Will G80 support HDR+AA? NVIDIA just can't make the same mistake twice. Oh and for all you idiots attacking NVIDIA, remember when the 6800 series came out? Don't tell me you sprang for the X-series... I rest my case...
No it isn't. I borrowed an XTX to test out and found it played Oblivion great on my res w/ HDR+AA (1680x1050), so I bought one of my own.
You're a serial liar. Stop posting.
everyone should take every single review site with a pinch of salt anyway.
they are more round abouts answers, than definate answers
Elfear
Diamond Member
- May 30, 2004
- 7,163
- 819
- 126
Did you own both series? Did you ever look at any benchmarks comparing the two cards? If by capabilities you mean SM3.0 than you are correct but at the time (and currently for the most part) it was an almost useless feature on the 6800 series.
I went from a 6800GT@Ultra speeds (probably a tad faster than an actual Ultra because of tighter ram timings) to an X800XT PE and there was a noticeable difference in speed. I remember Doom3 ran better on the Nvidia cards but the majority of games ran better on the X800XT. I have pages of my own benchmarks comparing the two and the X800XT PE came out on top 90% of the time. The X850XT PE was faster still.
Performance was just about equal (depending on the game) and price\performance could go either depending on the price point, the 6 series did have more features but most were arguably unimportant because of lack of support or insufficient performance to take advantage of the capabilities.
For the 6800 vs X800 Series both parties had their Pro and Cons.
Nvidia
Pros
Shader Model 3.0 support, OpenEXR FP16 HDR support, excellent OpenGL performance, great DirectX performance, SLI Support with intro of PCI-E
Cons
Higher Power Consumption (~80W), Dual Slot solution (6800 Ultra), a tad slower in Direct3D games, poor availability on 6800 Ultra intially
ATI
Pros
Lower Power Consumption (~65-70W), great Direct3D performance, shorter PCB
Cons
Lack of Shader Model 3.0, and OpenEXR HDR FP16, slower in OpenGL games, very bad availability on X800 XT PE initially for sometime, no Crossfire till very late in the life cycle.
After Nvidia screwed up and ATI got it's act together it's semes both companies have done well, and not made any more dramatic mistakes. They are quite competitive, with arguments which could be made for each side depending on which angle you looked at it from.
Nvidia
Pros
Shader Model 3.0 support, OpenEXR FP16 HDR support, excellent OpenGL performance, great DirectX performance, SLI Support with intro of PCI-E
Cons
Higher Power Consumption (~80W), Dual Slot solution (6800 Ultra), a tad slower in Direct3D games, poor availability on 6800 Ultra intially
ATI
Pros
Lower Power Consumption (~65-70W), great Direct3D performance, shorter PCB
Cons
Lack of Shader Model 3.0, and OpenEXR HDR FP16, slower in OpenGL games, very bad availability on X800 XT PE initially for sometime, no Crossfire till very late in the life cycle.
After Nvidia screwed up and ATI got it's act together it's semes both companies have done well, and not made any more dramatic mistakes. They are quite competitive, with arguments which could be made for each side depending on which angle you looked at it from.
Dont listen to his ignorance. Oblivion doesnt even use timedemos. Before, he posted even Crossfire rigs couldnt get playable frames with HDR+AA at 1920x1200. Now hes backtracking to a single card. The simple fact is, ATi can do HDR+AA in Oblivion, and NV cant. And thats why hes upset, and tries to belittle or "spin" HDR+AA.
FS numbers speak for themselves. HDR+AA is playable, on various ATi cards.
I'll still be happy with my 7950GX2, right? i heard it's a great card, despite all of this HDR+AA talk...
Sure, the gx2 IS a great card, as long as you only want raw performance and dont care about image quality, if you do then go ATI
He is right to a certain extent. The X1900 isn't God's card and unstoppable no matter what resolution you put to it. It has a limit, just like every other hardware made. I myself haven't tried a 1920x1200 LCD with max Oblivion settings so I am of course just speculating. I think that 19x12 is just a difficult resolution for gaming since single cards when presented with demanding games are stretched a little thin. I could be wrong of course, but my 1680x1050 with all of my settings gets me playable frames. I just think that if I were to increase the resolution that those frames would drop more than what I--or anyone else--would want them to.
I am still curious though Crusader, do you think that 1920x1200 is the default resolution one needs to get a decent gaming experience?
Sure, its not going to be playable to some people, yet it is to others. He is basing it on pure speculation, with no review to back him up. First, he claimed no ATi user could get playable frames at that res, and settings. Now its back down to one card. Its laughable, backtracking to try and save face. People are posting they get playable frames. FS has even posted an article, with great frames at 1600x1200. He has not a clue, and doesnt even have a card, or monitor to run the settings. Calling HDR+AA useless, is more ignorance, which he is full of. Please dont quote him... I cant skip his avatar when he gets quoted.
The whole point of this thread is, ATi can play Oblivion and Farcry with HDR+AA and get very playable frames. With various cards. Thats the bottom line, and it doesnt site well with NV "fans". So what do they do? Try to belittle it, which is pretty sad.
The whole point of this thread is, ATi can play Oblivion and Farcry with HDR+AA and get very playable frames. With various cards. Thats the bottom line, and it doesnt site well with NV "fans". So what do they do? Try to belittle it, which is pretty sad.
Wreckage
Banned
- Jul 1, 2005
- 5,529
- 0
- 0
It's the best single card on the market. ATI only HDR is not even officially supported in Oblivion. (You can use bloom in Oblivion.) Other than that very few games support it. You can still see HDR+AA on your card on Day of Defeat:Source and HL2 Episode one. You can use Tranparency AA and SLI AA for superior image quality.
Wreckage
Banned
- Jul 1, 2005
- 5,529
- 0
- 0
So a X1600 will do HDR+AA at 1920+1200 at 100fps....wow :roll:
I don't disagree that it's playable on a high end crossfire system or with a XTX and a $1000 CPU. However with the average system, I doubt it. I also don't see anybody spending several thousand dollars to play at 1280x1024.
True I would like to see results from other websites and it's good that ATI got the HDR+AA ball rolling. However, it's not even close to mainstream.
You guys must be paid to consistently lie/obfuscate or what?
I can play with great success with 2xAA or 4xAA and HDR + a bunch of visual mods, Oblivion with shadows enabled and everything on high at 1680x1050.
I can play with great success with 2xAA or 4xAA and HDR + a bunch of visual mods, Oblivion with shadows enabled and everything on high at 1680x1050.
For what it's worth, I have an X1900 but I doubt I'll ever use the HDR+AA feature. I tried it out in Far Cry once and was finding that it worked okay at 1280x960 but was too slow at any higher resolution. This is more due to the Far Cry HDR itself, which causes a large performance hit particularly on ATI cards. The additional drop from AA is actually pretty minimal. I don't have Oblivion and have no plans to buy it, but from the benchmarks I have seen I would probably end up running it around 800x600 and use neither HDR nor AA in order to get decent performance. Although if SCCT supported HDR+AA I would have probably used it there, as the HDR and AA by themselves don't hurt performance much on the X1900 cards.
It's a little pointless to argue about what kind of performance is "playable," as pretty much any framerate is playable if you're used to it. I used to play an old Mac 3D racing game called Vette many years ago and the framerate I got was generally between 2 and 5, but I didn't care one bit.
These days I rarely tolerate any minimum point under 50fps before I drop down some settings and see if it gets any better (I can play with less if I have to, but I look for rather more than playable performance when buying expensive video cards). It's certainly better to have the HDR+AA feature than not in any case and obviously many people do find the Far Cry and Oblivion framerates quite acceptable.
It's a little pointless to argue about what kind of performance is "playable," as pretty much any framerate is playable if you're used to it. I used to play an old Mac 3D racing game called Vette many years ago and the framerate I got was generally between 2 and 5, but I didn't care one bit.
These days I rarely tolerate any minimum point under 50fps before I drop down some settings and see if it gets any better (I can play with less if I have to, but I look for rather more than playable performance when buying expensive video cards). It's certainly better to have the HDR+AA feature than not in any case and obviously many people do find the Far Cry and Oblivion framerates quite acceptable.Originally posted by: CP5670
For what it's worth, I have an X1900 but I doubt I'll ever use the HDR+AA feature. I tried it out in Far Cry once and was finding that it worked okay at 1280x960 but was too slow at any higher resolution. This is more due to the Far Cry HDR itself, which causes a large performance hit particularly on ATI cards. The additional drop from AA is actually pretty minimal. I don't have Oblivion and have no plans to buy it, but from the benchmarks I have seen I would probably end up running it around 800x600 and use neither HDR nor AA in order to get decent performance. Although if SCCT supported HDR+AA I would have probably used it there, as the HDR and AA by themselves don't hurt performance much on the X1900 cards.
It's a little pointless to argue about what kind of performance is "playable," as pretty much any framerate is playable if you're used to it. I used to play an old Mac 3D racing game called Vette many years ago and the framerate I got was generally between 2 and 5, but I didn't care one bit.
I get didn't go below 25fps with HDR on at 1280x1024 with my lowly X1800XL...I DOUBT you would have to go to 800x600 to get playable framerates with an X1900...that's being a bit dramatic.
That's being ridiculous. With a ton of visual mods, all settings on high, 1680X1050 I get 30fps in the outdoors and 60-80+ in the other parts.
800x600, give me a break
My last card, 7800GTX @ 490/1380 would run Oblivion reasonably well at 4xAA with Bloom, or HDR and no AA, 8xAnistropic Filtering, the only main problem with it was the minimum frames were low, particularly when fighting outdoors
800x600, give me a break
My last card, 7800GTX @ 490/1380 would run Oblivion reasonably well at 4xAA with Bloom, or HDR and no AA, 8xAnistropic Filtering, the only main problem with it was the minimum frames were low, particularly when fighting outdoors
Well, 30fps is far below my acceptable threshold. Although you're right, it looks like I didn't read that Firingsquad review properly. For some reason I thought the minimum scores shown at the bottom were for 1024x768. It looks like 1280x960 should in fact give pretty decent performance, although with HDR alone rather than HDR+AA.
It's different with Oblivion though. It's smooth at 20+fps. You'd have to play it to understand, its not like BF2, or HL2, etc. Plenty here will agree
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter