PDA

View Full Version : FX and AA/AF


fragman
07-22-03, 07:30 AM
Hi all!

I just have one simply question for anyone that actually has a FX 5900 card, and that is how well does it maintain its performance with max detail and AA/AF?

I seen a lot of scores and heard a lot of talk, but so far found little about the use of AA/AF.

I thought I would try a 9800 P, because I hear it does very well with AA/AF while maintaining good performance. Unfortunately the card I got was defective, so I still have no ATi experience or had the chance to learn of any other issues I might have had encountered. I was though however impressed with the AA/AF, if that is possible with a bad card.

Anyway Nvidia has always treated me well, being stable and compatible with all my games, but the AA/AF of the ATi card has my interest, and at the moment Iím still without one of these cards. So if someone could please give me their experience using AA/AF I would appreciate it. At the moment I can go either way 9800 P vs 5900, but I have no ATi know how, just heard a lot about there buggy drivers, which suppose to have been much better lately(hmm), and Iím not sure the FX is what I come to expect from Nvidia.

I have a GF4 and most should know how well or not so well the AA/AF is and how it affects performance, so in short does the FX AA/AF match or overtake ATi?

Hanners
07-22-03, 07:39 AM
As far as AA and AF go in general, I think it's fair to say that ATi has the upper hand.

nVidia's AF quality is now slightly better than ATi's, but ATi have better AA by far. Performance is pretty close between the 5900 and 9800 Pro without AA and AF, but once AA and AF are enabled the 9800 Pro tends to pull ahead in a lot of tests.

At the end of the day it's quite a personal choice, but seeing as you were about to take the plunge with ATi anyway, I'd say you should stick with that plan. :)


I'll now leave it to everyone else to talk you out of that idea. ;)

fragman
07-22-03, 12:25 PM
Please, please, one at a time, youíll all have a chance to reply. ;)

Well, Hanners you pretty much confirm what I was thinking. Itís been very difficult deciding which way to go, being loyal to Nvidia for so long. I really do want to play my games with AA/AF this time around, so I guess itís clear which way I have to go.

Thanks for your input..

reever2
07-22-03, 12:36 PM
If only hardocp was responding for me i could show you that still shot of ut2k3 comparing max aa/af settings which also had the framerate counter at about 39fps on the nvidia and 96 on the ati...

surfhurleydude
07-22-03, 12:38 PM
As far as AA and AF go in general, I think it's fair to say that ATi has the upper hand.

Quite an understatement, really. :p

nVidia's AF quality is now slightly better than ATi's, but ATi have better AA by far. Performance is pretty close between the 5900 and 9800 Pro without AA and AF, but once AA and AF are enabled the 9800 Pro tends to pull ahead in a lot of tests.

I'd have to disagree. nVidia's AF quality is slightly better than ATi's in theory, but in practice it is worse. nVidia cheats and uses incorrect levels of AF to boost performance. Not to mention that nVidia also lowers quality of textures and mip maps in games, so even if the AF was on the same level of ATi's, it would still look worse since it's lower quality before AF is even enabled!

AA on the Radeon is soooo much better than AA on the GeForce! It's so blurry on my GF FX, I guess I was spoiled by my Radeon... Warcraft III just doesn't look right with AA and AF enabled...

Oh, and Hanners is right, the Radeon 9800 Pro pulls out ahead of the GeForce in almost every single game with AA and AF enabled except for those that are benchmarked extensively (i.e. Quake 3, UT2003, etc. etc.) And that is an understandment as well, really...

In case you can't tell, I'm pretty dissatisfied with my GeForce FX 5900 Ultra. There are just so many problems with it, it's just not right. After a year of gaming bliss with my Radeon 9700 Pro, I assume it's just that I was spoiled :mad:

fragman
07-22-03, 05:06 PM
Reever2 I might have seen that already from Hardcop, and I sure seen plenty where ATi was almost double in a lot of the test with AA/AF. But, I also notice some sights only show test where Nvidia is leading as surfhurleydude has stated, like Quake 3, UT2003. Also, these same sights havenít updated the benchmark or do I feel are showing things as they really are. Almost, as they didnít know better, or are hiding something.

SurfhurleydudeÖ. All I can say is thanks for sharing your experience and Iím sorry to hear youíre not satisfied with your FX. From test I seen the 9700 P seems to keep up, and from the sounds of it does better where AA/AF is concerned. I wouldnít be to happy either.

yoladude
07-22-03, 06:46 PM
u know what....my advice is to get whichever card is cheaper because chances are when you play a game, you're going to be too distracted to look at the anti-aliasing effects too closely. and seriously, will 10 fps at an average of over 100 really make a difference? plus, unless ur monitor's refresh rate is over 100, that REALLY won't make a difference.

to sum up, they're both kick-ass kick-wallet cards, and i would just buy the cheaper one.

fragman
07-22-03, 07:12 PM
Yeah, but I'm not trying to save a buck, I want what has the best AA/AF. The ATi card that was defected was $499, and about the cheapest Iíll go is 128 mb ;)... And now that I got AA/AF on my mind itís hard to play a game and not pay attention to it, if you can have it, why not? Sure 10 fps isnít much of a difference, unless itís a difference between playable and not.

StealthHawk
07-22-03, 09:51 PM
Surfhurleydude,

Didn't you used to be a hardcore NVIDIot like a week ago, or was that someone else :p

surfhurleydude
07-22-03, 09:52 PM
Surfhurleydude,

Didn't you used to be a hardcore NVIDIot like a week ago, or was that someone else

Yes, but it was based off of my previous experiences with nVidia cards... The GeForce FX 5900 Ultra left a bad taste in my mouth. :mad: