What would happen if ATI gave the option to the users?

[lopri]

No wonder they don't give us that option

It should be noted that some of the ATI cards did show a performance drop when colored mip levels were enabled, implying some fudging of the texture filtering -- J.C.

lop

 

[darkswordsman17]

Wow, the translation of that page sucks big time. Its hard to understand what they are saying.

Oh, not to be a prick, but this is old news. Toms already ripped ATi on their optimizations.

No big deal though. Just shows that ATi didn't really come up with a necessarily improved card. I wonder why they based the X800s off of the 9600, since surely upgrading the 97/9800 core with more pipelines and other features and moving it to the .13 micron process would've yielded better results without the need for optimizations. Perhaps I'm wrong though.

Of course, since the optimizations don't really affect the appearance too much, then there's nothing wrong with it. I wish that both companies could get away with opimizing the bejeezus out of their cards without getting flamed. I can understand it to a point, because then they wouldn't make much real change in graphics processing capabilities, but still. As long as it doesn't affect quality in a noticeably negative way, then it shouldn't matter if a card is optimized.

 

[rbV5]

You should have been here for the stimulating discussion 6 weeks ago when that article hit................

 

[kylebisme]

an option really isn't nessacary as the optimzations only work when they can do so without detracting from image quality, which is why Carmack saw the performace drop when enabling colored mip-maps. also, nvidia is the ones doing "brilinear"; "tryliniar" is what people have been calling ati's stuff.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
Wow, the translation of that page sucks big time. Its hard to understand what they are saying.

Oh, not to be a prick, but this is old news. Toms already ripped ATi on their optimizations.

No big deal though. Just shows that ATi didn't really come up with a necessarily improved card. I wonder why they based the X800s off of the 9600, since surely upgrading the 97/9800 core with more pipelines and other features and moving it to the .13 micron process would've yielded better results without the need for optimizations. Perhaps I'm wrong though.

Of course, since the optimizations don't really affect the appearance too much, then there's nothing wrong with it. I wish that both companies could get away with opimizing the bejeezus out of their cards without getting flamed. I can understand it to a point, because then they wouldn't make much real change in graphics processing capabilities, but still. As long as it doesn't affect quality in a noticeably negative way, then it shouldn't matter if a card is optimized.

The reason they did it is so they could point at benches and say they have the fastest card.

Trylinear , brilinear, whatever, they're not using full trilinear and passing their cheat off as if it was.

People have noticed the difference in games.

Ironically, their cards would probably be as fast as their competition w/o the optimizations, I think they just figured they had to be faster since they are basically the same core they introduced two years ago.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Rollo

People have noticed the difference in games.

you must be thinking about their "quality" af control panel setting which uses trilinar for the first stage and biliniar for the rest. but that is a seperate issue from ati's "tryliniar" which does not effect image quality.