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. :)