NV and ATi both have successful launches this week

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Well, if there truly is a difference I'm sure ackmed ought to be able to produce a screenshot with HQAF in it for us (while keeping the other parameters the same!!!)

Even if he did, do you think he'd be truthful?

He lost ALL credibility when he blatantly lied in this thread.

I think that those screenshots do correctly display their said settings, but if we would really want to get a solid comparison we would arrive at the same conclusion: Nvidia with AA, ATI with AF.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Dont need 6x? Please. 8xAA is far from playable to me, in any sort of high res. There is a HUGE hit on performance. Shimmering cannot be fixed, it can be reduced. At a cost of frames. HQ AF was not enabled, its plainly obvious. You're now claiming that HQ AF is not better than normal AF?

More links that say 4xAA quality is virtually the same;

With 4X anti-aliasing enabled, the "jaggies" in the scene are cleaned up considerably, but it's extremely difficult to perceive any real differences in the images, even while zoomed, although the cables on the crane seem slightly more defined on the Radeon. We've also included a sample using ATI's 6X AA mode, which was the best overall. (NVIDIA doesn't support this mode.)

http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx

Thats you. Some people here espeically GX2 users can utlise 8xS on some new games, and almost all the old ones.

Link

They used 8xTSS on both HL2 and BF2. Not to mention that theyve used AA on GRAW unlike the other cards benched.

I think 8xS is quite usable.

I said to me. I dont try and speak for everyone, unlike some.

They used 8xAA on the fastest NV card, on two older games to get 8xAA playable. HL2 plays well with virtually everything. BF2 also does the same. I tried it with a 7800GTX, and it wasnt even close to playable. It still wasnt in SLI. They didnt use HQ for HL2, because they didnt get playable frames with it. They did use HQ for BF2. They also used 1600x1200. Ive been at 1920x1200 for about a year and a half. Which is much more demanding.

8xAA on a 7900GT, or even a 7900GTX would be much, much slower than with that GX2. If you notice in the link you dropped, they didnt use 8xAA one time with the 7900GTX. Why is that? Becuase they didnt think it was playable. And thats with a very high end machine. Do you think people on a 7800GT and 2gig will find it playable in any sort of newer game?

Also, that is not AA in GRAW. Its "edge smoothing". Just a nit pick. Their engine cant do AA, so they just blur everything. It sucks, and looks pretty bad to me.

What does all of this tell you? That NV's fastest card can only get usuable 8xAA on two older games, and thats it. One with HQ drivers, and one without, at 1600x1200. HardOCP also uses 8xAA when they can get it playable. And thats very few and far between. Again, this is on a top end machine, with NV's fastest card. 8xAA very usable? Thats up to the end users, from when I had the option, it was next to never.

Thats not to say I dont like NV's 8xAA. I think it looks very, very good. It just takes far too large of a performance hit for me to use in any sort of newer game. To say that NV doesnt "need" 6xAA like ATi, because they have 8xAA, is pretty shortsighted to me. More options for the consumers, the better.

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Well, if there truly is a difference I'm sure ackmed ought to be able to produce a screenshot with HQAF in it for us (while keeping the other parameters the same!!!)

Sure, its very easy to see. If you ever used an ATi card, its pretty easy to see.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/image.htm...E1MzU5NDI5MGdxTGdRV2plUVFfM183X2wucG5n

 

[Gstanfor]

No, no, no ackmed!, I meant a screenshot from your own system, of that exact scene... Mind you, I think josh is correct with his comments...

 

[Ackmed]

Why do I have to make screen shots from my PC? Its much easier to link a reputable reivew site, that compared NV and ATi. In fact, its what you did. Except I dont know if yours was reputable, as Ive never heard of him.

I cant fabricate the images posted. Its clearly obvious that ATis AF looks better than NVs. Why is it so hard to believe?

You are not making any sense. You want me to produce shots to compare, but then you're agreeing with someone else that I wouldnt be truthful. Ive ignored his trolling. He doesnt know what he thinks he does, and Im above responding to the trash hes trying to troll with.

 

[BFG10K]

Actually, that X1800XT can do 6xAA. Which cleans it up even further.

The problem is that 6xAA is still MSAA so it doesn't AA the entire scene like 8xS does. 8xS cleans up edges even further in addition to cleaning up the entire scene.

That means you'll get texture/alpha/shader/specular aliasing that single ATi cards can't touch, unlike single nVidia cards.

Screenshots are useless for showing the improvements 8xS adds to the table; you need to see the effect in motion. It's subtle but very noticeable.

8xAA is far from playable to me, in any sort of high res.

I have a single 7900 GTX and I run many games at the setting (probably more than 4xAA) at 1920x1440.

Even modern games like Doom 3 and Quake 4 run well provided you drop the resolution a bit to 1600x1200.

Needless to say it's a breeze for SLI.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Actually, that X1800XT can do 6xAA. Which cleans it up even further.

The problem is that 6xAA is still MSAA so it doesn't AA the entire scene like 8xS does. 8xS cleans up edges even further in addition to cleaning up the entire scene.

That means you'll get texture/alpha/shader/specular aliasing that single ATi cards can't touch, unlike single nVidia cards.

Screenshots are useless for showing the improvements 8xS adds to the table; you need to see the effect in motion. It's subtle but very noticeable.

8xAA is far from playable to me, in any sort of high res.

I have a single 7900 GTX and I run many games at the setting (probably more than 4xAA) at 1920x1440.

Even modern games like Doom 3 and Quake 4 run well provided you drop the resolution a bit to 1600x1200.

Needless to say it's a breeze for SLI.

I guess this ends the argument. Anyhow, almost all GT users have their GTs OCed to GTX speeds so 8xS on most games arent for the faint hearted.

As BFG10K pointed out, 6xAA is only MSAA. SSAA is far superior than MSAA, and the fact NVs SSAA also anti alias the textures as well.

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: josh6079
You can use AA on GRAW? I thought it wasn't really AA? To my knowledge it was an "edge smoother" that just made everything blurry enough to disregard the jaggies?

Why wouldn't HQ AF be enabled in that shot - he *disabled* catalyst AI which (supposedly) removes all ATi optimizations and he set high quality mode as well...

HQAF isn't something that automatically gets turned on once Cat A.I. is disabled. You have to manually turn it on, even if everything else has been set to "High Quality" and even if the Cat A.I. has been disabled.

That's not an answer that satisfies me given the discussions and debates from ATi users about nvidia's Quality mode and optimizations not being turned off. You can't have it both ways, guys.

Either ati's old style Af is an optimization or it isn't (I'm sure cainam (martrox from b3d?) would have to agree here given his stance on nv's AF) and either disabling catalyst AI disables all optimzations, as claimed, or it doesn't...

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Actually, that X1800XT can do 6xAA. Which cleans it up even further.

The problem is that 6xAA is still MSAA so it doesn't AA the entire scene like 8xS does. 8xS cleans up edges even further in addition to cleaning up the entire scene.

That means you'll get texture/alpha/shader/specular aliasing that single ATi cards can't touch, unlike single nVidia cards.

Screenshots are useless for showing the improvements 8xS adds to the table; you need to see the effect in motion. It's subtle but very noticeable.

I said that 8xAA looks better. I simply refuted his claim that ATi cant do any higher than 4xAA. Thats not correct, and I corrected him. Simple as that.

Originally posted by: BFG10K

8xAA is far from playable to me, in any sort of high res.

I have a single 7900 GTX and I run many games at the setting (probably more than 4xAA) at 1920x1440.

Even modern games like Doom 3 and Quake 4 run well provided you drop the resolution a bit to 1600x1200.

Needless to say it's a breeze for SLI.

Which is where subjectivity comes in. The link dropped the 7900GTX, at 1600x1200, 2xTRAA, and just 4xAF. With an average of 54fps. Adding 8xAA on that would bring the frames much too low for me. Thats cutting it close as it is. To you lower frames is fine, to me it wouldnt be.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

I guess this ends the argument. Anyhow, almost all GT users have their GTs OCed to GTX speeds so 8xS on most games arent for the faint hearted.

As BFG10K pointed out, 6xAA is only MSAA. SSAA is far superior than MSAA, and the fact NVs SSAA also anti alias the textures as well.

Where is this data from? My guess is, most people dont overclock at all.

And yes, SSAA is much better. I do with ATi would adopt this. As I said before, the more options for the consumers the better. Another reason I went with CF, and dropped SLI. Much more AA options.

Originally posted by: Gstanfor

That's not an answer that satisfies me given the discussions and debates from ATi users about nvidia's Quality mode and optimizations not being turned off. You can't have it both ways, guys.

Speaking of not having it both ways. You (not saying you per say) cant want benchmarks ran with NVs drivers set to Q, and then claim that setting them to HQ helps shimmering. Because that takes a performance hit.

 

[Gstanfor]

Have you ever seen me refer to benchmarks when discussing driver settings? Don't forget that applies just as much to ATI's HQ AF...

 

[josh6079]

That's not an answer that satisfies me given the discussions and debates from ATi users about nvidia's Quality mode and optimizations not being turned off. You can't have it both ways, guys.

Either ati's old style Af is an optimization or it isn't (I'm sure cainam (martrox from b3d?) would have to agree here given his stance on nv's AF) and either disabling catalyst AI disables all optimzations, as claimed, or it doesn't...

I'm not telling you what allows HQAF to satisfy you, I'm telling you because that is the way it is. All I'm saying is that the only way most knowledgeable ATI users can enable or disable HQAF is to do it here or here. Even the CCC has a seperate checkbox for it (those images were from the utility ATI Tray Tools)

The debate about whether that is an optimization or not is another can of worms. Others would define "optimization" differently and it's best probably not to get into that.

I simply refuted his claim that ATi cant do any higher than 4xAA. Thats not correct, and I corrected him. Simple as that.

You didn't correct anything at all. Instead your lazy eyes misread my statement completely. Simple as that.

 

[Gstanfor]

Yes, and knowledgeable nvidia users know to use HQ mode, regardless of what benchmarks may say (I never rely on review benchmarks when making a purchasing decision).

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

I guess this ends the argument. Anyhow, almost all GT users have their GTs OCed to GTX speeds so 8xS on most games arent for the faint hearted.

As BFG10K pointed out, 6xAA is only MSAA. SSAA is far superior than MSAA, and the fact NVs SSAA also anti alias the textures as well.

Where is this data from? My guess is, most people dont overclock at all.

And yes, SSAA is much better. I do with ATi would adopt this. As I said before, the more options for the consumers the better. Another reason I went with CF, and dropped SLI. Much more AA options.

Based on users here. We are hardware enthuiasts.

As you said most people dont OC. They dont use HQ because they dont see any IQ differences. They also dont see shimmering like some of us do here.

SLi has plenty of options as well.
2x, 4x, 8xS, 8xSLI AA, 16xS, 16xSLI AA, 32xSLI AA + option to SSAA/MSAA + TRAA.

Compared to ATi's 2x, 4x, 6x, 8xSuper AA, 10x Super AA ,12x SuperAA, 14xSuperAA + AAA (Note that 10xAA and 14xAA for ATi mixes 8xMSAA + 2xSSAA, and 12xMSAA +2xSSAA).

Both side got plenty of AA options. But NV has the superior AA options and IQ because of SSAA can be used on almost all the AA settings.

 

[josh6079]

What I think is interesting is the fact that AA will hopefully condense to playabilty as time goes on. With the 6 series, AA was the main goal: higher levels and playabiltiy. For the 7 series and X1K series, AA was already in pretty decent reach and could elaborate with dual GPU options. I only hope that alpha texutre AA becomes more of a playable feature with other levels of AA running at the same time. In my experience, AAA/TrAA is what can bring performance hits greater than Q-HQ settings. I hope that the next generation will bring algorithms to the forefront that can uplift these hits to higher levels of performance while giving better image quality.

 

[imported_Crusader]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Dont need 6x? Please. 8xAA is far from playable to me, in any sort of high res. There is a HUGE hit on performance. Shimmering cannot be fixed, it can be reduced. At a cost of frames. HQ AF was not enabled, its plainly obvious. You're now claiming that HQ AF is not better than normal AF?

More links that say 4xAA quality is virtually the same;

With 4X anti-aliasing enabled, the "jaggies" in the scene are cleaned up considerably, but it's extremely difficult to perceive any real differences in the images, even while zoomed, although the cables on the crane seem slightly more defined on the Radeon. We've also included a sample using ATI's 6X AA mode, which was the best overall. (NVIDIA doesn't support this mode.)

http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx

Wrong.
First of all your link is talking about zooming in on screenshots, which is not how you play games and is a pointless comparison to even make.

Do you zoom in on a static screenshot in games much?

The man was right, ATIs 6x mode is unneeded.

Above 4X AA is unnoticable, 8xS is though.
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/video/3dvideoforpc-05q2.html

But I'd like to note that the quality difference in modes higher than MSAA 4x goes down to zero, especially in dynamic games. While 8xS mode in GeForce cards still makes some sense (texture antialiasing and "side-effect" anisotropic filtering), you will have to use a magnifying glass to find differences between 6x and 4x modes in ATI cards. That's why it's hard to say whether all these crazy modes (like ATI CF 14x or NV SLI 16x) make any sense...

Not sure how you are going to attempt to spin this one.
But after reading this thread, I'm sure more than ever and if you dont have connections with ATI in some way I'll eat a hat, a sombrero even.. holy crap.

 

[BFG10K]

I simply refuted his claim that ATi cant do any higher than 4xAA. Thats not correct, and I corrected him. Simple as that.

You also made it sound like nVidia's 8xAA isn't an option. It is an option and it offers higher image quality than 6xAA does.

Which is where subjectivity comes in.

Right, just like when you claim FP HDR + AA is playable on ATi cards. That's also subjective.

In fact the performance hit of FP HDR + MSAA is probably higher than going from 4xAA to 8xS in regular HDR-less rendering, rendering that the vast majority of games are still employing.

Subjectivity is fine as long as it's consistent.

The link dropped the 7900GTX, at 1600x1200, 2xTRAA, and just 4xAF. With an average of 54fps

What link? What game(s)?

I run Quake 4 and Doom 3 at 1600x1200 and Half-Life 2 at 1760x1320 and 8xS works fine. In most cases I've found 1600x1200 with 8xS looks better than 1920x1440 with 4xAA, especially in OpenGL games.

As for other games.

My next batch of benchmarks (probably 7900 GTX against G80) will have even more 8xS and 16xS results.

 

[schneiderguy]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
8xAA is far from playable to me, in any sort of high res.

8xAA not playable on two 7800gtx's in BF2 at what resolution?

1280*1024 with 8x AA is playable with my 7600gt in bf2. SLI'd 7800gtx's = ~4x the power of one 7600gt.

 

[josh6079]

...you're agreeing with someone else that I wouldnt be truthful.

Yes, you read that correctly. You haven't been truthful recently.

Ive ignored his trolling...and Im above responding to the trash hes trying to troll with.

This is the real trash.

You said, "redbox also PM'd me with more insults..." and have yet to prove this claim. Instead all you've done is conveniently ignore the issue since you know that you were caught. All you've done is "fade to black" when being confronted with the truth: You lied. redbox never PMed you an insult like you desperately claimed.

He doesnt know what he thinks he does...

Really? Courtesy of redbox below:

http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/2402/2003435050490277128_rs.jpg

Plain and simple sceenshot of the message board in the PM inbox that redbox sent me recently. Care to show me where this "insult" is?

This is why I doubt your credibility. Given this is how you lie about other members, a screenshot detailing settings would be well within your juristiction to fabricate.

 

[Gstanfor]

(Crusader) Above 4X AA is unnoticable, 8xS is though.

I wouldn't word it quite like that myself. Above 4X, MSAA becomes unnoticeable, SSAA and combined MSAA + SSAA modes can and do show improvements.

 

[BFG10K]

But I'd like to note that the quality difference in modes higher than MSAA 4x goes down to zero, especially in dynamic games. While 8xS mode in GeForce cards still makes some sense (texture antialiasing and "side-effect" anisotropic filtering), you will have to use a magnifying glass to find differences between 6x and 4x modes in ATI cards. That's why it's hard to say whether all these crazy modes (like ATI CF 14x or NV SLI 16x) make any sense...

I'm sorry but this is nonsense. Anyone who claims you don't need better edge AA than what 4xAA offers has never played any games.

4xAA is the bare minimum AA level you want, not the maximum.

6xAA/8xS easily offer better edge AA than 4xAA does.

 

[imported_Crusader]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

But I'd like to note that the quality difference in modes higher than MSAA 4x goes down to zero, especially in dynamic games. While 8xS mode in GeForce cards still makes some sense (texture antialiasing and "side-effect" anisotropic filtering), you will have to use a magnifying glass to find differences between 6x and 4x modes in ATI cards. That's why it's hard to say whether all these crazy modes (like ATI CF 14x or NV SLI 16x) make any sense...

I'm sorry but this is nonsense. Anyone who claims you don't need better edge AA than what 4xAA offers has never played any games.

4xAA is the bare minimum AA level you want, not the maximum.

6xAA/8xS easily offer better edge AA than 4xAA does.

I play games all the time. I agree with my link, 4X does the job pretty well.. as well as you need it in a shooter, which most people play these days.
Above 4X in a dynamic game as digit pointed out, is all thats really necessary unless you are going to photoshop the image.

Need more than 4X? Or think you do? Thats fine, I wont argue.
Nvidia has the best solution above with 8xS, which ATI does not have unfortunately

 

[josh6079]

...you're agreeing with someone else that I wouldnt be truthful.

Yes, you read that correctly. You haven't been truthful recently.

Ive ignored his trolling...and Im above responding to the trash hes trying to troll with.

This is the real trash.

You said, "redbox also PM'd me with more insults..." and have yet to prove this claim. Instead all you've done is conveniently ignore the issue since you know that you were caught. All you've done is "fade to black" when being confronted with the truth: You lied. redbox never PMed you an insult like you desperately claimed.

He doesnt know what he thinks he does...

Really? Courtesy of redbox below:

http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/2402/2003435050490277128_rs.jpg

Plain and simple sceenshot of the message board in the PM inbox that redbox sent me recently. Care to show me where this "insult" is?

This is why I doubt your credibility. Given this is how you lie about other members, a screenshot detailing settings would be well within your juristiction to fabricate.

It is interesting to note one of your quotes:

...And someone who was in the program, did just that. Started troll topics, spread misinformation, and just always praised NV, and put down ATI.

If you switch things around we have your basic definition:

...spread misinformation, and just always praised ATI, and put down NV.

Your statements thus far have implied that Nvidia's 8xAA is useless while many more credible sources than yourself have stated otherwise.

 

[schneiderguy]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
You're now claiming that HQ AF is not better than normal AF?

ATI HQ AF vs Regular NV AF

not much better than regular AF

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: Ackmed
You're now claiming that HQ AF is not better than normal AF?

ATI HQ AF vs Regular NV AF

not much better than regular AF

Yeah it is. You can distinctively see the different detail in the gravel. I can anyway.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: josh6079

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: Ackmed
You're now claiming that HQ AF is not better than normal AF?

ATI HQ AF vs Regular NV AF

not much better than regular AF

Yeah it is. You can distinctively see the different detail in the gravel. I can anyway.

Agreed. Just look at the gravel at the far edge of the slope the dude is standing on, it is a dramatic difference.