-
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.
The GeForce FX sucks, but the Quadro FX defeats the Wildcat4 7210 and the Fire GL X1 in every performance benchmark...
- Thread starter Random Variable
- Start date
Random Variable
Lifer
The Quadro FX has 12-bit sub-pixel accuracy, which is two bits greater than the Wildcat4.
One problem with that review.... the yellow and green (I think) bars in the graphs are almost imossible for me to distinguish.
I (like MANY other males and fewer but numerous females) am COLORBLIND. I often see reviews containing color coded information that makes it VERY difficult for me to decipher. Of course, it depends on what color are being used and how well they contrast.
Am I the only one who ever notices this? I doubt it.
I (like MANY other males and fewer but numerous females) am COLORBLIND. I often see reviews containing color coded information that makes it VERY difficult for me to decipher. Of course, it depends on what color are being used and how well they contrast.
Am I the only one who ever notices this? I doubt it.
FSAA might be good for final image quality and when viewing edges, but lines in cad programs even with the best of AA become wider than the 1 pixel width that they are meant to be, which when AA is added makes a spot with many lines blurry rather than crisp. xbit labs has a review (too lazy to go there and find a link) on the speed of the quadro fx against modern 3d accelerators and they show it has better non-AA quality than even ATI's offerings. It might be nice to have final images rendered with AA on, but for realtime editing AA detracts from the precision of a drawing. For the final images, software can do just as good of rendering if not better because it does not have to be scaled down.
Random Variable
Lifer
That article is comparing the previous generation Wildcat with the GeForce4.
And as said a little earlier, the Quadro FX has greater sub-pixel precision than the Wildcat4.
Has Nvidia and top notch image quality ever been seen in the same sentence? They're $300 Ti4600 still doesn't come close to competing with a 4 year old Matrox G400 in 2D image quality. What makes anyone think they're 3D rendering is any better when previous generations of the Quadro have certainly not been lauded for their image quality while 3DLabs in the exact opposite position.
Just like soundcard's audio clarity you can't judge image quality by looking at stats.
Just like soundcard's audio clarity you can't judge image quality by looking at stats.
Isnt that mainly due to the filters installed by the card mfg's and not the Nvidia chip itself? It was well known that the quality of the 2d differed btw board makers, and some like leadtek and gainward used higher quality components then others. (Not to mention, the mfg of a quadro would only use the best as the market they are targeting would dictate.)
The Quadro is being marketed to the professional sector. If image quality is what they are looking for and nVidia can't deliver why even bother releasing a Quadro card when nobody will buy it? The main problem with nVidia image quality has always been the filters used by third party manufacturers. They have tightened up their standards considerably (or so they claim).