Go Back   nV News Forums > Hardware Forums > Benchmarking And Overclocking

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-22-03, 12:37 AM   #121
Hellbinder
 
Hellbinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
Default

saulin,

Honestly. You dont stand a chance in this area. Especially choosing UT where Nvidia is not even offereing properly filtered AF. ATi also has some AF optimizations for UT, but they dont have anywhere near the impact on IQ. Further you can Turn them off. Which you cant do with an FX.

People will honestly never understand until they play with an ATi card. Once that happens (Generally) its all over and their eyes are opened.
__________________
Overam Mirage 4700
3.2ghz P4 HT
SIS 748FX Chipset 800mhz FSB
1Gig DDR-400
60Gig 7200RPM HD
Radeon 9600M Turbo 128 (400/250)
Catalyst 4.2
Latest good read. [url]http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc4LDE=[/url]
Hellbinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-03, 12:41 AM   #122
jAkUp
eat. sleep. overclock.
 
jAkUp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chino, California
Posts: 17,744
Default

please keep in mind this is a compressed jpg, and shrunk to keep it under 100k's
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	untitled.jpg
Views:	117
Size:	97.3 KB
ID:	3246  
__________________
965xe || evga x58 classified || 3x evga gtx 480 || 6gb g.skill || win7 x64
jAkUp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-03, 01:19 AM   #123
Behemoth
radeon 9800 pro
 
Behemoth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Darkness Falls
Posts: 841
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by saulin
Ok I guess I'm still arround.

How about you show me some of yours UT 2K3 pics in the same map I have here.

http://www.ngemu.com/forums/attachme...chmentid=48303

http://www.ngemu.com/forums/attachme...chmentid=48299

that way we all can see how ****ty Nvidia's IQ is compared to the Radeon.

Or is it that guys try to put Nvidia's IQ much lower than what it really is?

Oh BTW I do agree that Nvidia's DX9 performance does suck.

Yawwwn!. Not I'm gone for sure. See ya tomorrow
noone is complaining the ordinary nvidia's IQ here. people are complaining the IQ from the nvidia's IQ lowering optimizations. people are complaining the IQ/speed ratio on fx cards, r3xx beat nv3x in this respect in many areas, not only in dx9. when nv3x renders everything in high quality, it lacks speed, when it keeps up to r3xx speed, it lacks IQ!!!!! you see the problems?
Behemoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-03, 01:27 AM   #124
saulin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 26
Default

Not a fair comparison since there is sooo much compression. And yes I do understand that your image should look better than that as well. Yikes I had to do 65% image quality to get less than 100K.


However I wasn't blown away byt ATI's superb IQ. Belive me I know the Radeon 9800 Pro quality. My brother who is in the next room has one and yes I have tested it on my system.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	shot00003.jpg
Views:	145
Size:	98.8 KB
ID:	3247  
saulin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-03, 09:07 AM   #125
The Baron
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

*sigh*

First, I am bothered by Saulin's ignorance. Second, I am bothered by the fact that no one has called him out on what is an utterly obvious conclusion.

He speaks of a modified set of Detonators that mysteriously have such great AF quality. Specifically, the textures are so much sharper and look much crisper.

HB, I am disappointed in you not noticing this.

The so-called "optimizations" present in this driver set is nothing more than an LOD bias change. You can do it with normal NVIDIA Detonators, you can do it with ATI Catalysts, you could do it with XGI Reactors, you could do it with ANYTHING. It doesn't matter. There's nothing special about it.

Situations where ATI's AF looks worse are rare, by the way. There are certain times in outdoor scenes where yes, ATI's does look noticeably worse than NVIDIA's AF, but you'd be hard pressed to find it. And NVIDIA'S *always* looks worse in UT2003 because of the lack of trilinear filtering.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-03, 09:53 AM   #126
Behemoth
radeon 9800 pro
 
Behemoth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Darkness Falls
Posts: 841
Default

and ati's AA *always* looks better than nvidia's
Behemoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-03, 09:54 AM   #127
The Baron
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Behemoth
and ati's AA *always* looks better than nvidia's
Well, not if you're if you're looking at an alpha texture. Then anything that uses supersampling will look better.

Problem is alpha textures are all 1998ish.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-03, 09:57 AM   #128
Behemoth
radeon 9800 pro
 
Behemoth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Darkness Falls
Posts: 841
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by The Baron
Well, not if you're if you're looking at an alpha texture. Then anything that uses supersampling will look better.

Problem is alpha textures are all 1998ish.
damn, you seem to know everything
Behemoth is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 09-22-03, 09:58 AM   #129
The Baron
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Behemoth
damn, you seem to know everything
No, I just have a good memory. Dave Baumann, Anthony Tan, Uttar, those guys knows everything.... but one day, I'll catch up...
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-03, 02:34 PM   #130
fivefeet8
Ngemu Mod
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 1,886
Default

Why would Tri Linear filtering be disabled in UT2k3 anyways? It doesn't decrease performance that much does it?

Tri Linear filtering is still enabled in other PC games? Or no?
__________________
[i7 2600k @4.4ghertz][2x4 GB DDR3 1600][EVGA GTX570 1.280GB SC][EVGA GTX460 physx][Asrock Extreme7 Gen3 Z68][2xSeagate 160 Gb SATA HD raid0][Seagate 250 GB SATA2 HD][Sony Bravia 40' 1080p LCD HDTV][NEC 3520a DVD+-DLw][Windows 7 Ultimate x64][Rosewill 1000w]
fivefeet8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-03, 05:51 PM   #131
saulin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 26
Default

Quote:
And NVIDIA'S *always* looks worse in UT2003 because of the lack of trilinear filtering.
lol sorry dude if I upset you.

Anyways so what you are saying is that the image I posted looked so much worse than the ATI one?

Or are you just so full of sh!t?

IMO they look pretty damn close. Unless you really found the textures to be crap lol. And remember that was 65% image quality since it was reduce to less than 100KB.

You can't BS me by saying Nvidia's IQ is crap cause the shots I posted just prove that they are not crap.

Crap would be a GF 2 image quality. Even GF4 image quality. But believe me FX IQ is better than GF4 IQ. I know so because I did own a GF4 and a GF2 and GF1.

And also I did have a Radeon 9800 pro on my system for testing. And you know what?

My FX killed it in pretty much everything since it did overclock better. Of course The 9800 pro does kill it in DX9 games. But for now all I play is DX8

Here have more fun reading this review

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1821&p=23

I know you guys are gonna debate this results since you are always bitching when Nvidia wins in some benchmarks.

The truth is that Nvida will always win in some benchmarks. Your Radeon won't out perform it in everything. Is a fact.

The truth is that when I tested the Radeon 9800 pro my FX totally killed it in UT 2003 even at default speed. These new maps are the only ones I see that kill the FX. On the other hand looks like the Dets 5 give the performance back.

And I think I made it clear that even at the cost of IQ lol. The FX still looks kick ass and not like crap. Or prove me wrong. Tell me the shots I posted look like crap because why? Oh yeah because is not using Trilinear filtering right?

Last edited by saulin; 09-22-03 at 06:16 PM.
saulin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-03, 08:33 PM   #132
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by saulin
You can't BS me by saying Nvidia's IQ is crap cause the shots I posted just prove that they are not crap.

Crap would be a GF 2 image quality. Even GF4 image quality. But believe me FX IQ is better than GF4 IQ. I know so because I did own a GF4 and a GF2 and GF1.
No, gf4 IQ is at worst the same as gfFX quality. They have the same AF and the same FSAA quality. Since driver 44.03 NVIDIA has disabled trilinear filtering and trilinear AF in UT2003. As of 51.75 they have moved this "optimization" to all D3D games.

http://www.3dcenter.de/artikel/ati_n...n/index3_e.php

You can see above that in some situations NVIDIA's handling of AF kills IQ.


MikeC produced some videos with AF off and you could tell that trilinear wasn't being done. The videos aren't being hosted anymore, but the comments will probably be of some value.

Discussion


B3D has posted screenshots(I'm too lazy to search) where you can see the mipmap levels because trilinear is not on.


Conclusion: It doesn't even matter what NVIDIA's IQ looks like compared to ATI's IQ. The point is that with old drivers, NVIDIA's new IQ looks worse than NVIDIA's old IQ.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My UT2003 Tweak Guide DXnfiniteFX Gaming Central 48 10-30-02 11:59 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.