do you still think it's only 3dmark ?
 

How do you feel looking at these numbers?:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1821&p=27

And knowing that 4xAA is the most used AA seting in game review:
http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/S&V/gffx5900u(3).shtml
(...also look at quake3 numbers on page 5....)

and AF ??? thoose loosy explanation on the blury/buffer subject ?
(and no explanation of influence of post processing on FPS)

Does AF/AA and co work the same in the synthetic AF/AA tests (thoose all colored tests with the right shapes where you clearly see AA and AF in action) and in games where specific "skip/replace" codes are applied?

Where are Nvidia and ATI going ????? Where are we going ???

Read...

http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/...mb_gffx5900upd(2).shtml

Thanks for the links! After I seen the diff. in the AA quality of the 2 cards I know I won't be getting a 5900 Ultra even if it is 20-25% faster with AA on. What a blurry mess the 5900 screens are. Makes me wonder how they obtained the 20%+ lead. HH even captured the screens correctly with HyperSnap and Post Proc capture enabled. To me AA is important as I play all my game with at least 2X AA with it mostly set at 4X. I will sacrifice 10FPS not to have that blur. What a diff. when I opened them up in seperate windows and flipped back and forth between them. Look at the landing above the gun and even the tiles in the floor. Links to full pics.

5900 2XAA
http://www.hothardware.com/reviews/i...nv352xaaut.htm
9800 2XAA
http://www.hothardware.com/reviews/i...9800ut2xaa.htm

5900 4XAA
http://www.hothardware.com/reviews/i...nv354xaaut.htm
9800 4XAA
http://www.hothardware.com/reviews/i...9800ut4xaa.htm

5900 6XAA
http://www.hothardware.com/reviews/i...nv356xaaut.htm
9800 6XAA
http://www.hothardware.com/reviews/i...9800ut6xaa.htm

It's not finished yet...
a little Doom3 now (since their comment only give credits to games like doom3 and ut):

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5959
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5956

Doom3 scores higher with AA turned on ?????

You think those are bad? Take a close look at these:

No AA

http://www.nvnews.net/previews/gefor...reenshot_1.png

4X AA

http://www.nvnews.net/previews/gefor...reenshot_2.png

Re: do you still think it's only 3dmark ?
 

I feel like he needs to re-run those benchmarks on the NV35. They are incorrect.

Boy it gets worse with every pic I see. :eek: I guess we can write off anybody using AA with their new $500. 5900 Ultra cards. Well at least if they have a decent monitor they can play at 1600x1200 and reduce some of the jaggies. :p

Perhaps anand did it wrong, or perhaps he used a driver version with "specific optimization", anyway there is enought evidence for me to be upset against both nvidia and ati (remember the quack issue).

Like DSC suggested, the best thing to do is to "voice our displeasure"...

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/show...threadid=12336

...to both of them

I forgot to mention an important point about the 4X AA image. That's what it looked like when I took a screenshot. What I saw on-screen looked more like the image with no AA.

So HyperSnap is not capturing all the post processing? Those images do seem really bad. I don't know a lot about 3D rendering but is it going thru some kind of sharpening proc. in post processing? A lot of reviewers have been saying negative things about NVidia's AA. So it's really not that bad?
Edit: for clarity and errors

Mike had a good post up a few weeks back that pointed this out in regards to the AA on the 5900. To put it simply a capture does not do it any justice:)

How do post-processing remove the blur ???
Does this mean AA is applied in post processing for 4xAA (only?) ????

i am not an expert, but it seems a bit confusing