Printable View
Why weren't the game settings turned all the way up?
The shadow detail is not as high as it could be. This is evidenced by the fact that there are no foliage shadows on the character's gun and arm. Also, it looks like the texture detail is turned down as well.
-Ryan
I already said its all medium settings.
The first setup I ran with, that was recommended, and I didn't decide to do it till halfway through the demo.
I already had 9 screenshots and I didn't feel like doing 9 more all over to max out the details.
Personally I think different screen shots IS the point.
If you need IDENTICAL ones to tell the difference, the difference is hardly noticeable at best ;)
That is of course my point.
Ryan brings up more valid points (I figured he would ;))
Not exactly. Set 1 has a good shot of the grass, Set 2 does not. You can't make a clear or even somewhat accurate judgement about Set 2's ability to render the ground without having a comparable shot.Quote:
Originally posted by talldude
If you can't spot differences because the screen shots are at different places...well, that just proves that there is no discernible difference in IQ. :)
I can't tell which is which, but if I had my guess, I'd say the top is an Nv, middle is a Radeon and bottom is another Nv.
And what valid points would that be? I merely stated that the detail settings in the game should have been set higher. I didn't say that you needed identical screen shots.Quote:
Originally posted by OpStar
If you need IDENTICAL ones to tell the difference, the difference is hardly noticeable at best ;)
That is of course my point.
Ryan brings up more valid points (I figured he would ;))
Who wants to compare different video card's image quality with the game at 'medium' settings? It kinda defeats the whole idea behind the comparison to begin with. With the game at meduim detail, flaws in each cards ability to render a quality image become masked. Or is that your point?
Put each card at the highest settings, as well as the game with the highest settings, then we'll compare screen shots.
...
-Ryan
I agree, Highest detail should be used.Quote:
Originally posted by ryandinan
And what valid points would that be? I merely stated that the detail settings in the game should have been set higher. I didn't say that you needed identical screen shots.
Who wants to compare different video card's image quality with the game at 'medium' settings? It kinda defeats the whole idea behind the comparison to begin with. With the game at meduim detail, flaws in each cards ability to render a quality image become masked. Or is that your point?
Put each card at the highest settings, as well as the game with the highest settings, then we'll compare screen shots.
...
-Ryan
Yea somehow this test is flawed.
I honestly see no difference in IQ from GeforceFX to Radeon. I'm sure if I was to sit down and nitpick, I could judge from still images, though while playing the game, as long as the fps is high enough where I don't see slowdown, I am happy. :D
Well in theory it is a good idea, but really everyone would need to sit down and play on all of these machines and be able to look around a bit.
How about we do a nit picky comparison and compare identical screenshots??? We could check out nVidia's mixed mode to see if there is a difference.
I'm too lazy for that.
I will tell you this.
TOP:
5900SE @ 400/700 FORCED PS 2.0 4XAA 8XAF
5900SE @ 400/700 4XAA 8XAA (NO FORCED SHADERS)
5900SE @ 400/700 0XAA 8XAA
Heh. Seems as if some ATi owners wouldn't notice teh IQ diff if I slipped a budget 5900 in their box.
Oh, btw, all ran on my 2600+ IRC box.
I'm still benching teh 5950 Ultra and and 9800 XT in my other boxes for my review.
BTW, I'll keep in mind (all highest setting/same spot) for screenshots, that way you guys can pick them apart, and prove ATi is better.
I gotta run into DC, I'll be back later :D
Ryan, btw, I meant that as a compliment. I liked that you were noticing valid things like shadows, quit turning everything into an arguement ;)
PS - Everybody always talks about "real world tests" well guess what.
Most of you won't be playing Far Cry @ highest details with 4xaa and 8xansio, as it'll be slow as dirt.
This is a more honest test of in game IQ than any review you see using a 3.2 with a 9800XT @ 1600x1200 all highest settings 4xaa 8xansio.
For 1. Hardly anyone owns a rig like that. 2. Who plays with those settings?
/end rant
I could tell the first set looked better.
Im sure this review you are doing isnt going to be bias at all! :o
OpStar,
Obviously ATI and nVidia's cards provide IQ that is close... and from what you said it sounds like you think someone who loves ATI's IQ would be able to look at a screenshot and say "that's an ATI card." No one on the planet (except maybe ATI developers) would be able to figure that out. That doesn't mean though that the difference is so minute no one would be able to tell nor care. If shown the differences, the user will notice it every time he/she plays (assuming it is noticeable).
I see what you were trying to show, and yes, the IQ is pretty close. I don't think there is anything wrong with doing a nitpicky, identical screenshot comparison though to see if nVidia's mixed mode really is as good as a fully DX9 compliant mode. The only thing I worry about is either set of drivers detecting a screenshot and generating a better image.
9800 Pro @ High Settings 4xAA/16xAF Quality (trilinear).
http://home.insightbb.com/~forseti/FarCry-01.jpg
http://home.insightbb.com/~forseti/FarCry-02.jpg
http://home.insightbb.com/~forseti/FarCry-03.jpg
http://home.insightbb.com/~forseti/FarCry-04.jpg
woops :D
Whitman those pics are breathtaking.... OMG.
See that's what I'm talking about... OpStars pics looked okay, and no one knew what kind of card it was, but after seeing Whitman's pics, we know how much better it CAN look at can see and would notice the difference.
Post some high IQ pics OpStar, preferably in the same areas that whitman took a pic of.
You asked what kind of FPS he is getting, good question!!! Why delete your post?? :-P.Quote:
Originally posted by Mike09702
woops :D