Image quality - damage control or legit?

[Solomon]

I've been reading on some sites that the IQ pictures could be all wrong. Now I have no idea if this is true or not. But wouldn't you think Nvidia would already know about this happening? Considering all these screenshots from their "Demos" running on the GeForce FX.

I don't know what to believe. I don't know if this is just Damage Control from Nvidia or that this is really the case. It's just kinda hard to swallow that Nvidia didn't know about this happening if they where demonstrating and using snap shots before the reviews hit the net.

Is this truly legit? Or is this Damage Control?

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com

[creedamd]

Originally posted by Solomon
I've been reading on some sites that the IQ pictures could be all wrong. Now I have no idea if this is true or not. But wouldn't you think Nvidia would already know about this happening? Considering all these screenshots from their "Demos" running on the GeForce FX.

I don't know what to believe. I don't know if this is just Damage Control from Nvidia or that this is really the case. It's just kinda hard to swallow that Nvidia didn't know about this happening if they where demonstrating and using snap shots before the reviews hit the net.

Is this truly legit? Or is this Damage Control?

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com

Even if so, Heat, Noise, and crappy drivers kill this product. All of the damage control in the world will not fix that.

[Ratchet]

Damage control, of course. I'm a bit surprised it took them this long actually.

However, having said that, it will be interesting to see what they come up with and if in fact the reasons they stated are really why those sshots show such poor AA IQ.

[ChrisW]

It seems to me that nVidia told reviewers they should benchmark using 2xFSAA and they should match up anisotropic filtering the way they told them too. My guess is nVidia thought the reviewers would just take their word for it instead of trying to match image quality. They had to know their 2xFSAA implentation was a joke and would yield them a big advantage in benchmarks. Now reviewers should use a new tool to capture screenshots (written by nVidia) that will yield pictures the way they think they should look? :confused: Lets not forget these reviewers tried to get answers about this from nVidia but nVidia refused to comment.

[RipItup]

An interesting twist to this ever so long running saga !

It's puzzling that Anands pictures seem to show AA and AF working at 6x and 8x.

However it is equally puzzling how 2x and Quin are so poor. I know that 2x and Q are not so hot, but I can't really see anything much to be honest.

If nvidia are right then Anand may have to redo using Aggressive settings for his runs rather than balanced. This will up the score considerably.

Clever of Tom to have spotted this and thus not post any screen shots

Heh heh. LOL

[Spiritwalker]

The message was sent to [H] who btw posted that 8s shot which did show good AA. But if you recall during the review he clearly stated that the AA was poor. Not based on screenshots.

[Hellbinder]

This is just *cough* BS *cough*...

Nothing is going to miraculously change the fact that NV30 uses OGMS and R300 uses RGMS.

[hithere]

AFAIK, the only post-frame buffer filtering you could do would be of a global nature and not really anti-aliasing at all...maybe a "blur" type effect to get rid of the jaggies. Filters applied after the frame buffer would, if I have it right, have absolutely nothing to do with the rendered scene...As was said above, it's not like they're introducing anything new here.

And BTW, where do you think the reviews took place? That's right, in front of a computer. The author of the review noticed the effect in games, THEN took a screenshot of it, not the other way around. And nothing will change the fact that the 9700's technique, when applied to the scene in UT2k3 at H at 6XAA/16AF, was pulling better performance.

ATI's scene was clearly rendered and jaggy-free, without any "magic filters" around.

[Hellbinder]

AFAIK, the only post-frame buffer filtering you could do would be of a global nature and not really anti-aliasing at all...maybe a "blur" type effect to get rid of the jaggies


This is exactly what i was thinking. Especially when they are referencing the quincunx is not working right :rolleyes: Could there be a bigger give away? all Quincunx is is a post blur filter...

I dont see how *bluring things up a little bit* is supposed to *help* them improve their AA and AF quality.

[ChrisW]

Also, isn't quincunx supposed to be a form of 4xFSAA? Looking at the pictures, it looks exactly the same as 2xFSAA. Could it just be 2xFSAA with a blur effect and they are trying to pass it off as 4xFSAA? I thought quincunx was supposed to be "4xFSAA for the price of 2xFSAA"?

[Hellbinder]

CrisW.

No quincunx was never a form of 4x FSAA. All it is is 2x FSAA with a post Blurr filter.

[digitalwanderer]

ALL the screenies yesterday of the FX's AA looked horrible, (IMHO), and I really hope it was a problem with the screengrabs...AA & AF are turning into a big issue for me. (Read that as "I'm HOOKED!" ;) )

[mocca]

IMO it is just another lie and damage control from nVidia. At this point, they introduce a massive-size card with annoying and incredibly LOUD hsf and run very hot while the performance is on par with R9700P (not to mention it arrive 6 months later). ATI IQ is always better than nVidia (I use both company products). Now I know why they delay the card for several months and the reasons for lack of reviews/preview until now.

BTW, I completely agree with hithere and Hellbinder.

Mocca

[nick800]

it seems alot of the posters here are taking this quite personally one way or the other? does it really matter? The battle is still being fought on the cards lower than the 9700 and FX... it seems to me like people that buy the fastest card on the market(enthusiasts) will buy the fastest card regardless of what company makes it, and those who don't can stay loyal by buying the medium-end cards which are all about the same price/performance ratio... if NVIDIA comes out with an nv35 thats faster than everything, all the ati owners who buy the fastest stuff will buy it, same thing the other way around as you can see by all the people jumping from nvidia to ati right now, but hell if matrox somehow came out with the fastest high end vid game card these people would all buy it... whats the big deal to you guys personally enough to bash each other and call each other stupid, and nvidia crappy... we're all gamers here...

[mocca]

The reason that I feel very upset with this nVidia bs is that I waited for 5 months for this pathetic marketing bs card. nVidia knew that their card are suck and they are screwed 5 months ago and instead of put effort on improve the card or redesign it, all they do is try to overhyped, lied, and keep all of us (at least me) under dark while keep saying that the GFFX will be 30% faster than the R9700P. See what we get today? A pathetic card which released 6 months later than R9700P which cannot compete with R9700P without excessively large and loud hsf and produce so much heat.

Mocca

[StealthHawk]

personally i don't believe that nvidia killed the image quality of 2x FSAA to make it even worse than the form found on the gf3/4. until we have confirmation that the 2x FSAA screens are indeed what is shown on the screen in-game i'll hold my breath.

i guess reviewers had only 2-3 days to test the card and write the review, so maybe that could explain how they could have missed the discrepancies between onscreen and screenshot.

still, if i were doing a review i would have double checked, especially when seeing such poor results :rolleyes:

[AngelGraves13]

I'm guessing the drivers are the reason for the poor IQ. I'm not gonna say anything more about the Geforce FX or even listen to this crap until I see the FINAL RETAIL version with RETAIL drivers reveiws. Not these half-assed reviews where the card isn't even running on final drivers. I have nothing more to say about this.....

[fantomas]

i guess reviewers had only 2-3 days to test the card and write the review, so maybe that could explain how they could have missed the discrepancies between onscreen and screenshot.



Why such a short time?

[teiresias]

This all sounds like spin to me. Why would they implement some kind of universal post-frame buffer filter for 2xFSAA anyway when it would probably be more useful for the 6xFSAA, settings Anand got screengrabs of fine.

Ridiculous, seems like the 3dfx people that learned all their spins from the "22-bit rendering" crap are doing their new jobs over at Nvidia just fine.

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by fantomas
Why such a short time?

that's what all the reviewers said. they got the cards to review over the weekend.

[Hellbinder]

nick800


whats the big deal to you guys personally enough to bash each other and call each other stupid, and nvidia crappy... we're all gamers here...


i dont see where any of this is hapening in this thread.. does anyone else? No one is bashing anyone at all that i can tell

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by Hellbinder
nick800



i dont see where any of this is hapening in this thread.. does anyone else? No one is bashing anyone at all that i can tell

maybe not this thread, but look in other ones.

[lagadu]

didn't uttar make some interesting finds regarding the 2x issue? i remember reading something by him on the B3D foruns yesterday or something...
but if it's indeed true, than that means that nvidia calls 2xAA what is indeed BlurryVision®, by appling a post filter that blurs the image....

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by lagadu
didn't uttar make some interesting finds regarding the 2x issue? i remember reading something by him on the B3D foruns yesterday or something...
but if it's indeed true, than that means that nvidia calls 2xAA what is indeed BlurryVision®, by appling a post filter that blurs the image....

Uttar's thread http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6743

[lagadu]

ah, many thx :)