PDA

View Full Version : Filtering comparison take 2 - X800XT vs 6800U


mikechai
05-28-04, 10:04 PM
Download the attached zip file and extract the html files into a folder.

Open the custom html files to see a comparison between 2 cards.
The images are linked to Digit-life X800XT vs 6800U article (http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/gffx/nv40-rx800-2-p1.html).

Objective: comparing trilinear filtering quality, please note mipmap transition.

Use mouse over, mouse out, mouse over to compare the images.

I can see some filtering issues ......
What about you?

Skynet
05-29-04, 12:36 AM
It's easy to see the mipmap transitions, I don't like...but the ATi screens look sharper, more vibrant and detailed to me.

Also if you read the original review, take a look at the Far Cry (http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/gffx/nv40-rx800-2-p4.html#p18) shots, the nVidia card looks HORRIBLE. Either a severe driver bug (I doubt it) or the shader and floating point precision is very low.

mikechai
05-29-04, 12:48 AM
Still have bugs in farcry. Could also be the NV40 running NV3x path.

As for the filtering issues, image will be sharper with bilinear filtering(obvious transition, texture shimmering), blurrer with trilinear filtering(smooth transition, less shimmering).

There is always a trade off ....

Blacklash
05-29-04, 12:53 AM
Patch 1.1 is the culprit for introducing some shader substitution to enhance FX performance. I posted this elsewhere, but it will fix any precision issues, of course be prepared for the FPS hit. I also believe the NV40 is being identified as a FX. Hopefully 1.2 will fix this.

"If you have a FX card and hate the lighting precision issues introduced with the patch you can do this: Go into Far Cry and set your lighting option to "very high". Quit and do this>

C:\Program Files\Ubisoft\Crytek\Far Cry\FCData (change the drive letter if different) and drag drop the Shaders1.pak.to a different folder or your desk top.That will get rid of all the lighting optimizations (forces PS 1.1 in certain area's) for all NV3X cards. After you have moved that Farcry should render the game exactly the same as a 9800/X800. Again, you must set the lighting quality to VERY HIGH for this to work right.....if you set it lower you will get graphic problems.

If your FPS is too low simply put it back! I would suggest this for 5900XT users and up, however anyone can try it."

jimmyjames123
05-29-04, 12:57 AM
Don't be fooled by the added brightness in the pic1. This is because the sun is shining in a different location in each respective pic.

Pics 1, 2, and 5 are difficult to compare because the images were not captured in the same location.

In pic 3, there seems to be some corruption on the R420 at the very bottom of the picture. Detail seems to be similar on both cards.

In pic 4, the lighting on the R420 seems to be much less broad than the NV40.

Very difficult to say exactly why we are seeing these differences.

EDIT:

pic1 = viet
pic2 = nfsu
pic3 = pir
pic4 = pk
pic5 = mc4

Skynet
05-29-04, 01:05 AM
The Vietcong shots are interesting. Take a look at the following and tell me which looks better. (56K beware png images)
http://65.18.135.15/_temp/compare.htm

note: don't blame me for the point of view slightly different that is how the original images are.

mikechai
05-29-04, 01:07 AM
Don't be fooled by the added brightness in the first picture. This is because the sun is shining in a different location in each respective pic.

Pics 1, 2, and 5 are difficult to compare because the images were not captured in the same location.

In pic 3, there seems to be some corruption on the R420 at the very bottom of the picture. Detail seems to be similar on both cards.

In pic 4, the lighting on the R420 seems to be much less broad than the NV40.

Very difficult to say exactly why we are seeing these differences.

The pics might not be in order. Could you include the name of the game?

jimmyjames123
05-29-04, 01:15 AM
I have edited my post above to include my set of definitions for pics 1 through 5.

mikechai
05-29-04, 01:18 AM
The Vietcong shots are interesting. Take a look at the following and tell me which looks better. (56K beware png images)
http://65.18.135.15/_temp/compare.htm

note: don't blame me for the point of view slightly different that is how the original images are.

Image1 - mouse over has more detail
Image2 - mouse out has more detail
Image3 - mouse over less blur.

Blacklash
05-29-04, 01:21 AM
Honestly ,I am tired of hunching over screenshots.

I see no great IQ flaws in either the 6800 series or X800. I can adjust Far Cry with the fix I suggested, and I can have trilinear texture filtering through all stages in AF on the X800 card if an application doesn't have a way to set it with the Ati tray tool application. After some review I can say I mostly approve of the results of both Ati's 'adaptive' filtering and nVidia's improved 'brilinear'.

I will be playing with a Pro very soon, and a GT some time after. (Rig 1|2)

fivefeet8
05-29-04, 02:09 AM
The Vietcong shots are interesting. Take a look at the following and tell me which looks better. (56K beware png images)
http://65.18.135.15/_temp/compare.htm

note: don't blame me for the point of view slightly different that is how the original images are.

The Nv40 shots from that game looks like it's using Super Sampling. The whole scene is blurred. Strange.

MikeC
05-29-04, 03:10 AM
Honestly ,I am tired of hunching over screenshots.

Me too. But "no hunching was required" when I compared the full size images from Pirates of the Carribean :)

http://www.nvnews.net/images/news/200405/boundary.png

The abrupt transition between textures is clearly noticeable in the X800 shot and appears to be a similar effect to the "brilinear" filtering that NVIDIA was using in UT2003. I have video footage that I recorded with FRAPS to capture the affect that this causes during movement. In fact, the area that it was noticeable in UT2003 used textures that were similar to this example.

I would like to reproduce that image on the X800 Pro, but I don't have the game. Digit-Life usually does a good job in their screenshot comparisons, but these seem to have been rushed and contain artifacts from jpg compression.

mikechai
05-29-04, 06:18 AM
Me too. But "no hunching was required" when I compared the full size images from Pirates of the Carribean :)

http://www.nvnews.net/images/news/200405/boundary.png

The abrupt transition between textures is clearly noticeable in the X800 shot and appears to be a similar effect to the "brilinear" filtering that NVIDIA was using in UT2003. I have video footage that I recorded with FRAPS to capture the affect that this causes during movement. In fact, the area that it was noticeable in UT2003 used textures that were similar to this example.

I would like to reproduce that image on the X800 Pro, but I don't have the game. Digit-Life usually does a good job in their screenshot comparisons, but these seem to have been rushed and contain artifacts from jpg compression.

Exactly! This is what I was trying to say. The mipmap transition is clearly noticeable.
But Digit-life comment was:-
I didn't try to measure performance in this game, but it was interesting to compare the qualities, especially considering the amount of complaints about the way various cards work in this application. As we see, the rivals showed identical qualities with no artefacts.
Obviously, they didn't even use both their eyes.
Its the same thing with the previous Call of Duty screenshot. It makes me hard to believe they mistakenly set as bilinear filtering again.

Does anyone with a X800Pro experience any filtering issue in CoD ?

Nv40
05-30-04, 01:05 PM
Me too. But "no hunching was required" when I compared the full size images from Pirates of the Carribean :)

http://www.nvnews.net/images/news/200405/boundary.png

The abrupt transition between textures is clearly noticeable in the X800 shot and appears to be a similar effect to the "brilinear" filtering that NVIDIA was using in UT2003. I have video footage that I recorded with FRAPS to capture the affect that this causes during movement. In fact, the area that it was noticeable in UT2003 used textures that were similar to this example.

I would like to reproduce that image on the X800 Pro, but I don't have the game. Digit-Life usually does a good job in their screenshot comparisons, but these seem to have been rushed and contain artifacts from jpg compression.


and later people says that they can't notice a diference ... even a blind man should notice that :) ATI 20-30% of performance boost comes at the expense of IQ contrary with some people belief.

Arioch
05-30-04, 01:19 PM
Both sets of new cards are supposed to be blazing fast so I wish both companies would cut out the image quality degradation just to improve the framerates a bit.

DSC
05-30-04, 01:42 PM
http://discuss.futuremark.com/forum/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=techdisplayadapters&Number=3898058&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=all

http://img29.photobucket.com/albums/v87/mr_andersson/Grab_001.jpg

Another very obvious screenshot. You can clearly see the harsh mipmap transition. Even scarier, this was taken on a 9700 or 9700P with 4x AF......

:screwy:

dan2097
05-30-04, 02:18 PM
http://discuss.futuremark.com/forum/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=techdisplayadapters&Number=3898058&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=all

http://img29.photobucket.com/albums/v87/mr_andersson/Grab_001.jpg

Another very obvious screenshot. You can clearly see the harsh mipmap transition. Even scarier, this was taken on a 9700 or 9700P with 4x AF......

:screwy:

Thats caused by ATIs control panel quality af not doing trilinear on all texture stages. That game happens to use a texture stage other than the 1st for the base texture so it gets forced bilinear.

muzz
05-31-04, 01:16 AM
The Vietcong shots are interesting. Take a look at the following and tell me which looks better. (56K beware png images)
http://65.18.135.15/_temp/compare.htm

note: don't blame me for the point of view slightly different that is how the original images are.
The mouse over looks much more detailed, just take a look at the tail wing it is so blurry it looks like a squiggly line( <no mouseover>), and can hardly make out the tail numbers at all.
The Jeep is much more detailed, to the point you can even detect hardware, and the bush and surrounding area have much more detail on the mouseover..
The transitions on the larger shots show the NV40 to filter that area better, but IMO it is done at the expense of sharpness, as their shots look a bit blurry to me.
Mouse over looks much better on those SMALLER shots(not even close IMO), but they don't show the transitions as the sample is too small.
Trade off I guess.

Skynet
05-31-04, 02:24 AM
the mouseover is on the X800.

Riptide
05-31-04, 08:51 AM
the mouseover is on the X800.
I think the mouseover definitely looks better.

Quasar
06-01-04, 07:36 AM
If i may ask: On the original VC screens, the text-overlay and team points were quite a lot bigger on nV-hardware.
I do not know VC, but from other games i'd say, this indicates a lower resolution being used.
Can anyone shed some light on this?

jbirney
06-01-04, 09:00 AM
Something does not look right...it looks like there is NO Filtering on that trasistion on the POC shot.

rewt
06-01-04, 09:12 AM
I think the mouseover definitely looks better.

I agree. But really, what does it matter? They both look terrible, textures blurry, dull.... YUCK!! Even my 5900 looks better than that! These new nV and ATi cards seriously need better drivers!!

anzak
06-01-04, 12:32 PM
We need these tests redone with full trilinear filtering forced by the program rTool which you can download here http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.3dcenter.de/downloads/rtool.php&prev=/search%3Fq%3Drtool%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff .