Originally Posted by Rollo
Features that enhance image quality also lower framerates? Ummm...yes, that's pretty much a rule.
Sometimes AO doesn't look right? OK, sounds good. I'd reply, "You still have the option to use it where it does look right and you can't on ATi cards on games that don't natively support AO.". Having it where it works >>>>>>>>not having it at all.
What's interesting about all of this is if ATi had these features and NVIDIA did not, a lot of people would be saying they are the ONLY things that matter. I remember an ATi fan telling me DX11 was the only thing that mattered when there was only one DX11 game out. And there were threads here and elsewhere that proclaimed morphological AA was the "deciding factor" because it adds AA to the 3 games that don't support AA and blurs them while destroying the HUD.
Yet when I post there are some features that work well in some games on NVIDIA products, and that they should be considered when buying a card, some act as if I've posted "The Earth is flat! They knew it in Columbus's day, it's still true now!".
Every feature I listed is unique to NVIDIA cards* and works well in some games on some NVIDIA hardware. Like the GTX590 the thread is about.
This may be what I like BEST about my GTX590. I can play on one monitor in 3d, I can play on three monitors in 3d. I can turn on PhysX, Cuda water, or AO, or not. The 590 gives me the option to add immersion enhancing features while competitor's products limit me.
*with the exception of 3d, but the limitations of ATi's 3d are so great I don't consider it ready for market
Well, NVIDIA cards are more expensive, so you have to weigh up whether AO, CUDA and PhysX are worth the extra cost compared to their performance less vs enhancement. I wouldn't call a "forced" feature a worthy price.