http://home.attbi.com/~brentjustice2/index.htm
Look at the thin green lines in the lower left near the middle.
Printable View
http://home.attbi.com/~brentjustice2/index.htm
Look at the thin green lines in the lower left near the middle.
hmm.. If you notice there are much less jaggies with the 9700Pro 6X, in comparison with the 5800 Ultra. most notibaly in the green bars, and in the pink strips going out to the right. The only thing is, the speeds at those settings. I wonder which does faster. Ive seen the Tom's review, and overall, the FX was better, and the 9700 Pro was better in some.. Guess Ill wait till the R350.
However, if you notice the bars on the top left hand corner, the GeForce FX has better FSAA even when comparing its 4xS compared to the 6x of the 9700 Pro.Quote:
Originally posted by Regulator
hmm.. If you notice there are much less jaggies with the 9700Pro 6X, in comparison with the 5800 Ultra. most notibaly in the green bars, and in the pink strips going out to the right. The only thing is, the speeds at those settings. I wonder which does faster. Ive seen the Tom's review, and overall, the FX was better, and the 9700 Pro was better in some.. Guess Ill wait till the R350.
But on the bottom the 9700 Pro is better...
Weird. lol
is it just me, or do the 6xS and 8xS modes on the GFFX look WORSE than it's 4xS mode?
Have you noticed how the FX shorten the thin lines when in high AA mode? Just compare 4XAA. ATI's picture quality is way better then the FX and the lines are not shortened.
The bottom half of the pictures are definately better on the 9700 Pro, but the Top half is better on the GeForce FX. I find that odd, lol.Quote:
Originally posted by Bassthe1st
Have you noticed how the FX shorten the thin lines when in high AA mode? Just compare 4XAA. ATI's picture quality is way better then the FX and the lines are not shortened.