Originally posted by Joe DeFuria
The point is, you speak about "fundamentals" such that nVidia isn't "fundamentally" slower. Yet using your logic, I can turn it around and say that ATI isn't "fundamentally non-uniform in quality."
In other words...I think your point concerning "fundamentals" is, well, pointless.
I hope I didn't explicitly say that nVidia's technique isn't fundamentally slower. What I'm trying to say is that a technique that is invariant in rotations about the z-axis doesn't need to be noticeably slower than a technique like that seen in the Radeon 8500 or Radeon 9700.
This is my primary concern with people who say, "but it's faster," when I say that it doesn't look as good. With the Radeon 9700 vs. GF4, which one is faster is obvious (Heck, it does have double the pixel pipes and double the memory bandwidth afterall, it sure had better be faster...).
I'm also trying to say that nVidia doesn't need to change their anisotropic implementation at all in moving from the GF4 to the NV30 in order for it to outperform the Radeon 9700's anisotropic. As long as everything that affects performance besides anisotropic is on par (as it most certainly should be), and it runs at a higher clock speed (again, as it should be, given the .13 micron process), then the NV30 should most certainly outperform the Radeon 9700's anisotropic.