Go Back   nV News Forums > Graphics Card Forums > NVIDIA GeForce 7, 8, And 9 Series

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-23-04, 09:58 PM   #16
Rytr
SuperMod
 
Rytr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: River City
Posts: 1,726
Default Re: AquaMark3 image quality comparison

I will second that Max! Should be interesting if nothing else. Kudos to MikeC for taking the time to do some experimenting and sharing the results.
Rytr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-04, 10:04 PM   #17
noko
noko
 
noko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Orlando Florida
Posts: 735
Default Re: AquaMark3 image quality comparison

These tests are a valid way to determine how much difference a frame has going from one level of filtering to another. Now if the difference is very little going from 8x to 16x but yet the performance hit is rather large then you could say 16x is going overboard in a quatitative way for a very little real difference on the screen. I am wondering if the LOD changes with the different levels of anisotropic? Doesn't look that way with the 6800 but the X800 Pro may adjust LOD much more skewing the results. Something to consider.
noko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-04, 08:18 AM   #18
Razor04
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 205
Default Re: AquaMark3 image quality comparison

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined
You're supposed to wait for the damage before you do damage control.
Ok you know what...attitudes like this around here are seriously starting to tick me off. I wasn't trying to do any sort of damage control but instead bring up the issue of how those numbers relate to anything. I have no problem whatsoever with the pics and think they are great but the minute a second set of numbers goes up for the X800 it will become a numbers war between the fanboy clans. Some will be shouting that higher numbers are better while others will be shouting that lower numbers are better when the numbers are only representative for comparison between different modes on one card.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPower
Did you read the first paragraph of Mike's initial post? (see below)
So I am not allowed to comment on anything around here anymore? I can't add my opinion or view with regards to one aspect of a post? Is that wrong?


Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPower
Your opinion is fine and I'm sure others will echo it. However, many others will find this to be very interesting and potetially telling. Mike has a history of being very thorough and professional regarding things of this nature. So, let's just all sit back and wait for the X800 Pro results before we start questioning anything.
I know he has a history of being very thorough and professional but I just think this is going to lead to misconceptions and all for both companies. Something about that whole numbers portion of the post just doesn't seem right to me and I wish you guys wouldn't be so harsh when dealing with constructive criticism. I believe that I was quite objective with regards to my first post in this thread and tried to avoid limiting my post to any one IHV in this post as those damn numbers are going to cause both to get nipped in the butt.
Razor04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-04, 08:56 AM   #19
Clay
Registered User
 
Clay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,993
Default Re: AquaMark3 image quality comparison

Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor04
Ok you know what...attitudes like this around here are seriously starting to tick me off. I wasn't trying to do any sort of damage control but instead bring up the issue of how those numbers relate to anything. I have no problem whatsoever with the pics and think they are great but the minute a second set of numbers goes up for the X800 it will become a numbers war between the fanboy clans. Some will be shouting that higher numbers are better while others will be shouting that lower numbers are better when the numbers are only representative for comparison between different modes on one card.
If we worried about how fanboys would react then we'd never do anything around here. We cannot control how people may perceive/twist things towards their own bias. I have faith in the overwhelming majority of our readership to be able to read and comprehend correctly though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor04
So I am not allowed to comment on anything around here anymore? I can't add my opinion or view with regards to one aspect of a post? Is that wrong?
Err, no...noone ever suggested that you are not allowed to comment around here anymore or that you cannot add your opinion. You've gotta realize that your post was very premature as we don't even have the X800 Pro results as of yet. That's all I was saying, just sit back a wait a bit before passing judgement.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor04
I know he has a history of being very thorough and professional but I just think this is going to lead to misconceptions and all for both companies. Something about that whole numbers portion of the post just doesn't seem right to me and I wish you guys wouldn't be so harsh when dealing with constructive criticism.
Again, why not give it a chance? Seems to me that you're just jumping the gun a bit. Harsh? Oh come on now, no one is being harsh. I even said that your opinion was fine, just seems premature. It is very, very tame here compared to many other forums.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor04
I believe that I was quite objective with regards to my first post in this thread and tried to avoid limiting my post to any one IHV in this post as those damn numbers are going to cause both to get nipped in the butt.
Sure, I thought you were fairly objective too. What does "nipped in the butt" mean though? I've heard the cliche "nipped in the bud"..but that doesn't apply in the context of your sentence.
Clay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-04, 09:15 AM   #20
Razor04
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 205
Default Re: AquaMark3 image quality comparison

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPower
If we worried about how fanboys would react then we'd never do anything around here. We cannot control how people may perceive/twist things towards their own bias. I have faith in the overwhelming majority of our readership to be able to read and comprehend correctly though.
I agree that if all you worried about was fanboys then nothing would get done around here. I think a lot of people though will have difficulty understanding what is going on with those numbers though. Perhaps a better way of showing the results would have been as percent differences. Instead of .02 difference you have a 2% difference and so on. I just picked some arbitrary values but you get the idea. Something like this will probably be easier for a layman to understand.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPower
Err, no...noone ever suggested that you are not allowed to comment around here anymore or that you cannot add your opinion. You've gotta realize that your post was very premature as we don't even have the X800 Pro results as of yet. That's all I was saying, just sit back a wait a bit before passing judgement.
There is nothing wrong with being forward looking and determining possible problems. There has already been at least one post in this thread that has inferred that there will be some sort of correlation between the 6800 numbers and the X800 numbers. This is the only real thing that worries me about the whole post. Like I said I love the idea of showing the differences and showing the pictures but having the results in the same thread could lead to disaster...but I will hold off on that for now until they are out.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPower
Sure, I thought you were fairly objective too. What does "nipped in the butt" mean though? I've heard the cliche "nipped in the bud"..but that doesn't apply in the context of your sentence.
I have heard both sayings being used. I think a lot of it depends on where you are in the country. There are a lot of other phrases that are slightly different based on where you are or where you grew up too.
Razor04 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 05-24-04, 09:43 AM   #21
Clay
Registered User
 
Clay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,993
Default Re: AquaMark3 image quality comparison

Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor04
I agree that if all you worried about was fanboys then nothing would get done around here. I think a lot of people though will have difficulty understanding what is going on with those numbers though. Perhaps a better way of showing the results would have been as percent differences. Instead of .02 difference you have a 2% difference and so on. I just picked some arbitrary values but you get the idea. Something like this will probably be easier for a layman to understand.
Percentages is a good idea.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor04
I have heard both sayings being used. I think a lot of it depends on where you are in the country. There are a lot of other phrases that are slightly different based on where you are or where you grew up too.
Yeah, I know of some colloquialisms that are real doozies from around where I grew up.
Clay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-04, 07:15 PM   #22
MikeC
Administrator
 
MikeC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: Virginia
Posts: 5,864
Default Re: AquaMark3 image quality comparison

Sorry about taking so long to get the comparative images posted, but we lost power last night after a thunderstorm hit the area. I appreciate the feedback and I think jumped the gun a bit with the TheCompressionator comparisons.

Using percentages to show the relative differences in texture filtering is a great idea. Unfortunately, the full size images from AquaMark 3 are not good candidates for comparisons since most of the frames contain vegetation and other objects that are dynamically generated from run-to-run.

Before the power died, I was copying sections from each frame that showed noticeable difference in the amount of texture filtering that was being applied. This his was accomplished by a visual inspection with my eyeballs positioned about 9 inches from the monitor

I'll eventually clean up my original post, but I wanted to give you a look at what I've got at this point. One of the reasons that AquaMark is effective for this type of comparison is due to the terrain - we all know how irregular shaped objects can cause havoc on texture filtering algorithms

Each image is 520x520 pixels and around 350-400 KB.

Frame 300:

GeForce 6800 Ultra - Bilinear -Trilinear - 2X Anisotropic - 4X Anisotropic - 8X Anisotropic

Radeon X800 Pro - Bilinear - Trilinear - 2X Anisotropic - 4X Anisotropic - 8X Anisotropic

Frame 900:

GeForce 6800 Ultra - Trilinear - 2X Anisotropic - 4X Anisotropic - 8X Anisotropic

Radeon X800 Pro - Trilinear - 2X Anisotropic - 4X Anisotropic - 8X Anisotropic

Frame 2400:

GeForce 6800 Ultra - Trilinear - 2X Anisotropic - 4X Anisotropic - 8X Anisotropic

Radeon X800 Pro - Trilinear - 2X Anisotropic - 4X Anisotropic - 8X Anisotropic

Frame 3500:

GeForce 6800 Ultra - Trilinear - 2X Anisotropic - 4X Anisotropic - 8X Anisotropic

Radeon X800 Pro - Trilinear - 2X Anisotropic - 4X Anisotropic - 8X Anisotropic

Frame 4300:

GeForce 6800 Ultra - Bilinear -Trilinear -2X Anisotropic -4X Anisotropic -8X Anisotropic

Radeon X800 Pro - Bilinear -Trilinear -2X Anisotropic -4X Anisotropic -8X Anisotropic


Keep in mind that NVIDIA has yet to debut the offical driver release for the GeForce 6 series.
MikeC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-04, 07:37 PM   #23
Blacklash
8^9^3
 
Blacklash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Old Vizima
Posts: 3,679
Default Re: AquaMark3 image quality comparison

Might want to go see this thread at Rage3d. As I have said before, nothing is free...

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthre...eadid=33760559

What I got out of it:

Ati/Nvidia optimized trilinear give almost the same results.
Ati optimizations can not be switched off, Nvidia can.
AF "dithering" and "moire" can occur in the Ati images because of "underfiltering". They use the DX rec of 5bit weight while Nvidia uses the OGL of 8bit which is higher quality/sharpness.

My added thoughts :To be fair to Ati, in AF you can use a third party application like Rtool which will force trilinear filtering through all stages of AF and defeat these artifacts, however if you are getting 45FPS in game, it will drop to something like 39. < for a rough example. IQ and performance will always have a positive negative correlation.

Nothing is free, this engineering, not magic.
__________________
Intel Core i7 920 @ 3.96GHz (1.36v)|Mushkin 998681 XP3-12800 (3x2GB)
ASUS TUF Sabertooth (X58)|ASUS GTX 580 DirectCU II (980|4604)|ASUS PA246Q
WD VelociRaptor 150GB HD (x2)|Pioneer DVR-2920Q|LG GH22LS30|Klipsch PM20 2.0
SilverStone OP1000-E|SilverStone TJ10-B|Thermalright U-120 Extreme|Win 7 HP x64

Last edited by Blacklash; 05-24-04 at 08:06 PM.
Blacklash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-04, 12:55 PM   #24
ntxawg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 77
Default Re: AquaMark3 image quality comparison

aside from tri for frame 300 and 600 there isnt much of a difference from i can see. are the optimiztion on for the 6800 cuz they look kinda blurry vs x800's tri in those 2 frames?
ntxawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-04, 09:48 PM   #25
MikeC
Administrator
 
MikeC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: Virginia
Posts: 5,864
Default Re: AquaMark3 image quality comparison

Quote:
Originally Posted by ntxawg
aside from tri for frame 300 and 600 there isnt much of a difference from i can see. are the optimiztion on for the 6800 cuz they look kinda blurry vs x800's tri in those 2 frames?
All the GeForce shots are with trilinear optimizations off. I ran a test of frame 300 with trilinear optimizations on and couldn't spot any differences.

With The Compressionator, the difference in trilinear filtering with optimizations on and off was 0.58. With 2X AF and 4X AF the difference was 0.04 and there were no differences with 8X AF.
MikeC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-04, 10:27 PM   #26
MikeC
Administrator
 
MikeC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: Virginia
Posts: 5,864
Default Comparison from frame 300

MikeC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-04, 07:58 AM   #27
Nutty
Sittin in the Sun
 
Nutty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,835
Send a message via MSN to Nutty
Default Re: AquaMark3 image quality comparison

Does seem a bit sharper on ATI.. its possible thats due from the optimized trilinear that seems to reduce blur a bit.

Mike could do you a bilinear 0AF comparison to see if there is a difference in blurriness then. This might show a difference in texture lod.
Nutty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-04, 08:13 AM   #28
jimmyjames123
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 665
Default Re: AquaMark3 image quality comparison

I am looking at the 8xAF pics linked above...

In frame 300, the middle portion of the rocks that have a light on them look sharper on the X800Pro, but the left hand side of the rocks look sharper on the 6800U. In frame 900, the area on the left hand side of the pic looks sharper on the 6800U. In frame 2400, the area on the bottom side of the pic looks sharper on the 6800U. In frame 3500, the images look almost identical.
jimmyjames123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-04, 10:46 AM   #29
Skinner
Registered User
 
Skinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 1,128
Default Re: AquaMark3 image quality comparison

The way I see it after viewing the shots over the net;

it matters which angle you choose. Both cards have some slightly diffrent adaptive AF settings. Sometimes the 6800 is sharper (arround 0 and 90 degrees) sometimes the X800 45-60 degrees
__________________
*Intel i7@3,8gHz*Asus P6T Deluxe* 2x Sapphire HD7970 3GB Crossfire *6 GB Corsair Dominator 1600C8*OCZ Vertex 120 GB SSD*adaptec 19160U160*Intel X25 80 GB Quantum Atlas 15KII SCSI U160 147Gig* WD Raptor 300 GB*Apple 24" LED Cinema *X-Fi Titanium*Logitech Z5500*Coolmaster RP 1000W*W7 64 Home *
Skinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-04, 08:26 PM   #30
MikeC
Administrator
 
MikeC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: Virginia
Posts: 5,864
Default Comparison from frame 4300

MikeC is online now   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
Someone please show me the difference in image quality on a ATI 9700 pro vs a GF4 ti? imtim83 Other Desktop Graphics Cards 70 10-22-02 01:25 AM
GeForce4 image quality - need some HONEST opinions ErrorS NVIDIA GeForce 7, 8, And 9 Series 24 08-22-02 06:39 AM
Drive Image 2002 or Ghost? saturnotaku General Software 6 08-21-02 09:55 AM
Can't see improved image quality with AA/AF imtim83 NVIDIA GeForce 7, 8, And 9 Series 17 08-05-02 02:30 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:33 PM.


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