nicely done :)
Printable View
nicely done :)
5900 looks just as wonderful at first glance :).
It was also much slower, but its not really a far comparison. Its just a 5900NU@475/475, and 128ram instead of a 5950U's 256, which helps in AA/AF.
But it is hard to tell any difference in Farcry, other than the higher FPS.
What kind of frame rate do you see when comparing a stock 9800XT vs a 5900NU at stock with max settings and average screen size of 1024x768 or 1280x1024?Quote:
Originally posted by Ackmed
It was also much slower, but its not really a far comparison. Its just a 5900NU@475/475, and 128ram instead of a 5950U's 256, which helps in AA/AF.
But it is hard to tell any difference in Farcry, other than the higher FPS.
I didnt have fraps running, it just "felt" slower. When I moved from side to side with the 5900NU, it was stuttery. With the 9800XT, it was smooth. Same for large amounts of action, was much smoother with the 9800XT. But it also costs almost 3x as much.. it should be.
Tomorrow Ill put the 5900NU back in here and take some screen shots with fraps running.
Also, anyone know if rivatuner is the only way to force PS 2.0?
With the detail settings at very high and 1600x1200 I got 23-30 FPS. I couldn't play the game like that but it did look pretty!
Your last paragraph there contradicts the rest of your post: It WAS your goal to trick us into thinking you were comparing ATI and Nvidia image quality. hit - but running without FSAA and AF is simply out of the question.Quote:
Originally posted by OpStar
I didn't imply it, the fact that I now own an ATi card allowed you guys to imply it yourself.
Nothing of ATi vs nV in the title.
I have a 5700 Ultra, 5900SE, 2 5900NU's, 1 5950 Ultra and a 9800XT.
I said "Far Cry SS - Test your knowledge".
I did make some statements about ATi vs nV in the last thread, but they were mearly observations as to what drove me to take these screenshots.
All you guys needed was a smidgen of inkling that an ATi card was involved, and "some" of you looked at teh screenshots provided and chose what you deemed to be the best ones, and said:
THOSE LOOK LIKE 9800XT TO ME.
I agree that that was his point and I agree that we wouldn't be able to tell which was which: I don't agree with trying to make the point through deception. Its dishonest and unnecessary.Quote:
I GAURANTEE many of you, while given the same screenshot, would not be able to choose which is ATI and which is Nvidia without it being properly labeled.
I also think its ironic he uses medium instead of high quality and a bunch of people picked up on it right away. It absolutely counters his arguement and supports mine: when image quality differences are negligible, they are negligible and the cards appear to be on equal footing - but when getting high image quality means you can't run the game at acceptable framerates, it becomes an issue. Identical images don't mean much if one is achievable and one is not. People are buying ATI cards instead of Nvidia cards because you can run your games with the eye candy on with an ATI card and you can't with an Nvidia card. Opstar - you inadvertently demonstrated why ATI has such a big lead right now.
Just fyi, I run my games typically at 1280x960 w/ 4xFSAA/4xAF and "performance" settings for precisely that reason. The difference between 4x and 6x or "performance" and "quality" is negligible and not worth the performanceQuote:
Whil Opstar makes a great observation that most people don't play games on highest fsaa/af, we have to remember that this is only because we typically can't get acceptable framerates to play with this eyecandy on.
I didn't "inadvertantly" post screenshots of anything.
I play @ medium on that rig because its a stock 2600+.
If you'd like, I'm sure I can plug a 5900NU into my A64 machine and play @ 1600x1200 high quality, sir.
I like how you DIDN'T comment about my High Quality shots.
Ah, its so peaceful without you guys complaining about everything
-sighs-
Oh, and I run 4xaa 8xaf with "QUALITY" settings in almost EVERY game I play (save for this one) even on my 5900SE.
Ive taken 12 pics of various maps with the 9800XT. Tomorrow Ill throw in this 5900NU and try to get as close to the same spot, and take pics. Game settings will be the same. Here are the cards for size comparison. Ive taken pics with fraps this time. Some maps it gets 70's.. others low 30's. Different maps are harder on it. Monkey Bay puts the hurting on it big time. We'll see how a 5900NU@475/475 does.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dfall/Comp/vcards2.jpg
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dfall/Comp/vcards3.jpg
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dfall/Comp/vcards4.jpg
The 5900NU goes in my daughters Biostar SFF case. Little hard to get in, but it makes it. My old Ti4600 was even harder.
Opstar, how do you enable PX 2.0 on the FX with Rivatuner? I am not familiar with it.
Go into DX settings, under shaders, there is a drop down for force PS 2.0
I'm sure the game looks better than all those settings (with regards to shading & textures at least) even on my lowly 9600pro. Could be wrong though...Quote:
Originally posted by OpStar
Well, there has been a lot of talk about this Far Cry demo.
I took some screen shots using Fraps using three different setups.
I remember a much publicized screenshot of this demo showing a pipe looking horrible when PS 2.0 shaders were not used.
Also, there has been some discussion about teh different ways nV and ATi utilize AA.
Which is which, can you tell?
Couldn't care less really, as long as the game looks great on my computer that's all that matters.
Well, Ive taken the FX shots. However, I never could figure out how to enable PS 2.0, so I just left it default. Ill resize them and up them in a bit.
I noticed the trees looked terrible like Colossus, but didn't say anything because I assumed (like he did) that the game just didn't do trees well. It didn't even occur to me that someone would post an image quality comparison that wasn't using the best quality possible. Or for that matter, it didn't occur to me that someone would post an ATI/Nvidia image quality comparison that didn't have an ATI image in it.Quote:
Originally posted by OpStar
I like how you DIDN'T comment about my High Quality shots.
First off, I think it's really cool you're taking the time to do this, but quick question for ya...Quote:
Originally posted by OpStar
I didn't "inadvertantly" post screenshots of anything.
I play @ medium on that rig because its a stock 2600+.
If you'd like, I'm sure I can plug a 5900NU into my A64 machine and play @ 1600x1200 high quality, sir.
I like how you DIDN'T comment about my High Quality shots.
Ah, its so peaceful without you guys complaining about everything
-sighs-
Oh, and I run 4xaa 8xaf with "QUALITY" settings in almost EVERY game I play (save for this one) even on my 5900SE.
With the high quality shots, are you switching between an ATI card and an Nvidia card? I notice some big rendering differences between different scenes (leaves look awful, water is bland, blurred background), but I don't know if these are just differences in different scenes, or if there's a pattern to it, or what.
If you'd be willing to post them in two, distinct unlabeled sets, that'd be wonderful.
Thanks.
Ah, just seen the high quality pics.
That's more like it. :)
***Disclaimer***
This is not a direct comparison between the two cards, but just my experiences. I am not a reviewest for any site, nor do I pretend to be.
***Disclaimer***
I used 1024x768 res because I believe thats what most people will use. And to be honest, at 1280x1024 the 5900 was just too slow, often times in the low teens. I took the screen shots with 4.1 drivers for my 9800XT. I uninstalled them, and ran the cat uninstall file. I then shut down the PC, and changed the cards. Installed the 53.03 drivers, and set AA/AF to app preference, and all other quality settings to high. The same was done for the 9800XT. Both drivers were set to the same thing, and all game settings were left the same.
This is just to try and judge image quality, and give a rough estimate on how the cards do in the game. I realize its not a real 5950, and I think the extra ram will help it over the 5900NU I used, although probably not by much. Usually you dont see much of a difference from 128meg vs. 256meg untill you reach high res's, like 1280x1024 and especually 1600x1200 with lots of AA/AF.
There was no 3rd party tweaking software of any type. Just the drivers set to highest quality. I tried to enable PS 2.0 for the FX with Rivatuner, but I couldnt find the settings, so it was not used.
System I used was:
[email protected]
IC7 MAX3
1gig HyperX DDR 520@1:1
9800XT @stock clock
5900NU @475/475
Audigy 2 ZS
Raptor 36gig
PC Power&Cooling 510 ATX Deluxe
This is on Farcry beta version 2.
Game settings:
http://home.comcast.net/~dfall/Comp/...U/Settings.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~dfall/Comp/.../Settings2.jpg
5900NU:
http://home.comcast.net/~dfall/Comp/Farcry/5900NU/1.jpg
9800XT:
http://home.comcast.net/~dfall/Comp/...U/9800XT/8.jpg
5900NU:
http://home.comcast.net/~dfall/Comp/Farcry/5900NU/3.jpg
9800XT:
http://home.comcast.net/~dfall/Comp/.../9800XT/10.jpg
5900NU:
http://home.comcast.net/~dfall/Comp/Farcry/5900NU/2.jpg
9800XT:
http://home.comcast.net/~dfall/Comp/...U/9800XT/9.jpg
More to come in a few.
5900NU:
http://home.comcast.net/~dfall/Comp/Farcry/5900NU/4.jpg
9800XT:
http://home.comcast.net/~dfall/Comp/.../9800XT/12.jpg
5900NU:
http://home.comcast.net/~dfall/Comp/Farcry/5900NU/5.jpg
9800XT:
http://home.comcast.net/~dfall/Comp/.../9800XT/11.jpg
5900NU:
http://home.comcast.net/~dfall/Comp/Farcry/5900NU/6.jpg
9800XT:
http://home.comcast.net/~dfall/Comp/.../9800XT/13.jpg
5900NU:
http://home.comcast.net/~dfall/Comp/Farcry/5900NU/7.jpg
9800XT:
http://home.comcast.net/~dfall/Comp/...U/9800XT/6.jpg
5900NU:
http://home.comcast.net/~dfall/Comp/Farcry/5900NU/8.jpg
9800XT:
http://home.comcast.net/~dfall/Comp/...U/9800XT/7.jpg
5900NU:
http://home.comcast.net/~dfall/Comp/Farcry/5900NU/9.jpg
9800XT:
http://home.comcast.net/~dfall/Comp/...U/9800XT/4.jpg
5900NU:
http://home.comcast.net/~dfall/Comp/.../5900NU/10.jpg
9800XT:
http://home.comcast.net/~dfall/Comp/...U/9800XT/5.jpg
5900NU:
http://home.comcast.net/~dfall/Comp/.../5900NU/11.jpg
9800XT:
http://home.comcast.net/~dfall/Comp/...U/9800XT/1.jpg
5900NU:
http://home.comcast.net/~dfall/Comp/.../5900NU/12.jpg
9800XT:
http://home.comcast.net/~dfall/Comp/...U/9800XT/2.jpg
5900NU:
http://home.comcast.net/~dfall/Comp/.../5900NU/13.jpg
9800XT:
http://home.comcast.net/~dfall/Comp/...U/9800XT/3.jpg
Thats all the pics I have. I cant see much of a difference at all. The only huge difference is the FPS between the two. But again, this is not a comparison as its not a true 5950 Ultra, so its not really fair. I am not sure how much a difference the extra 128megs of ram would have for the 5900, but probably not that much. Not sure how much of an impact PS 2.0 would have on frames either. But it can be argued that since its hard to tell which show is which thats its not needed.
I cant explain the Monkey Bay shots. The 9800XT was 2fps lower in both shots. The FPS were jumping around a little hovering in that area. One thing I did notice was that Monkey Bay by FAR was the hardest on my system. I should have taken some more shots on that map it seems, different areas and such, to see if the trend continued.
Nice pics and in very few can you tell much of a difference at all very few... I play it on a Chaintech fx5900 stock at medium and runs without a hitch besides the usual demo quirks. I think alot people jumped on the i need a $400 video card to play half life 2 and STALKER band wagon while ATI sat back and smiled as nvidia has for years..... when in all honesty I think the ones running the ti4600's and ati 9500's will be laughing as there playing all these hyped up games just fine just my 3 cents and a nickel. Oh and i own a 9800pro and enjoy the fx5900 better......we will see when a full dx9.0 game comes out... as we should all know by now a demo means crappppppppp when it comes to the finished product .. well mabey halo is an exeption :)
I need to get me a copy of this game - looks great.
If I can do higher quality than 1600x1200x32 @ 4xaa 8xansio @ very high settings (6xaa 16xansio on 9800XT) on an nVidia card let me know.Quote:
Originally posted by russ_watters
I noticed the trees looked terrible like Colossus, but didn't say anything because I assumed (like he did) that the game just didn't do trees well. It didn't even occur to me that someone would post an image quality comparison that wasn't using the best quality possible. Or for that matter, it didn't occur to me that someone would post an ATI/Nvidia image quality comparison that didn't have an ATI image in it.
Image quality wise, I honestly cannot see ANY difference between the two cards. However the FPS was definately surprising, as soon as my 5900nu arrives, I'll try and run the game on my system at the same settings, though with only a 2.0ghz p4 compared to your oc'd processor, IDK how well its going to compare to your scores. :D
Keep in mind its not a true 5950, but a 5900NU@5950 speeds. The extra ram would probably not make but a few FPS difference though. But who knows for sure. Also keep in mind its just the 2n beta, things can change I guess. :shrug: I should have tried with no AA/AF though, to compare that as well. Perhaps another time, I was over doing it when I finished :)
But it is very hard to tell a difference in image quality to me as well. Perhaps there are better angles to try to tell, but if you have to go that far, I think its fair to say you are not going to notice in game.
Ackmed thank you for helping me to prove my point.