Is 9700 PRO strong enough in Anisotropic 64-tap filtering ?

[Master]

Last XMas I bough GF3 TI200 and OC`ed it well over TI500 frequencies. I bought GF3 `cause everybody was saying that it has great results with Anisotropic filtering. Hm, maybe in 640x480x16 but definitely not in 1280x1024x32. I found out that actually only Aniso 2x is playable at that res. Higher ones cause bad stuttering.

Yes, today it`s a slow card but that`s actually the point. In February, when GFFX will be at mass retail (I hope), prices of 9700 shall go down and it will be more affordable.

BUT, I don`t want to shell out some $400 as I did previous XMas and after 2 hours I find out that it is again (as with GF3) hardly playable in 1280x1024x32xAniso 8x (or maybe 9700 has even higher Aniso modes - I just don`t know).

So, all you hapy 9700 PRO users down there, is there any big difference in smoothness between lower and highest Aniso settings at HIGH resolutions 1280x1024 and higher (1920x1440)?

I don`t use AA since I have only small 19" monitor (damn, I still don`t have cash for that 24" Widescreen beauty Sony makes) so the pixels aren`t as big as to mess up much.

Please advise.

[lagadu]

nope, 9700pro's users just leave 8x or 16x aniso on and forget about it, the perf hit is no noticeable mostly because without AA enabled the 9700pro is cpu bound even at very high resolutions.
but don't take my word for it :) ,if i remember right there was a very clear review about it in B3D or anand, check them out.
my settings are set at 4xAA and 16x (bilinear based, so 64tap) AF all the time.

[edit]here's one review that compares the performance, it's a 9500pro review, but includes 9700pro data.
http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/radeon9500pro/

[Kruno]

I have everything to set at max quality always. It's not cpu bound while playing 6xFSAA and 128tap aniso (16x+Tri) and 1152*864 32bpp+ in newer games like UT2K3.

[Fotis]

Is 16x performance aniso the same as 8x quality aniso on radeon 9700pro?

[ATI LoVeR 9700]

Originally posted by Fotis
Is 16x performance aniso the same as 8x quality aniso on radeon 9700pro?

No, performance should use bilinear and Quality, should use trilinear.

And the performance hit for Aniso on the Radeon is nothing, it's pretty much near free when you use Performance, and Performance doesn't look bad at all.

The original Radeon could out do the Geforce3 in Aniso...

[Smokey]

Originally posted by Master
Last XMas I bough GF3 TI200 and OC`ed it well over TI500 frequencies. I bought GF3 `cause everybody was saying that it has great results with Anisotropic filtering. Hm, maybe in 640x480x16 but definitely not in 1280x1024x32. I found out that actually only Aniso 2x is playable at that res. Higher ones cause bad stuttering.

Yes, today it`s a slow card but that`s actually the point. In February, when GFFX will be at mass retail (I hope), prices of 9700 shall go down and it will be more affordable.

BUT, I don`t want to shell out some $400 as I did previous XMas and after 2 hours I find out that it is again (as with GF3) hardly playable in 1280x1024x32xAniso 8x (or maybe 9700 has even higher Aniso modes - I just don`t know).

So, all you hapy 9700 PRO users down there, is there any big difference in smoothness between lower and highest Aniso settings at HIGH resolutions 1280x1024 and higher (1920x1440)?

I don`t use AA since I have only small 19" monitor (damn, I still don`t have cash for that 24" Widescreen beauty Sony makes) so the pixels aren`t as big as to mess up much.

Please advise.


I can still use 4x anio @ 1280*1024 on my GF3!! Ive never bothered about 8x because I myself cant see the difference between 8x and 4x.

[MrNasty]

Originally posted by Master
I don`t use AA since I have only small 19" monitor (damn, I still don`t have cash for that 24" Widescreen beauty Sony makes) so the pixels aren`t as big as to mess up much.

Please advise.

How dare you call 19" small :mad: I have a 17" monitor which I upgraded froma 15" and I do not consider it small. You should be more greatfull for what you have.

[ASCI Blue]

24" widescreens are for sissies. You should get the 55" plasma monitor I've seen out and about.

[MrNasty]

Yeah but we are not all spoilt brats.

[The Baron]

Monitors are cheap--I got a 17" for like $140 at Sam's that's still pretty good... and the 19" was $200. So unless desk space is an issue, a monitor above 17" shouldn't be that big of a deal.

And yeah, those 24" widescreen puppies are the Shizzynit. :p

[LORD-eX-Bu]

only 19" here, I'm lookin' to upgrade to a 21" monitor at least. CRT tho, not interested in LCD yet.;)

[Master]

How dare you call 19" small I have a 17" monitor which I upgraded froma 15" and I do not consider it small. You should be more greatfull for what you have.

Well, I have what I bought, and what I bought is what I actually had the money for. My current 19" AOC is already my 7th monitor during last 10 years. Although it is of lower quality than my previous 19" DTK (with one of those fantastic Hitachi screens), it`s at least flat. But those 21" are still expensive. 21" Eizo 931F (does 2048x1536 at 80 Hz) costs the same as it did 2 years ago and 19" and smaller ones now cost half or less than they cost 2 years ago. But AOC is going to show us cheap 21" at next CeBit. So let`s wait and see.



I can still use 4x anio @ 1280*1024 on my GF3!! Ive never bothered about 8x because I myself cant see the difference between 8x and 4x.
Yes, 4x Aniso is pretty usable on 17" monitors - where you can`t spot much of a difference on such a small screen space. But on 19" it`s a different story. The picture gets definitely clearer when it`s 8x and not 4x. It also definitely stutters more (at least on old GF3).

24" widescreens are for sissies. You should get the 55" plasma monitor I've seen out and about.
Did the plasma screens get better in their poor output VGA quality during last 2 months ? They`re great for movies. But did you see what the desktop of Windows looks like ? You can`t even read icon names, it`s so much messed up. Maybe some 3 or 4 next generations and the picture shall be finally readable with smaller fonts. But what I`ve seen during the presenation (3 months ago) of last Panasonic`s model with resolutions higher than default 852x480 is still far from being usable for other use than gaming. But LCDs are getting better from year to year, so maybe some WideScreen LCDs shall do the job in 3 years from now (I`m still not fan of LCDs for other use than the predefinied resolution and Office use).
Therefore Sony`s 24" is biggest CRT currently and it still offers highest wokspace with highest frequencies. But at a steep price (~$2000).

[AnteP]

I have a 9700 Pro
I play all my games with 2-6x FSAA and 8-16x Aniso (Performance or Quality depending on the game)

In most titles I can get away with 6x FSAA and 16x Quality Aniso at 1280x1024 and that's fine with me.

As for not noticing AA on a 19 inch monitor, you must be crazy ;)
I can't even use 1600x1200 without at least 2x FSAA, let alone any resolution under that.
And since I've owned a Radeon 64 ViVo since it first came out I won'taccept anything less than 8x Aniso.

byw I'm sure looking forward to GeForce FX, running at 6xs-8xs FSAA and and 8x Quality Aniso, I hope it isn't overkill performance wise...

[Master]

As for not noticing AA on a 19 inch monitor, you must be crazy Well, the FPS drop after enabling AA at resolution 1280x1024x32 is unacceptable on my GF3 .Of course I`d like to have AA, some games are damn pixelated even at 1600x1200 on 19". But a year ago there wasn`t really an option to have smooth AA`ed 1280x1024x32. That`s why I`m asking if it is finally playable with current crop of video cards - i.e. whether it`s justified to spend another $400 on a video card. Because I`m quite satisfied with the raw power that GF3 has. It`s just slow for AA & AF in high res.

Another question: I noticed somewhere that 9700 PRO`s AF is based on calculation of the angle of the polygon - so some polygons are even not filtered at all (i.e. it is not necessary). Is it true for every AF mode, or do I have some "Quality" mode where I can set : "I Don`t mind the fps drop - just filter every polygon" ?

[MrNasty]

I would say a 19" monitor and radion 9500pro 128mb for good prices would be good value for money.

I think a lot of you people have more money than sense !

[PreservedSwine]

Originally posted by Master
Last XMas I bough GF3 TI200 and OC`ed it well over TI500 frequencies. I bought GF3 `cause everybody was saying that it has great results with Anisotropic filtering.


You bought the wrong card. The R8500 has far superior performance than the Ti500 with max aniso...

The R8500 has even better performance than the Geforce4Ti4600 with max aniso.

If you only want to run games with max aniso, and no FSAA, save some $$ and stick w/ an ATI R8500...

But if you want the highest level of detail, combined with max A.F, and large degrees of FSAA as well, that R9700 will fit just fine:afro2:

[ReDeeMeR]

Originally posted by PreservedSwine
The R8500 has even better performance than the Geforce4Ti4600 with max aniso.


hehehehe, sure thing :p ;)

I bought 19 LG last year F900P and didnt notice any diff in AA, still playing most games without it. I prefer having 100fsp instead of 60-70.

AA sux, high resolution is tha ****, no bluring no bull :)

[AnteP]

Originally posted by ReDeeMeR
hehehehe, sure thing :p ;)

AA sux, high resolution is tha ****, no bluring no bull :)

well they come pretty close, nv25 has crappy Aniso performance, especially in D3D
in Open GL it's better

AA suxx?
high res?
not even 1600x1200 is jaggie free

get a 9700 Pro and fire up a game at 1600x1200 with 16x Quality Aniso and 6x FSAA... eh

[lagadu]

no, with max aniso the 8500 has roughly the performance of the 4400, i saw a specific test of it @ anand's, the 8500 might be good at filtering, but not that good as to beat a 4600 :)

no, there's no option to turn the adaptative filtering off in the 9700, why would it? aniso is a filtering specific to handle textures @ angles other than perfectly horizontal (edit: vertical, not horizontal, you know the texture's normal directed at the viewpoint) to the viewpoint because bilinear and trilinear are isotropic filters, they filter as if the texture's normal was pointing at the viewpoint, aniso handles that shortcoming.

heh, after trying out for some months now the 9700 with AA, whenever i see jaggies even at 1600 i can't stop looking at them, and to think that i used to think that those who said this were AA and IQ pimps, and i swear by it now :)

[ATI LoVeR 9700]

Originally posted by lagadu
no, with max aniso the 8500 has roughly the performance of the 4400, i saw a specific test of it @ anand's, the 8500 might be good at filtering, but not that good as to beat a 4600 :)

no, there's no option to turn the adaptative filtering off in the 9700, why would it? aniso is a filtering specific to handle textures @ angles other than perfectly horizontal (edit: vertical, not horizontal, you know the texture's normal directed at the viewpoint) to the viewpoint because bilinear and trilinear are isotropic filters, they filter as if the texture's normal was pointing at the viewpoint, aniso handles that shortcoming.

heh, after trying out for some months now the 9700 with AA, whenever i see jaggies even at 1600 i can't stop looking at them, and to think that i used to think that those who said this were AA and IQ pimps, and i swear by it now :)

Wrong, for one at least. ;)

The Radeon 8500 has awesome Anisotropic Filtering Performance, it blows any Geforce4 out of the water! Especially in D3D. Maybe in a freak test the Geforce4 might win.

As for the adaptive method, no you can't turn it off, but the angle issues are gone with Quality Anisotropic filtering.

Plus the Radeon 9700 has the ability to Super-Sample AA faster than anycard because of it's compression techniques, ATi just has to make it available in the drivers, that's one more texture filter.

[PreservedSwine]

Originally posted by ReDeeMeR
hehehehe, sure thing :p ;)

AA sux, high resolution is tha ****, no bluring no bull :)

high resolution won't help clear bluury textures with crappy filtering.......That's why I really like the R8500

Here's a link, the only I could find, on the AF as compared to the Ti4200...couldn't find one comparing the Ti4600...but as you can clearly see, the R8500 is *signifigantly* faster than the Ti4200 w/ max aniso......and if clean, crisp, clear textures are what you want, high reslolution ain't going to help that.....

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/200207181/radeon9000-10.html

FSAA, and the TI series excells over the R8500, but I too prefer sharpness of AF, and smaller degrees of FSAA.....Until I can afford an NV30 or Ti9700, anyway
:)

[AnteP]

Originally posted by ATI LoVeR 9700
Wrong, for one at least. ;)

The Radeon 8500 has awesome Anisotropic Filtering Performance, it blows any Geforce4 out of the water! Especially in D3D. Maybe in a freak test the Geforce4 might win.

As for the adaptive method, no you can't turn it off, but the angle issues are gone with Quality Anisotropic filtering.

Plus the Radeon 9700 has the ability to Super-Sample AA faster than anycard because of it's compression techniques, ATi just has to make it available in the drivers, that's one more texture filter.

Actually blowing out of the water is blowing it out of proportion ;)

With later drivers nVidias Open GL Aniso got quite the speed boost without loosing any noticable quality at all.
For refrence here's some benchmarks:
Quake 3 four 1024x768
GeForce 4 Ti4600 old driver optimization: 152 fps
GeForce 4 Ti4600 new driver optimization: 196 fps
8500LE: 179 fps


But in D3D what you say apply: (look at the last one, the two first are FSAA)
http://www.nordichardware.se/recensioner/grafikkort/2002/HIS9X00/AFAAD3D.gif

[StealthHawk]

what driver are you talking about? the new 42.xx driver?

i hear AF performance increased with this new driver.

[ATI LoVeR 9700]

I was talking about the Radeon 8500 not the 9000, they suck...

[Master]

You bought the wrong card. The R8500 has far superior performance than the Ti500 with max aniso...
You may have forgotten but at THAT time, 8500 really wasn`t an option. I clearly remeber all horror stories throughout these and other forums about problem s with games crashing, not running an all and we shouldn`t forget the driver rev. where it was fast in Quake3 but ther IQ has been sacrificed pretty much.
I know, now there`s another situation, drivers are finally complete & stable (AFAIK) and therefore I`m willing to jump on ATI bandwagon (this would be my first ATI, so far I`ve had 5 nVidias).
So I chose GF3 which had been definitely more stable at the time. And moreover I didn`t know what AF really means. But after I saw it for the first time, hell, that was something ! Now all games looked damn clearer. Pretty good example is Wolfenstein, where highest Aniso at 1280x1024 meant easier snipering than 1600x1200 without Aniso. But you all know that.
Now it would be stupid to downgrade from GF3 to 8500, so I will save some more cash in the meantime while the NVFX arrives and ATI drops in price.

I just hope GFFX IS going to rock and it arrives within a month, otherwise ATi stays at same price and it would mean more cash to save :-(


Another question:
Does already nVidia have in their latest drivers "adaptive filtering AF method " like ATi has - i.e. more frames with slightly lower IQ ?

EDIT:

I just found a review at Hot Hardware comparing Aniso performance in Quake3 (this is important, since many of my favourite games run on this engine).
http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/S&V/radeon9700pro(5).shtml

Radeon 9700PRO:
1600x1200x32x64 tap : 176.8 fps
1280x1024x32x64 tap : 196.5 fps (!!!!)

GF4TI4600:
1600x1200x32x64 tap : 79.8 fps
1280x1024x32x64 tap : 107.2 fps

64Aniso & 4xAA:
ATI: 1280x1024x32: 152.3 fps (!!!)
GF4: 1280x1024x32: 63.4 fps

~200 fps at 1280x1024 with highest Aniso !!! And 152 fps with AA & Aniso at 1280x1024x32. DAMN!!!
Now that makes me think to think about a loan for that card right now !!! No more ugly shimmering textures / jaggies.