I agree with Paladyr.
Btw, OpS, when you said that you had three different setups. Generally that term is used to refer to hardware setups. Rather than the differences that you showed between changes in software settings.
Printable View
I agree with Paladyr.
Btw, OpS, when you said that you had three different setups. Generally that term is used to refer to hardware setups. Rather than the differences that you showed between changes in software settings.
No no no, it was assumed by some to be the case.Quote:
Originally posted by Vizer
I agree with Paladyr.
Btw, OpS, when you said that you had three different setups. Generally that term is used to refer to hardware setups. Rather than the differences that you showed between changes in software settings.
Huh? The screenshots you took for the comparison were 1024x768 and medium quality, right?Quote:
Originally posted by OpStar
If I can do higher quality than 1600x1200x32 @ 4xaa 8xansio @ very high settings (6xaa 16xansio on 9800XT) on an nVidia card let me know.
Very, very, very much so.Quote:
So you proved nVidia has just as good IQ. Isn't ATI still faster when displaying high IQ?
The 9700p is 20% faster in UT2003 and 32% faster in Nascar Thunder 2004 than a 5950U. You don't even want to know how much faster the 9700p is than the 5900nu.Quote:
I said I didn't understand why people bought the 9700 Pro over the 5900 Non Ultra. I seriously doubt that the 9700 Pro has any significant performance lead over the 5900 Non Ultra, no matter the aa/af level or rez used, and it costs more.[bold added]
The FSAA poll I posted had a purpose: it shows that people are more inclined to use FSAA and AF if they own an ATI card than if they own an Nvidia card. Whether thats a cause or an effect isn't really relevent: in practice ATI has better image quality than Nvidia because you can use the eye candy more on an ATI card than an Nvidia card.
I also think a lot of people (you) aren't being honest with themselves about the difference - someone who buys an Nvidia card because of the non-aa/af benchmarks and 3dmark and then uses aa/af in games is fooling himself.
Like I said before - ATI has the biggest performance lead any company has had since 3dfx was alone in the industry.
Ok, but which card can run the game with decent performance when all this detail is turned up? This is where the big difference comes in...Quote:
Originally posted by OpStar
I never once said nVidia was FASTER I said the IQ between the two were a mute point.
-Ryan
GENERALLY doesn't constitute always.Quote:
Originally posted by Vizer
I agree with Paladyr.
Btw, OpS, when you said that you had three different setups. Generally that term is used to refer to hardware setups. Rather than the differences that you showed between changes in software settings.
You can say what you want SIR but I game on BOTH high end cards currently available ON THE MARKET with the same IQ settings.Quote:
Originally posted by russ_watters
Huh? The screenshots you took for the comparison were 1024x768 and medium quality, right? Very, very, very much so. The 9700p is 20% faster in UT2003 and 32% faster in Nascar Thunder 2004 than a 5950U. You don't even want to know how much faster the 9700p is than the 5900nu.
The FSAA poll I posted had a purpose: it shows that people are more inclined to use FSAA and AF if they own an ATI card than if they own an Nvidia card. Whether thats a cause or an effect isn't really relevent: in practice ATI has better image quality than Nvidia because you can use the eye candy more on an ATI card than an Nvidia card.
I also think a lot of people (you) aren't being honest with themselves about the difference - someone who buys an Nvidia card because of the non-aa/af benchmarks and 3dmark and then uses aa/af in games is fooling himself.
Like I said before - ATI has the biggest performance lead any company has had since 3dfx was alone in the industry.
Kthx.
I respect the UT benchmark but c'mon Nascar Thunder 2004? Please...
While I'm sure there are lots of Nascar enthusiasts, I can come up with some titles where nV is at least 20% faster.
That isn't the point. MY POINT WAS THAT NVIDIA AND ATI OFFER COMPARABLE IQ.
Nothing at all was said about speed.
IN FACT, I explicity said that for IQ fps wasn't important, AND I said that my ATi card was faster.
Kthx.
I also posted High Quality shots when they were requested, and none of you commented on them, OR on the IQ differences of Ackmed's shots.
All you did was turn this IQ discussion into a frame rate discussion because ATi is faster so therefore the fact that both companies offer the same IQ is irrelevant somehow (it isn't).
You guys can call me a fanboy all you want, just do so while looking in a mirror.
Heh, you guys didn't have a problem with this statement UNTIL AFTER Ackmed proved that IQ between a 5900NU and an ATi 9800XT were ALMOST IDENTICAL.Quote:
Originally posted by OpStar
PS - I'll tell you my FPS later, as that has little to do with IQ. I will tell you as far as a brand new DX9 game goes, it was pretty playable in all those ss.
NOW, all of the sudden its about frame rate.
Which is it, frame rate, or IQ?
DOES A 5900 NON ULTRA AND A 9800XT HAVE COMPARABLE IQ: YES.
CAN YOU PLAY WITH A 5900NU AT HIGH IQ SETTINGS AND ACHIEVE THE SAME FRAME RATE AS A 9800XT: NO
Which conversation are we having?
NOW I suppose I have to buy a 9700 Pro, considering my ENTIRE RANT was between a 5900NU and a 9700 Pro.
I swear, you people make me laugh.
We were having a total IQ discussion, and now its about IQ/FPS because someone proved that nV's IQ is ALMOST IDENTICAL to ATi's.
*looks*
Ok, for a second there I thought I was on Rage3D.
Yes I did, I said they look just as good.Quote:
Originally posted by OpStar
I also posted High Quality shots when they were requested, and none of you commented on them, OR on the IQ differences of Ackmed's shots.
Still, like I said, what good is equal IQ if you are getting 20FPS compared to 50???? I just pulled those numbers out of my bootie though.
Ok Opstar - the point has been proven that IQ differences between ATI and Nvidia CAN be reduced to a few pixels under a magnifying glass. However, as was demonstrated in these examples, the Nvidia hardware had to be forced to use PS 2.0 in order to achieve these results.
Ok, your point has been proven about IQ when considered only by itself.
But come on now... When people say "ATI has better IQ than Nvidia", they're not segregating IQ from performance. Pound for pound, ATI typically delivers better IQ at faster frame rates than Nvidia. This is why people will recommend a 9700Pro over a 5900NU. Sure, you can make them look nearly the same, but one is going to run faster. How much is that worth? It's up to the person.
-Ryan
It's up to the person, thank you.
BTW, Ackmed wasn't using PS 2.0 in his screenshots ;)
I did that, not him.
Did we ever get to see whether or not PS2.0 made a difference for nVidia (mixed mode vs full quality)??? What did we determine, is mixed mode okay?Quote:
Originally posted by OpStar
It's up to the person, thank you.
BTW, Ackmed wasn't using PS 2.0 in his screenshots ;)
I did that, not him.
I saw no difference using PS 2.0, not even on the pipes.
In Ackmed's screenshots comparing his 5900NU (flashed to 5950 Ultra) and his 9800XT he is using mixed mode, and I can't tell the difference.
I can't see a difference whatsoever but I rather would see a true 5950 take it up against the 9800XT, as otherwise that would not be a fair comparison as well on the hardware side (referring to ackmeds screenshots)
I'm sure that with the next gen cards, performance wise we will have hit a more even picture.
great Idea Opstar, really great idea
So who here has a real 5950u who wants to donate their time? :D
I do, that's what my HQ pics are.
The low fps are 5950 Ultra and the higher fps are 9800XT.