PDA

View Full Version : Image quality comparison


Pages : [1] 2

MikeC
06-20-04, 09:38 PM
I spent Sunday afternoon and evening comparing the image quality of a rock in frame 1500 of 3DMark03 Game 4 :retard:

http://www.nvnews.net/previews/radeon_x800xt/3dmark03/image_quality/6800u_3dmark03_gt4_fr1500_0xaa_trilinear_opt11_s.p ng

The performance hit from the previous setting on the GeForce 6800 Ultra is shown in parenthesis below and is based on the results from the Game 4 test at 1024x768 with no AA.

Trilinear Filtering Enabled in 3DMark03

1. Radeon X800 XT (http://www.nvnews.net/previews/radeon_x800xt/3dmark03/image_quality/x800xt_3dmark03_gt4_fr1500_0xaa_trilinear_s.png)

2. GeForce 6800 Ultra - Trilinear Optimizations On (http://www.nvnews.net/previews/radeon_x800xt/3dmark03/image_quality/6800u_3dmark03_gt4_fr1500_0xaa_trilinear_opt11_s.p ng)

3. GeForce 6800 Ultra - Trilinear Optimizations Off (http://www.nvnews.net/previews/radeon_x800xt/3dmark03/image_quality/6800u_3dmark03_gt4_fr1500_0xaa_trilinear_opt01_s.p ng) (-2.4%)

8X Anisotropic Filtering Enabled in 3DMark03

4. Radeon X800 XT (http://www.nvnews.net/previews/radeon_x800xt/3dmark03/image_quality/x800xt_3dmark03_gt4_fr1500_0xaa_8xaf_s.png)

5. GeForce 6800 Ultra - Trilinear Optimizations On, AF Optimizations On (http://www.nvnews.net/previews/radeon_x800xt/3dmark03/image_quality/6800u_3dmark03_gt4_fr1500_0xaa_8xaf_opt11_s.png)

6. GeForce 6800 Ultra - Trilinear Optimizations Off, AF Optimizations On (http://www.nvnews.net/previews/radeon_x800xt/3dmark03/image_quality/6800u_3dmark03_gt4_fr1500_0xaa_8xaf_opt01_s.png) (-4.3%)

7. GeForce 6800 Ultra - Trilinear Optimizations On, AF Optimizations Off (http://www.nvnews.net/previews/radeon_x800xt/3dmark03/image_quality/6800u_3dmark03_gt4_fr1500_0xaa_8xaf_opt10_s.png) (-1.4%)

8. GeForce 6800 Ultra - Trilinear Optimizations Off, AF Optimizations Off (http://www.nvnews.net/previews/radeon_x800xt/3dmark03/image_quality/6800u_3dmark03_gt4_fr1500_0xaa_8xaf_opt00_s.png) (-11.7%)

If you examine the images closely, you should be able to see differences between 1 and 2 and 4 and 5.

Use The Compressonator if you need help: http://www.ati.com/developer/tools.html

jAkUp
06-20-04, 09:42 PM
Nice!!! Thanx mike! Reading now...

Those pictures are so close its hard to draw any conclusion... I think the shadow looks "softer" on the 6800U, but the texture looks a tad better on the x800xt... maybe I'm just seeing things... heh

MikeC
06-20-04, 09:55 PM
Nice!!! Thanx mike! Reading now...

It's nothing special really. But once I got started, I couldn't stop. I think the real reason I posted this is that my conscious was telling me that it takes a lot of time to compare image quality with the GeForce 6!

Clay
06-20-04, 09:57 PM
If you use Firefox (and have the XUL Tabbrowser Extension (http://white.sakura.ne.jp/~piro/xul/_tabextensions.html.en) installed) then do the following:


open each image in its own tab
press CTRL+PageUp or CTRL+PageDown to cycle through the tabs


This is really one of the better ways to compare the images (besides The Compressonator) as you can fix your gaze :eek: on the image without fiddling with the mouse. ;)

jAkUp
06-20-04, 10:02 PM
I just saved them to the desktop and flipped back and forth with windows picture.

My findings...

The x800xt image is slightly crisper in the distance with no AF on... but they are very close. Also, the 6800 Trilinear optimizations on and off look exactly the same on the rock with the 6800U

Sazar
06-20-04, 10:07 PM
if you look @ the rock closely though jakup.. you will see minor differences in a coupla the pics... some are just blurred out...

the 6800Ultra w/o any optimizations appears to have the sharpest textures on the rock it would appear though they are tiny pics :(

saturnotaku
06-20-04, 10:08 PM
Is it just me or is there absolutely no difference whatsoever among any of the 6800 shots?

Also, between the X800 and the 6800 there are some very slight differences. It's too close to call.

jAkUp
06-20-04, 10:09 PM
I just looked at the AF quality, and the 6800U has slightly better AF quality. It looks a tad bit sharper, rather than blurry. Im having a hard time noticing ANYTHING different in the geForce6 optimizations.

OWA
06-20-04, 10:10 PM
Yeah, cycling through the images is how I had to do it.

It's hard to compare. The rock looks better in the 6800U 8xAF unoptimized pic (a little sharper) vs the XT 8xAF (a littler blurrier) pic but I think the sand in the same pics might look a little better on the XT.

What mode should I compare to be equal to the XT with it's optimizations, #7?

Clay
06-20-04, 10:13 PM
Okay jAkUp...smartypants. :angel: No, you're right that Windows picture viewer is a good way too. I forget about that as I never use it. :) Below is an example of my way (using images 4~8). ;) I came to the same conclusion jAkUp. I think the differences are minimal overall but we'll obviously see the biggest between 1,4 and the rest. I highlighted the areas where I notice the most difference. It seems that the ATI has a bit too much detail in that background area and not enough on the face of the rock. Again, it's minimal but this kind of nitpicking is kinda fun. :)

http://www.nvnews.net/temp/ff.jpg

OWA
06-20-04, 10:15 PM
Is it just me or is there absolutely no difference whatsoever among any of the 6800 shots?

Also, between the X800 and the 6800 there are some very slight differences. It's too close to call.
There are a couple of 6800U pics that only have very, very, very slight differences. Initially I didn't think there was any difference either but after cycling through just the two of them SEVERAL times I was finally able to see some very minor differences (but it could have been my eyes since I was really having to squint, stare, etc. to see it). :)

Clay
06-20-04, 10:35 PM
Check out this AVI (http://www.nvnews.net/temp/rock02.avi) to see images 4~8 being cycled through. Each images is shown at 10 frames per second. The AVI's properties are: 24bit and full frames (uncompressed).

MikeC
06-20-04, 10:47 PM
Check out this AVI (http://www.nvnews.net/temp/rock02.avi) to see images 4~8 being cycled through. Each images is shown at 10 frames per second. The AVI's properties are: 24bit and full frames (uncompressed).

Very cool. You'll have to teach me how you did that :)

But the video cycles through the images too fast. Even when I change the playback speed to slow in Windows Media Player.

Clay
06-20-04, 10:52 PM
Very cool. You'll have to teach me how you did that :)

But the video cycles through the images too fast. Even when I change the playback speed to slow in Windows Media Player.
Yeah, I made the fast cycling AVI on purpose for file size purposes. I have one that is at 2fps so much slower but that increases file size to ~15MB. I will PM you the linky...then you can decide to post it for everyone else. :)

Jarred
06-21-04, 12:57 AM
Rock AAAOUT!

they both look sweet to me...

Waffles
06-21-04, 01:59 AM
Wow...that avi is cool.

This just makes you realize that there really is no REAL reason to benchmark nvidia cards with the optimizations off. Unless you are trying to make ATI cards look that much faster. Image quality is hardly different. I'll take the few PIXEL differences for 10 fps.

Clay
06-21-04, 02:13 AM
Here is a new link to a 2fps version of the rock AVI that I posted earlier. This is ~15MB since it is much longer being 2fps instead of 1/10th fps.

http://www.nvnews.net/temp/rock_2fps.avi

http://www.nvnews.net/temp/rock02.avi (~700KB 1/10th fps version)

Sazar
06-21-04, 02:17 AM
something funky going on..

there is 0 difference that I can tell in any of the optimized and non-optimized shots for nvidia's images... :confused:

and afaik there is a significantly worse blur with nvidia's blurring than ati's blurring so there is definitely something odd...

Clay
06-21-04, 02:25 AM
Hey Saz, have you used Compreseonator on those? I've not done so yet, just wondering.

Sazar
06-21-04, 02:37 AM
nope... its 1:30am and I am eating cookies and trying to keep the bloody cat out of my paperwork (you know how much cats LOVE sitting in the middle of whatever it is you are reading)

I might give it a go tomorrow...

whats it supposed to do anyways? I thought the avi woulda been sufficient :confused:

Clay
06-21-04, 02:45 AM
The Compressonator is cool, just check it out and you'll see. But talk about splitting hairs..that's its cup of tea. I have cat too, I know. :D

shinrai
06-21-04, 08:01 AM
Doesn't the 6800 look more detailed than the X800XT?

zakelwe
06-21-04, 08:20 AM
Very little difference, give me the fps anyday

My ranking for what is important is always

adequate framerate
then
environmental effects and or AA depending on the game
then
filtering

As I spot deficits in that order.

Regards

Andy

skoprowski
06-21-04, 02:16 PM
Just goes to say what I already posted- if ATI prices their cards the same as Nvidia's, I see no reason to buy an ATI card right now other than having a SFF system. The visual quality is nearly identical between the X800 and 6800 series of cards. Why not pay the same and get some extra features with a Nvidia 6800?

Vapor Trail
06-21-04, 03:43 PM
The visual quality is nearly identical between the X800 and 6800 series of cards. Why not pay the same and get some extra features with a Nvidia 6800?

Or pay LESS and get a 6800GT!!! :)

:luv: hugs $299 bestbuy pre-order :luv: