I'm sorry that I have criticized you about image quality and performance. I'm sorry that I sided temporarily with the enemy when you were accused of cheating. In truth, it was ATI who has always been cheating. And you should not be penalized at all for giving me the best picture quality while maintaining the best performance. Thank you for that. Let me be the first one to apologize.
I'm sorry Nvidia.
- Thread starter VIAN
- Start date
let the flame wars begin!
btw, i thought this was old news
either way, i see no difference between the 8X and 16 af
also, in most IQ comparisons i read, they say nvidias AF is SLIGHTLY almost UNNOTICEABLY (sp?) better, so i doesnt bother me that the only use 16x af in certain angles as long as the end product looks just as good as the counterparts
btw, i thought this was old news
either way, i see no difference between the 8X and 16 af
also, in most IQ comparisons i read, they say nvidias AF is SLIGHTLY almost UNNOTICEABLY (sp?) better, so i doesnt bother me that the only use 16x af in certain angles as long as the end product looks just as good as the counterparts
It's a new article that goes into detail about how they perform such antics. It even shows some differences on IQ between each card.
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
I am not accusing ATI to cheat! The C-word is not mentioned in any way in this article. At last, ATIs optimizations seems 'legal' to me, but questionable, too.
this is just pure speculation but i think you will find similar results (not in favor of nvidia) if you compare ATI AA to nvidia AA
Well, if it was cheating that Nvidia did before, then what ATI is doing is the motherload of all cheats.
I heard that Nvidia AF is better than ATI AF, but vice-versa with AA. I don't use AA anyway, I think its a useless feature at high res above. 1024x768. And at that res, low AA is all I see working. I like AF a little better, but if its true that true AF is only at 2X then there is no need to apply it at higher than that. I've seen an MX440 handle AF at 2X and it looks like all I need.
I heard that Nvidia AF is better than ATI AF, but vice-versa with AA. I don't use AA anyway, I think its a useless feature at high res above. 1024x768. And at that res, low AA is all I see working. I like AF a little better, but if its true that true AF is only at 2X then there is no need to apply it at higher than that. I've seen an MX440 handle AF at 2X and it looks like all I need.
i see it the other way around, AA is MUCH more important to me but either way i dont see how this is the motherload of all cheating, i dont see this as cheating at all
How is lowering image quality for more performance not cheating. In essence, if ATI did do full image quality, they would perform slower than Nvidia based cards. When Nvidia cheated, everyone was like "OMG they are F-ing bastards, I can't believe it. They are going down." Now that everybody has an ATI card and they now say, "Its ok, Its a fine optimization." No, this is cheating, and it is moreso than Nvidia ever did. They have extrememly low precision filtering on all their effects compared to Nvidia. Its not right, if you think its ok then you are being bias - It wasn't ok for Nvidia to do it, and its not ok for ATI to do at all - especially since the ride the entire thing and sit in the kings chair and dared to accuse Nvidia of cheating.
they reduced AF, yet its almost identical to nvidias????
anyway, this is a legit optimization because its not done for a particular program, ie 3dmark
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
that thread really clears up a lot
thanx for the link
also,if u want to nitpick, an article done from the same site about bilinear v trilinear:
To be constrained to accept missing true trilinear filtering is unacceptable in the year 2003. To avoid nitpicking, we see the divers aggravations of AF quality "only" disapproving (besides also ATI takes part in these useless games) To deprive the user of trilinear filtering seems to be an act of desperation from Nvidia. The introduction of "brilinear" filtering, planned a long time ago was surely not thought of as the maximum quality. If Nvidia is not going to correct this very quickly you cannot see the products as a worthy piece of hardware for a computer gamer anymore.
It's absurd because ATi isn't cheating, they're following DX spec. You may applaud nV for going above and beyond, but you can't honestly criticize ATi for adhering to spec or compare it to underhanded application optimization. VIAN and videclone are apparently vying for most absurd thread starters.
"Antics?" "Motherload [sic] of all cheats?" "I heard that nV AF is better than ATi AF?" Get your facts straight before chucking accusations.
"Antics?" "Motherload [sic] of all cheats?" "I heard that nV AF is better than ATi AF?" Get your facts straight before chucking accusations.
nVidia got flamed heavily by most sites for following the S3TC specs, is this all that different?
I think Chalnoth brought up some good points in the B3D thread, perhaps this article's focus is the reason why there is so much more noticeable aliasing on the R300, and not more agressive LOD bias selection as I have been assuming for some time.
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 + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter