X800 & 6800 Filtering Quality: NV Wins... I think?

[VIAN]

It isn't a specification to support anisotropic filtering at all- are you trying to tell me you wouldn't blame a company for not supporting AF as of this point? Of course you would. ATi's filtering accuracy is lower then that of parts introduced by its competitors six years ago.

I wouldn't blame them, but it wouldn't stop me from going to the competition. either way, they should've implemented it/implement it in their new card. Remember, not all games support those features - Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow.

I don't know where you got that from, but it is wrong. If any company was using 4 bits for blend ops it would look very close to point filtering, it isn't happening.

nm, I got confused.

Blame that on the fans with extremely low standards for image quality. After the worship of ATi's R3x0 parts IQ I was honestly shocked at how poor it was at displaying even basic textures properly. With fairly non existant IQ standards ATi was gloating how fast their "AF" was back during the R2x0 days and unfortunately nVidia learned that the mass market wasn't only not caring about IQ, they were stating the company doing an unquestionably bad job of performing an operation were doing it better.

I think for most people it is unnoticeable. I guess for you, it took a move to radeon from a geforce to notice it. Me, I move from a geforce4 to a radeon97 and you know I didn't use no AF on a GF4. But I still noticed it and didn't like it, but I hadn't seen the competition's.

What driver revision? It isn't being disabled for me with any I have tried.

I'm just telling you what's "supposed" to happen according to ATI.

It's not detail it's noise.

My statement was supposed to say that the noise made it look more defined in a still picture, but look like crap in motion.

No, we need Ti4600 anisotropic, Ti4600 filtering and Ti4600 optimizations. Everything from ATi is significantly sub par and everything nV has made since then has been on a downward slope.

Have you complained to Nvidia. Maybe you should start a petition.

Anyway, you are taking this thread off topic and I never said that Nv's HighQuality had lower IQ than ATI. Just that Websites should stop with the Quality setting because it is much worse than any artifact 6-bit filtering introduces.

 

[VIAN]

Updated with idea that it could possibly be doing partial point-filtering instead of what it is supposed to be doing.

Also included a picture that shows the optimization doing texture aliasing with a bilinear transition making the aliasing smoother again within a high resolution, 8xS anti-aliased setting.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Bump.

VIAN, is there anyway you can do a comparison of High Performance and Quality?

-Kevin

 

[Tweaks R Us]

Dont know what your smoking but in the first picture nvidia produces a sharper image. In the second picture in nv vs ati the jaggies are merely in different positions other than that the picture looks exactly the same.

 

[VIAN]

VIAN, is there anyway you can do a comparison of High Performance and Quality?

wow, didn't notice. I'll see what I can do about those pics. It might take me a few days though.

Dont know what your smoking but in the first picture nvidia produces a sharper image. In the second picture in nv vs ati the jaggies are merely in different positions other than that the picture looks exactly the same.

If you could be a bit more specific, which first picture are you talking about. Keep in mind, Aliasing sometimes fools the mind into thinking a still picture is more detailed, but it is the opposite in motion.
In the second picture in nv vs ati, the ati pic looks smoother to me, less texture aliasing.

 

[VIAN]

have done some High Performance vs Quality pics.

 

[Genx87]

Blame that on the fans with extremely low standards for image quality. After the worship of ATi's R3x0 parts IQ I was honestly shocked at how poor it was at displaying even basic textures properly. With fairly non existant IQ standards ATi was gloating how fast their "AF" was back during the R2x0 days and unfortunately nVidia learned that the mass market wasn't only not caring about IQ, they were stating the company doing an unquestionably bad job of performing an operation were doing it better.

Really makes you wonder if Nvidia didnt shoot themselves in the foot with the previous generations and AF.

If AF wasnt an option on the 4600 then there wouldnt have been a comparison that showed the R3.xx magnitudes faster when AF was enabled. The useability of AF on the R3.xx cards automatically generated the myth of greater IQ on the radeon parts that exists to today.

AF just was too much for those previous generations to handle. Back in 2002-03 nobody cared that the 4600 and 5900 were spitting out a better image with huge loss of performance. They only cared the R3.xx was faster.

So I guess we as consumers are getting what we deserve with both parts doing angle dependent filtering. Nvidia aren't stupid, why give your competitor a performance advantage when the consumers are saying they dont care?

 

[VIAN]

X800 comparison done. Look at the NV VS ATI section in the OP.

 

[VIAN]

proof is here, you know I had to bring it back. For all those non-believers, I told you. And this sucks. I want beautiful filtering.

 

[speedstream5621]

Part of the reason I got rid of my 6800 GT.

 

[BFG10K]

proof is here, you know I had to bring it back. For all those non-believers, I told you.

The issue now is with the 7800 which was not available when you started this thread.

 

[VIAN]

Yes, but I considered it an issue with the 6800 & X800 series. It's only worse now. Anyway, the proof lies in the descriptions that tell you about the filtering of the 6800 & X800.