocp to be a credibly source when everyone knows they're GREEN because of their "we use the best playable settings, but we forget to mention we turn off the ones that take the most performance hit on nvidia cards to make them look faster", I agree with the others though

 

[redbox]

Originally posted by: Crusader


I personally prefer games the way the developer intended, without ATIs invasive measures that they do in attempt to one-up Nvidia.

IIRC wasn't it chuck that released the mod to do HDR+AA. I didn't know that ATI is now making mods for oblivion.

Thats really a non-issue to me though, as maybe someone likes burning out their corneas?

And maybe some people like poking out their eyes with bad AF? Come on quite being melodramatic.

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

Good, get an xbox360 and play to your hearts content. I personally like the fact that I can mod just about everything in Oblivion. Without mods the game looks alot worse no matter what video card you play it on. Why do you think Bethesda gives out the construction set? Do you even play with any mods?

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Because ALL sites are reporting it peforming well, not just one.

And if more sites tested HDR+AA I'm willing to bet they would come to the same conclusion as FS, much like several members of this forum have. Testing of HDR+AA will of course be limited for reasons I think you can imagine.

Originally posted by: Wreckage

I think most people here know how you lean.

And how you lean. :thumbsdown:

How I lean doesn't make a difference because I don't go around posting BS. Furthermore, my leanings change with what features, performance, and price suit me. Right now I prefer ATI hardware due to the IQ and generally good performance but when the 6800 cards came out I prefered that. Actually right now I'd like to get a 7950GX2(for the great performance and more AA modes) but can't justify spending that much (right now) plus the fact that my motherboard isn't on the officially supported list.

You try to invalidate the FS results by claiming it's biased so why don't you go to a friend who has an ATI X1K card and do some testing...like I did when a certain member claimed that HDR+SSAA was possible on Gefroce 6/7 cards(which I found was untrue). Then come back and post your unbiased( ) results k??

 

[Tangerines]

Originally posted by: akugami

Originally posted by: 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.

Just make sure your PSU can support it. One of the negatives of the X1k series from ATI is they are power hungry like a mofo. It's a very good bang for the buck card. If you want lower than this, try to get an X1800XT 512MB or barring that a 7900GT.

Alright, I have a 500W PSU, so that should be adequate. I'll probably go for the X1800XT 512. Thanks!

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Tangerines

Originally posted by: akugami

Originally posted by: 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.

Just make sure your PSU can support it. One of the negatives of the X1k series from ATI is they are power hungry like a mofo. It's a very good bang for the buck card. If you want lower than this, try to get an X1800XT 512MB or barring that a 7900GT.

Alright, I have a 500W PSU, so that should be adequate. I'll probably go for the X1800XT 512. Thanks!

Check how many amps your PSU gives on the 12v rail. The number should be listed on the side of the PSU. Or better yet if you can give the make and model of your PSU, the amperage can be verified.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Crusader
I personally prefer games the way the developer intended, without ATIs invasive measures that they do in attempt to one-up Nvidia.

Do you also play Oblivion with the ugly-ass distance textures? If the devs intended me to pay $50 for a game and have it look like N64 gfx on a $500 video card, then I got a place where to shove their intentions.

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.

No, the chuck patch increases IQ. The FX cheats decreased IQ, that's not even remotely similar.

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.

Then you'd be guessing wrong. Find me one official review that says Ati HDR is oversaturated compared to Nv HDR

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".

That's because you've never seen HDR+AA in action.

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

And it's not like you have a choice. Other people don't like to settle for less.

 

[Polish3d]

Arguing with Crusader is a complete waste, he offers essentially nothing but either paid viral marketing or extreme nvidia partisanship, either way its a waste of time reading his posts

 

[schneiderguy]

Originally posted by: redbox

And maybe some people like poking out their eyes with bad AF? Come on quite being melodramatic.

nvidia has better AA
ati has better AF

 

[imported_Crusader]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
The same prople trolling, and trying to spread misinformation I see. Typically, its the same few people. Jealousy is a bad thing. Calling FS bias, with zero proof is pure ignorance.

FS always shows 1280x1024 and the minimum, not 1600x1200. 1280x1024 is still be far the most used res in gaming. While I have not used it in a long time, many still do. They also have never tested 1920x1200 as far as I can remember, in fact, most reviews do not show anything higher than 1600x1200. I get very playable frames at 1920x1200 with HDR+AA, no matter what the trollers say.

If you had minimum framerate numbers in foliage to back that up Ackmed, I'd believe you and drop it. No harm will be done to anyones ego. Unless yours lies in the balance? Mine does not.
Is that to much to ask out of you? Proof and evidence DOES sway people Ackmed. But you dont have it. Just this wild-eyed assertion that it "works for you" magically, while all credible sources not wholly devoted to ATI say otherwise.

I'm not trying to say HDR+AA is a bad thing, I'm glad for any tech that advances the gaming industry.
I'm only trying to say that given the lack of games and performance at high res it has little use at this point in time.
Someday HDR+AA may be a more important issue, but by then X1900s will likely be fairly slow cards.