PDA

View Full Version : Amp2 engine - light banding on 5700


gsgrunt
06-11-04, 06:30 AM
Is the banding on the wall due to fp16 shaders?
Can someone test this on a r300+ or 6800 card?

FYI nVidia settings
Quality
4xFSAA
4xAA

Amp2 settings
Normal texture quality
1024x768

ragejg
06-11-04, 07:28 AM
try texture quality on high, as I do believe I did not experience that on my review that was just put up on the front page... I ran the engine on a 5900XTOC and a 9700P... and there were no visual differences... it does look to me like visual quality is highly decreases with the settings you were using...

gsgrunt
06-11-04, 08:18 AM
try texture quality on high, as I do believe I did not experience that on my review that was just put up on the front page... I ran the engine on a 5900XTOC and a 9700P... and there were no visual differences... it does look to me like visual quality is highly decreases with the settings you were using...

Thanks for the reply.

Attached is with texture quality on high. The banding is still very visible.

CaptNKILL
06-11-04, 01:40 PM
What game is that? Ive never heard of the Amp2 engine... and those shots look pretty nice.

gsgrunt
06-11-04, 02:12 PM
What game is that? Ive never heard of the Amp2 engine... and those shots look pretty nice.

It's just a tech demo.

www.4drulers.com/ (http://www.4drulers.com/)

ChrisRay
06-11-04, 03:59 PM
I'll check it out in a few with my 5900 and 5700.

SH64
06-11-04, 11:41 PM
I'll investigate this & make a comparsion between R3x0 & NV3x paths .

Omega53
06-12-04, 03:02 AM
Ill post some screens of an x800 pro in a minute

ChrisRay
06-12-04, 04:46 AM
Guys this isnt a pixel shader issue. Looks like Low Res Normalization of cubemaps. Similar to what FX cards do in Far Cry.


this is precision issue but not because hardware or APi etc it's precision issue because all is done with vertex level (vs) without pixel level (ps)

jAkUp
06-12-04, 09:27 AM
I am installing it right now on my 6800U

jAkUp
06-12-04, 09:38 AM
1600x1200
2x/4x
Highest Texture quality

2004-06-12 07:31:32 - run
Frames: 1950 - Time: 50448ms - Avg: 38.654 - Min: 19 - Max: 93

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/3245/run2004-06-1207-33-39-01.jpg

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/9467/run2004-06-1207-34-40-67.jpg

ragejg
06-12-04, 10:13 AM
jeebus, that's some performance, jaKup...

here's what I got:


http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=6338&stc=1

SH64
06-12-04, 06:51 PM
Heres how mine looks :

http://www.picgoo.com/uploads/run_20040613_02450482.jpg

SH64
06-12-04, 07:42 PM
Now i'll make a comparsion between 5950 & 9800XT in amp2 performance .

5950@1024x768,4xAA,8xAF
http://www.picgoo.com/uploads/run_20040613_03291757_5950.jpg

9800xt@640X480,4XAA,8XAF
http://www.picgoo.com/uploads/run_20040613_03281806_9800xt.jpg

EDIT : the 9800XT performance is measured @ 640x480 ,4xAA,8xAF not 1024 ..sorry .. the performance in 1024 should be a bit less than the 5950's ..
5950 @1024x768,4xAA,8xAF ...
PC's : 5950+P4@3.2 / 9800XT+P4:3.4 .

& note how my performance is nothing comparing to Jackup's :o