• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Radeon's 3D visual quality better than the GTS'!!!

As I understood it, Matrox had always had the best 2d/3d visuals. NVidia was a close second in 3d, and 3dfx languished far behind. Today, 3dfx has caught up to and surpassed NVidia in terms of 3d quality and so too has ATI.

So NVidia, it now seems, has the worst 3d video quality of all the big players...

Napalm
 
I really don't see what the big fuss is about. I didn't see much image quality difference between the two other than the rendering of the sky in the first image comparison, that was quite a big difference.
The rendering of everything else seems to be pretty much similar.

Besides, many of the images aren't exactly the same scene. The editor took screenshots of both cards in slightly different positions and directions, and even with different weapons, which can cause images to be rendered slightly differently.
 
I'm with Goi.

Personally, I don't really care how the sky looks so long as I can see that guy coming around the corner at 80fps. 🙂
 
The sky looks worse on the GeForce because Texture compression is enabled in Q3.

Turn it off and it will look just the same.
 
GTS and NVIDIA rocks.

ATI is Canadian they will always SUCK. Matrox makes nice 2D cards. HAHA. 3Dfx has their FSAA which is the exact same thing like upping the resolution. Besides your eyes dont notice FSAA unless you stand still. This does no good in Racing games. Bunch of crap. No way you can see the differences unless you tell yourself this. This is a good example of the placebo pills(sugar pills).

 
Ahhh... gotta love blind loyalty. No matter what happens, your company will always rock. Kinda like Rod Stewart.
 
Man, with all the companies attacking on all fronts, I don't think Nvidia will be able to hold there lead for long. They will be bested by speed and quality in no time, just like 3dfx was.
 
Coki:
ATI is Canadian they will always SUCK.

WTF is with that??

Do you buy video cards based on whether they are the best product for the money or based on where they come from? I do not like NVidia as a company (their PR department makes bogus claims and strong-arms independent webmasters) but when I was looking for my last video card I went with them because they simply had the best product.

Napalm
 
Let's further dissect Coki's post:
"3Dfx has their FSAA which is the exact same thing like upping the resolution. Besides your eyes dont notice FSAA unless you stand still."

While FSAA does provide the illusion of increasing the resolution, it does more than actually increasing the resolution can ever do. FSAA eliminates jaggies (obvious edges of polygons) and interference patterns produced by tightly packed parallel lines, two things that are still very apparent even at 1600x1200.
 
As ScoRp!oN sez, and was clearly stated in the beginning of the comparison, the texture compression being on by default for the GTS might explain its lesser visual quality but in the conclusion the Radeon beat the GTS in smoothness despite that the texture compression should have been an advantage (my reasoning) so the Radeon is better.

"Finally, although this is not related to image quality, but is an interesting comment on how the Radeon does on the NV15 level, which was released by NVIDIA. This level looks to stress video cards by tossing all sorts of visual effects at the card (which chew up gobs fill rate) as well as encorporating structures with high polygon counts. Basically, this demo suits the two strongest assets of the GeForce2 - an amazing 1.6Gtexel/sec fill rate and 25 million triangles per second hardware T&L engine.

It is surprising indeed then that the ATi Radeon runs this level better than the GeForce2 card. At the High Quality detail settings we used, the GeForce2 stuttered quite noticeably and did not deliver a smooth framerate. Comparitively, the Radeon's performance was silky smooth - a surprising result indeed."
 
"ATI is Canadian they will always SUCK" - Coki

WTF is that about? Do you have something against everything or everyone from Canada? I'm not even Canadian and I'm offended by that statement!


"3Dfx has their FSAA which is the exact same thing like upping the resolution. Besides your eyes dont notice FSAA unless you stand still. This does no good in Racing games. Bunch of crap. No way you can see the differences unless you tell yourself this. This is a good example of the placebo pills(sugar pills)."

Obviously you haven't seen any games using V5/5500 4X FSAA. I have and they look great no matter what type you're talking about. I'm not saying they are playable with 4X FSAA @ high resolutions but they look awesome and it's not "a good example of the placebo pills".

"ASUS P3BF, PIII 933eb, Creative Labs GeForce GTS 200\360, 196megs of ram, MX 300"

Did I read this right? You've got a P3B-F (a BX board) with an EB (133 FSB) processor? HA! I hope you mean you've got a P3-700 @ 933. If not your opinion just went out the window! 😛

Rob
 
Are we looking at the same pictures here? I found the Geforce shots to have considerably crisper textures. Considering that the Geforce is in S3TC mode, I'd hardly say that the Ati has better 3d, especially considering its awful 16-bit mode.
 
"3dfx is still the image quality king."

My ass! The V5500 looks crappy compared to either the Radeon or GTS (non-FSAA of course). Washed out and blurry, just like my old V2. The LOD sliders take care of most of the blurriness, but it still looks washed out.

Actually, I still think the G400 has the best 3D image quality - too bad it's slow compared to this new generation of cards.
 
"ATI is Canadian they will always SUCK. Matrox makes nice 2D cards. HAHA."

Heheh. Now the Radeon has the fastest 3D high-res card, and Matrox has the best 2D card. Canada rox! 😉
 


<< Washed out and blurry >>



You said yourself the LOD slider gets rid of the texture detail blurriness. The &quot;washed out&quot; look is a gamma correction problem. Turn the gamma down and it will look just the same as any nVidia/ATI/etc. card.

My Voodoo2 looked washed out in HL. I turned the gamma down both in HL and the 3dfx utilities and it looks great now.
 
The king is dead. Long live the king!

Is what I would be saying if the GeForce2GTS was slow as fsck...but, it isn't so we will have to wait one more generation for a new graphics leader. 3dfx had its time, nVidia is having its time, ATi next? Matrox last? S3...never. 😛
 
&quot;The &quot;washed out&quot; look is a gamma correction problem. Turn the gamma down and it will look just the same as any nVidia/ATI/etc. card.

Nope, turning down gamma just darkens the scene, it does nothing to help color purity. I loved my V2, it played games of the day hella fast, but the thing sure didn't have the best image quality.
 
Heheh. Now the Radeon has the fastest 3D high-res card, and Matrox has the best 2D card. Canada rox!

lol! 😀 true, very true... 😉
 
3dfx had its time, nVidia is having its time, ATi next? Matrox last? S3...never.

S3 had it's time... I would say &quot;Bitboys... never&quot; 😀😛
 
Ok, so if you turn off S3TC then the Radeon would really dish out a spanking in Q3a in 32bit color. 😉

As a general rule, nVidia doesn't have the best image quality...ATi has better generally. This is one of those times. 😛
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top