Pretty good 5800 review

[Behemoth]

why 5800 ultra AA/AF performance differs so much under different games?

SS SE from no AA/AF to 4X/8X
1024*768 85.8 -> 73.5 (14.34% hit)
1280*1024 76.8 -> 57.0 (25.78% hit)
1600*1200 64.3 -> 38.3 (40.44% hit)

AquaNox from no AA/AF to 4X/8X
1024*768 134.3 -> 46.3 (65.52% hit)
1280*1024 89.0 -> 30.4 (65.84% hit)
1600*1200 63.6 -> 22.0 (65.41% hit)

mystery...

[hovz]

it seems to slow down much more heavily on texture intensive games cuz it has weak bandwidth

[Behemoth]

Originally posted by hovz
it seems to slow down much more heavily on texture intensive games cuz it has weak bandwidth

ah... damn...

[Behemoth]

i dont know how that reviewer took that FX 4x/8x SS screenshot for geforce FX, i took one from 800x600 mode myself, it certainly looks different.
due to size limitation, i cant upload the png version, so keep in mind that this should look a bit better in png format too.

[Behemoth]

Originally posted by hovz
it seems to slow down much more heavily on texture intensive games cuz it has weak bandwidth

hmm, even if its bandwidth problem, the performance hit should increase as the resolution increase, i think its more like FX AA/AF doesnt work properly with that aquamark, or aquamark doesnt work properly with nvidia AA/AF.

[Behemoth]

this is my benchmark results

P4 1.7/FX 5800 non-ultra
driver version 43.51 WHQL
quality mode
Aquamark v.2.1, settings:
FSAA : NONE (will enable externally)
TEXTURE : 40M (max)
PIXELSHADER : YES

1024X768X32
no AA/AF 38.3
4XAA/8XAF 33.1 (13.58% hit)

1280X960X32
no AA/AF 37.2
4XAA/8XAF 28.5 (23.39% hit)

1600X1200X32
no AA/AF 35.6
4XAA/8XAF 20.6 (42.13% hit)

i dont know what version he was using, but the AA/AF performance hits do not look right.
my results are more inline with his serious sam results in terms of AA/AF hits.

In what ways do your screenshots look different?

Of course different games will have different performance hits for AF. Depending on what kind of scenes are in the game, how intensive the engine is, etc.

[Behemoth]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
In what ways do your screenshots look different?

Of course different games will have different performance hits for AF. Depending on what kind of scenes are in the game, how intensive the engine is, etc.

actually i see lots of differences but check the area in red circles. and since i re-save this jpg again, you probably better check the original screenshot, coz jpg uses lossy compression.

[hovz]

Originally posted by Behemoth
this is my benchmark results

P4 1.7/FX 5800 non-ultra
driver version 43.51 WHQL
quality mode
Aquamark v.2.1, settings:
FSAA : NONE (will enable externally)
TEXTURE : 40M (max)
PIXELSHADER : YES

1024X768X32
no AA/AF 38.3
4XAA/8XAF 33.1 (13.58% hit)

1280X960X32
no AA/AF 37.2
4XAA/8XAF 28.5 (23.39% hit)

1600X1200X32
no AA/AF 35.6
4XAA/8XAF 20.6 (42.13% hit)

i dont know what version he was using, but the AA/AF performance hits do not look right.
my results are more inline with his serious sam results in terms of AA/AF hits.

which driver settings are you using

[Behemoth]

Originally posted by hovz
which driver settings are you using

i am using quality mode, it was called application in det. 43.45, if this is what you wanted to know.