Nvidia better image quality than ATI.

[VIAN]

Here

It says that Nvidia shows more detail than ATI.

Pictures look convincing.

 

[Jeff7181]

ATI's anti-aliasing is still better though. So which would you rather have? More detailed textures or better AA? I personally would rather have better AA... but I like nVidia cards... you can call me a fanboy if you want, but there's too many question marks about ATI hardware and drivers being compatable with other software.

 

[FearoftheNight]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
ATI's anti-aliasing is still better though. So which would you rather have? More detailed textures or better AA? I personally would rather have better AA... but I like nVidia cards... you can call me a fanboy if you want, but there's too many question marks about ATI hardware and drivers being compatable with other software.

YEs still more compatible for most part.

 

[reever]

Originally posted by: VIAN
Here

It says that Nvidia shows more detail than ATI.

Pictures look convincing.

And then this shows ATi with more detail than Nvidia...

The point? Depending on where you look it will show IQ is better for either company in alternating reviews, how you can definately come up with better IQ from one review is beyond me

 

[Mem]

ATi has better AA and Nvidia better AF,however the IQ quality difference is small and when you throw in the many different cards from both companies and drivers well you get the picture,bottom line it`s 50/50 with both being close in general.One thing for sure Nvidia have improved quite a bit from their old TNT days.

 

[Aftermath]

Flat out saying one company is better than the other is asking for a flamewar to rise up again. They even say in the conclusion that the results are subjective, which I'm sure they are. It's how our sesnses percieve things after all, not a number or statistic.

 

[Pete]

I'll be blunt: VIAN, the thread title and starter sounds like a troll, mainly because it's so uninformed. Whether it's deliberately so is the question. You've been on a tear with threads that are more question than statement, though this one certainly appears to be mainly the latter.

The article in question doesn't corroborate your summation, and you don't take into account that nV's 8xAA is not nearly as playable as ATi's 6xAA. It's not surprising that texture quality would be better in 8xAA, as that AA mode applies some SSAA in addition to MSAA.

8xAA may be more appropriate for older games, though, and I'd be interested in seeing an article exploring AA in older games.

Edit: Requisite link to B3D discussion of article. It also includes some links by MikeC to IQ comparos in his 5950U review. Judging by the FS, NVN, and [ H ] IQ comparos, I don't think it's simple to call an IQ victory. But FS' article was a touch unrealistic in including 8xAA or 6xAA without mentioning framerate, IMO, especially since (AFAIK) they hadn't included those settings in previous articles.

 

[Genx87]

as that AA mode applies some SSAA in addition to MSAA.


Eh????? I thought neither card could do these techniques.

Also i thought AA only dealt with edges of the textures and not the quality of the texture themselves? Isnt that what bilinear, trilinear and AF settings are all about?

however the IQ quality difference is small and when you throw in the many different cards from both companies and drivers well you get the picture,bottom line it`s 50/50 with both being close in general.One thing for sure Nvidia have improved quite a bit from their old TNT days.


I think you sumed it up pretty damn good here.

 

[cm123]

I own both cards myself, I prefer the 5950 ultra (BFG), it feels fastest in everyday work, plays all my games great on a 19" LCD at 1280x1024. The ATI 9800XT often has liitle issues (example: Rise of Nations, limited to 1024x768 where as the 5950 lets me go higher - others won't play at all on the ATI 9800XT, like CC Zero hour, I know, I know, if I mess around rolling back drivers and such on the ATI, it might work, just don't want to mess around all the time).

I also had issues where both my 9800Pro and 9800XT black screen on my LCD's with 3.7 & 3.8 cats (DVI)... however burning them out as some say, have yet to figure that one out? - don't leave your display on when its out of sync...

Here's more links to a few quality/issue concern reviews...

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=22644f90c78bd23959ff402d468b6f80&threadid=33705231


http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031023/nvidia-nv38-nv36-20.html

http://www.gamersdepot.com/ed/cat38/002.htm

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/building_gaming_opteron_2003_Part1/page6.asp

Both companies have some work to do yet on drivers, Nvidia for now is doing quality better...

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: cm123
I own both cards myself, I prefer the 5950 ultra (BFG), it feels fastest in everyday work, plays all my games great on a 19" LCD at 1280x1024. The ATI 9800XT often has liitle issues (example: Rise of Nations, limited to 1024x768 where as the 5950 lets me go higher - others won't play at all on the ATI 9800XT, like CC Zero hour, I know, I know, if I mess around rolling back drivers and such on the ATI, it might work, just don't want to mess around all the time).

I also had issues where both my 9800Pro and 9800XT black screen on my LCD's with 3.7 & 3.8 cats (DVI)... however burning them out as some say, have yet to figure that one out? - don't leave your display on when its out of sync...

Here's more links to a few quality/issue concern reviews...

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=22644f90c78bd23959ff402d468b6f80&threadid=33705231


http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031023/nvidia-nv38-nv36-20.html

http://www.gamersdepot.com/ed/cat38/002.htm

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/building_gaming_opteron_2003_Part1/page6.asp

Both companies have some work to do yet on drivers, Nvidia for now is doing quality better...

Yea, your previous thread sure showed that!

 

[cm123]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: cm123
I own both cards myself, I prefer the 5950 ultra (BFG), it feels fastest in everyday work, plays all my games great on a 19" LCD at 1280x1024. The ATI 9800XT often has liitle issues (example: Rise of Nations, limited to 1024x768 where as the 5950 lets me go higher - others won't play at all on the ATI 9800XT, like CC Zero hour, I know, I know, if I mess around rolling back drivers and such on the ATI, it might work, just don't want to mess around all the time).

I also had issues where both my 9800Pro and 9800XT black screen on my LCD's with 3.7 & 3.8 cats (DVI)... however burning them out as some say, have yet to figure that one out? - don't leave your display on when its out of sync...

Here's more links to a few quality/issue concern reviews...

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=22644f90c78bd23959ff402d468b6f80&threadid=33705231


http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031023/nvidia-nv38-nv36-20.html

http://www.gamersdepot.com/ed/cat38/002.htm

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/building_gaming_opteron_2003_Part1/page6.asp

Both companies have some work to do yet on drivers, Nvidia for now is doing quality better...

Yea, your previous thread sure showed that!

Tabb, you can throw mudd, but that seems to be about all you know. I responded to your needless post before, seems your still compensating for something... sorry about that.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: VIAN
Here

It says that Nvidia shows more detail than ATI.

Pictures look convincing.

The only immediately perceptible difference between these two shots is that the smoke trailing the fourth bomber in the formation is slightly darker in the ATI image, while the [/b]exhaust is a bit whiter in the NVIDIA shot.[/b]

Nevertheless, the shots above are both taken using the 4x anti-aliasing methods. And while NVIDIA?s quality seems to have improved, ATI is still clearly dominant. Check out the magnified shots of the rear gun turrets for an example. The difference is still pretty significant.

It?s tough to make a call on Game Test 4, even without anti-aliasing or anisotropic filtering enabled. The two images are nearly identical, but there are slight differences between the two. Odd pixels rendered in one are not rendered in the other, and vice versa.

Both cards achieve similar anisotropic filtering here, and there is very little difference, once again, between the RADEON 9800 XT and GeForce FX 5950. If anything, the ATI shot is a tinge darker.

NVIDIA has made up a lot of ground in its anti-aliasing quality since the last time we explored it. The odd blurring issues we previously encountered are fixed nearly to the point of being comparable. At this point, the RADEON 9800 XT has seemingly better quality on objects in the foreground, while the GeForce FX 5950 is able to display a neater image on the background. For example, the foreground grass is fuller in the ATI shot, evidenced by the blades in the bottom right hand corner. Meanwhile, the NVIDIA shot does a much better job on the tree branches in the background.

Then, something interesting happens. We cranked the GeForce FX 5950 up to 8x anti-aliasing and the RADEON 9800 XT to 6x anti-aliasing, the maximum settings for both cards. The GeForce FX 5950 image improves dramatically; of course, the jagged edges are gone, but the textures are sharper as well. Meanwhile, the RADEON 9800 XT persists in decapitating the back row of onlookers. And while the jagged edges disappear, the card still retains poor texture quality seen in the preceding image. Consequently, the track is more detailed in the NVIDIA shot. It looks like ATI?s anti-aliasing is still superior to that of NVIDIA?s, but the discrepancies in detail are so distracting that it?s hard to tell.

The GeForce FX 5950 supports 8x anisotropic filtering and the RADEON 9800 XT supports up to 16x, so those are the settings we?ve used here. The use of anisotropic filtering has a massive effect on the scene?s overall detail level, but there is still a distinct difference between the competing cards. NVIDIA?s texture clarity is progressively better than the previous scene, though the jagged edges are back due to the lack of anti-aliasing. ATI?s texture quality is much closer to that of the GeForce FX; mainly, it isn?t as bad as the baseline shot. Plus, the spectators have their heads back!

With both AA and AF turned on, the overall package is a mixed bag. ATI turns in better anti-aliasing as seen on the concrete barrier in the background and the fence in the foreground. The grass in the background is still noticeably blurrier than the GeForce FX 5950, though.

The differences between ATI?s 6x mode and NVIDIA?s 8x anti-aliasing are subtle, at best. That said, the RADEON 9800 XT provides what looks like a smoother image. Of course, then there?s the issue of playability. In IL2, both cards run just fine, though we can imagine other applications where 8x anti-aliasing would simply be unplayable.

Even after flipping back and forth between these two shots, it?s tough to discern any differences between the two. If a deviation were to be identified, it?d be that the sky in the RADEON 9800 XT picture is slightly bluer than the GeForce FX 5950. That?s about it, though.

The nod actually goes to ATI here. Even though both images are quite nearly identical, the GeForce FX 5950 is missing some detail on the arch at the far end of the picture. It?s not a big deal, but we can see from the preceding images that it indeed should be there, and ATI?s RADEON 9800 XT successfully displays the image, as it should.

End Quote

Finally, even though NVIDIA?s image quality in Unreal Tournament is really quite good, it should be said that the firm still hasn?t made good on its promise to fix the ?Application? setting in its control panel applet, which would allow Direct3D games to use filtering as intended by the game developer. Instead, it forces a hybrid mode that improves performance and, consequently, benchmark scores.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: cm123

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: cm123
I own both cards myself, I prefer the 5950 ultra (BFG), it feels fastest in everyday work, plays all my games great on a 19" LCD at 1280x1024. The ATI 9800XT often has liitle issues (example: Rise of Nations, limited to 1024x768 where as the 5950 lets me go higher - others won't play at all on the ATI 9800XT, like CC Zero hour, I know, I know, if I mess around rolling back drivers and such on the ATI, it might work, just don't want to mess around all the time).

I also had issues where both my 9800Pro and 9800XT black screen on my LCD's with 3.7 & 3.8 cats (DVI)... however burning them out as some say, have yet to figure that one out? - don't leave your display on when its out of sync...

Here's more links to a few quality/issue concern reviews...

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=22644f90c78bd23959ff402d468b6f80&threadid=33705231


http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031023/nvidia-nv38-nv36-20.html

http://www.gamersdepot.com/ed/cat38/002.htm

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/building_gaming_opteron_2003_Part1/page6.asp

Both companies have some work to do yet on drivers, Nvidia for now is doing quality better...

Yea, your previous thread sure showed that!

Tabb, you can throw mudd, but that seems to be about all you know. I responded to your needless post before, seems your still compensating for something... sorry about that.

Guess you didnt install something right.....

i have been in computers since 1986 as a tech., MCSE (never failed a test in computers - passed first time, everytime, many MCSE can not say this), +I, +SQL, +Exchange, +IIS, +TCP/IP, A+, SCSI+, Red Hat Linux RH300, digital PBX engineer, Quantum MVP, MOS - senior product engineer while designing and approved of 2 editor choice systems including the first and fastest (at the time) AMD athlon (CRN) including set there record in #D performance using ATI card, first engineer at a whitebox company to confirm/find major hdd error (wd), guest speaker at crn xchange event, CIO for over 12 Years, etc...

With all those cerits....you still didnt install ATi's Drivers right?

 

[cm123]

Again Tabb, you can throw mudd, but that seems to be about all you know. I responded to your needless post before, seems your still compensating for something... sorry about that again

http://www.gamersdepot.com/ed/cat38/002.htm


We welcome ATI?s relentless pursuit of driver utopia, however we cannot sit by while it releases sub-par drivers that are billed as its most ?significant ever? when they?re so full of bugs.

However, we cannot help but wonder just what the heck went wrong with these drivers. In-house we?ve had them crap out on 3 different test system with various games ? on one of them no OpenGL games would work at all, simply giving an ?OpenGL Subsys could not be loaded?. C&C: Generals: Zero Hour has issues for us as well.




q]Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: cm123

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: cm123
I own both cards myself, I prefer the 5950 ultra (BFG), it feels fastest in everyday work, plays all my games great on a 19" LCD at 1280x1024. The ATI 9800XT often has liitle issues (example: Rise of Nations, limited to 1024x768 where as the 5950 lets me go higher - others won't play at all on the ATI 9800XT, like CC Zero hour, I know, I know, if I mess around rolling back drivers and such on the ATI, it might work, just don't want to mess around all the time).

I also had issues where both my 9800Pro and 9800XT black screen on my LCD's with 3.7 & 3.8 cats (DVI)... however burning them out as some say, have yet to figure that one out? - don't leave your display on when its out of sync...

Here's more links to a few quality/issue concern reviews...

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=22644f90c78bd23959ff402d468b6f80&threadid=33705231


http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031023/nvidia-nv38-nv36-20.html

http://www.gamersdepot.com/ed/cat38/002.htm

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/building_gaming_opteron_2003_Part1/page6.asp

Both companies have some work to do yet on drivers, Nvidia for now is doing quality better...

Yea, your previous thread sure showed that!

Tabb, you can throw mudd, but that seems to be about all you know. I responded to your needless post before, seems your still compensating for something... sorry about that.

Guess you didnt install something right.....

i have been in computers since 1986 as a tech., MCSE (never failed a test in computers - passed first time, everytime, many MCSE can not say this), +I, +SQL, +Exchange, +IIS, +TCP/IP, A+, SCSI+, Red Hat Linux RH300, digital PBX engineer, Quantum MVP, MOS - senior product engineer while designing and approved of 2 editor choice systems including the first and fastest (at the time) AMD athlon (CRN) including set there record in #D performance using ATI card, first engineer at a whitebox company to confirm/find major hdd error (wd), guest speaker at crn xchange event, CIO for over 12 Years, etc...

With all those cerits....you still didnt install ATi's Drivers right?[/quote]

link it herehttp://www.gamersdepot.com/ed/cat38/002.htm

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: cm123
Again Tabb, you can throw mudd, but that seems to be about all you know. I responded to your needless post before, seems your still compensating for something... sorry about that again

http://www.gamersdepot.com/ed/cat38/002.htm


We welcome ATI?s relentless pursuit of driver utopia, however we cannot sit by while it releases sub-par drivers that are billed as its most ?significant ever? when they?re so full of bugs.

However, we cannot help but wonder just what the heck went wrong with these drivers. In-house we?ve had them crap out on 3 different test system with various games ? on one of them no OpenGL games would work at all, simply giving an ?OpenGL Subsys could not be loaded?. C&C: Generals: Zero Hour has issues for us as well.




q]Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: cm123

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: cm123
I own both cards myself, I prefer the 5950 ultra (BFG), it feels fastest in everyday work, plays all my games great on a 19" LCD at 1280x1024. The ATI 9800XT often has liitle issues (example: Rise of Nations, limited to 1024x768 where as the 5950 lets me go higher - others won't play at all on the ATI 9800XT, like CC Zero hour, I know, I know, if I mess around rolling back drivers and such on the ATI, it might work, just don't want to mess around all the time).

I also had issues where both my 9800Pro and 9800XT black screen on my LCD's with 3.7 & 3.8 cats (DVI)... however burning them out as some say, have yet to figure that one out? - don't leave your display on when its out of sync...

Here's more links to a few quality/issue concern reviews...

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=22644f90c78bd23959ff402d468b6f80&threadid=33705231


http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031023/nvidia-nv38-nv36-20.html

http://www.gamersdepot.com/ed/cat38/002.htm

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/building_gaming_opteron_2003_Part1/page6.asp

Both companies have some work to do yet on drivers, Nvidia for now is doing quality better...

Yea, your previous thread sure showed that!

Tabb, you can throw mudd, but that seems to be about all you know. I responded to your needless post before, seems your still compensating for something... sorry about that.

Guess you didnt install something right.....

i have been in computers since 1986 as a tech., MCSE (never failed a test in computers - passed first time, everytime, many MCSE can not say this), +I, +SQL, +Exchange, +IIS, +TCP/IP, A+, SCSI+, Red Hat Linux RH300, digital PBX engineer, Quantum MVP, MOS - senior product engineer while designing and approved of 2 editor choice systems including the first and fastest (at the time) AMD athlon (CRN) including set there record in #D performance using ATI card, first engineer at a whitebox company to confirm/find major hdd error (wd), guest speaker at crn xchange event, CIO for over 12 Years, etc...

With all those cerits....you still didnt install ATi's Drivers right?

Some Mudd

 

[cm123]

Like I said, go back drivers for some and forward to make games work not to my liking...

your zero anand tech link is hard to get to... I will re-post it here...

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1896&p=5

notice cat 3.7, I used cat 3.8 with my 9800XT - why use a driver that does NOT take full advantage of your hardware...

Tabb, I'm not throwning mud at ATI, they too need to fix some issues, don't take this so personal.

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: cm123
Again Tabb, you can throw mudd, but that seems to be about all you know. I responded to your needless post before, seems your still compensating for something... sorry about that again

http://www.gamersdepot.com/ed/cat38/002.htm


We welcome ATI?s relentless pursuit of driver utopia, however we cannot sit by while it releases sub-par drivers that are billed as its most ?significant ever? when they?re so full of bugs.

However, we cannot help but wonder just what the heck went wrong with these drivers. In-house we?ve had them crap out on 3 different test system with various games ? on one of them no OpenGL games would work at all, simply giving an ?OpenGL Subsys could not be loaded?. C&C: Generals: Zero Hour has issues for us as well.




q]Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: cm123

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: cm123
I own both cards myself, I prefer the 5950 ultra (BFG), it feels fastest in everyday work, plays all my games great on a 19" LCD at 1280x1024. The ATI 9800XT often has liitle issues (example: Rise of Nations, limited to 1024x768 where as the 5950 lets me go higher - others won't play at all on the ATI 9800XT, like CC Zero hour, I know, I know, if I mess around rolling back drivers and such on the ATI, it might work, just don't want to mess around all the time).

I also had issues where both my 9800Pro and 9800XT black screen on my LCD's with 3.7 & 3.8 cats (DVI)... however burning them out as some say, have yet to figure that one out? - don't leave your display on when its out of sync...

Here's more links to a few quality/issue concern reviews...

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=22644f90c78bd23959ff402d468b6f80&threadid=33705231


http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031023/nvidia-nv38-nv36-20.html

http://www.gamersdepot.com/ed/cat38/002.htm

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/building_gaming_opteron_2003_Part1/page6.asp

Both companies have some work to do yet on drivers, Nvidia for now is doing quality better...

Yea, your previous thread sure showed that!

Tabb, you can throw mudd, but that seems to be about all you know. I responded to your needless post before, seems your still compensating for something... sorry about that.

Guess you didnt install something right.....

i have been in computers since 1986 as a tech., MCSE (never failed a test in computers - passed first time, everytime, many MCSE can not say this), +I, +SQL, +Exchange, +IIS, +TCP/IP, A+, SCSI+, Red Hat Linux RH300, digital PBX engineer, Quantum MVP, MOS - senior product engineer while designing and approved of 2 editor choice systems including the first and fastest (at the time) AMD athlon (CRN) including set there record in #D performance using ATI card, first engineer at a whitebox company to confirm/find major hdd error (wd), guest speaker at crn xchange event, CIO for over 12 Years, etc...

With all those cerits....you still didnt install ATi's Drivers right?

Some Mudd

 

[oldfart]

Another from FS. Hmm...a trend perhaps?

 

[Pete]

FFS, people (clm123 and Tabb), you don't need to quote a post that's literally right above yours!!!!(!)*

Genx87, I'm surprised you didn't know that nV has some mixed modes, as they've had them since the GF4, IIRC (4xS, at least). Basically their 2x and 4x modes are straight up MSAA, but anything above that (4xS, 6x, 8x) adds some SSAA on top of the regular MSAA. The difference b/w SS and MS AA is that SS AA's the whole image by rendering at a higher resolution then downsampling into the lower target res, thus improving IQ for the whole image (edges, textures, shaders) at the expense of lots of GPU time and bandwidth (higher res = more work all-around). MS AA just works on polygon edges, saving bandwidth and GPU cycles. Specifically, SSAA improves textures (kind of like a low level of AF) simply because the higher the resolution you render at, the higher quality (less blurry) MIP-maps you use. (If you enable colored MIP-maps in Q3 or SS, you'll notice that the MIP-maps get pushed back further with higher resolutions. Here's a short explanation. I'm sure one of Anand's GF3/8500 reviews had AA comparison shots that could show how the 8500's SSAA helped with textures, whereas the GF3's MSAA left them alone.)

The FX series can obviously do SSAA, as I just detailed. The Radeon R3x0 can also do SSAA, but ATi has only implemented this in the Mac drivers. Pity, as some nice JGSS + gamma-corrected AA would make for a very interesting comparison to the peak of SSAA, the V5's RGSS + multi-frame-blended AA.

AA means anti-aliasing, and it deals with aliasing, or artifacts resulting from insufficient samples. Super sampling is full-scene anti-aliasing (FSAA). It affects everything because it just renders everything at a higher res, then downsamples it into the target res. MSAA, OTOH, just targets polygon edges, and leaves textures alone. Newer cards tend to use AF + MSAA instead of simply SSAA, as the AF+MS combo yields better IQ at a lower performance hit. Bi- and trilinear filtering tackle different issues than AF, AFAIK--they're concerned with blending MIP-map transitions, whereas AF is concerned with offering better IQ for textures not perpendicular to the camera. Meh, I don't want to mislead you, so I suggest checking the B3D glossary first to get a general idea of what each term stands for. I'm sure your exact Q (AF vs. AA) was covered in a B3D forum thread, too, but I don't have a link for you.


* !