alcoholbob
Diamond Member
- May 24, 2005
- 6,387
- 465
- 126
I've always been an ATI fan with the exception of the original Geforce, which was a messiah of a card. But besides the point, I see most of the benchmarks are done with AA or AA+AF in mind. If you look at the benchmarks without AA in question, all of a sudden, nVidia begins to win the majority of the benchmarks.
I chose nVidia (7800gt) this round primarily because with the newer games in question, I don't plan on playing games with fps spikes during battles. I'd rather play without AA +/or AF because as we all know IN-GAME, those lag spikes don't show up in benchmark scores since the player is on rails and the average framerate becomes a blanket statement for performance. A lot of times you'll need to turn 180 degrees *very fast*, and with settings that result in ~40fps average on a given benchmark score, you are gonna hit a momentary slideshow with 5-10fps rate at those important moments.
I'd rather pay the price of no AA/AF and get playable framerates during very fast/micro action scenes. However, *that's just me.*
I chose nVidia (7800gt) this round primarily because with the newer games in question, I don't plan on playing games with fps spikes during battles. I'd rather play without AA +/or AF because as we all know IN-GAME, those lag spikes don't show up in benchmark scores since the player is on rails and the average framerate becomes a blanket statement for performance. A lot of times you'll need to turn 180 degrees *very fast*, and with settings that result in ~40fps average on a given benchmark score, you are gonna hit a momentary slideshow with 5-10fps rate at those important moments.
I'd rather pay the price of no AA/AF and get playable framerates during very fast/micro action scenes. However, *that's just me.*