Far Cry SS - NO 56K - Test your IQ Knowledge

[OpStar]

Thank you Mike.

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.

Call it "OpStar's Pepsi Challenge"

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.

What didn't happen is:

HEY OP, QUIT F'ING AROUND THIS SCREENSHOTS ARE ALL NVIDIA, WHERE ARE THE ATI SCREENSHOTS?

That happened AFTER I told you they were all from a 5900.

Quite frankly, as much as people rant and rave around here, that should been the first thing said.

I'll state it again:

ATi is better @ AA
ATi is faster @ PS 2.0/DX9

IQ is practically the same.

If you are buying a videocard, consider these IMPORTANT factors, instead of heresay/fanboyism.

THE RESOLUTION YOU PLAY
THE TITLES YOU PLAY
THE IQ SETTINGS YOU USE
THE SYSTEM YOU HAVE IT IN

Why? Because those things MATTER, not comparing two zoomed in screenshots to reassure yourself you got better IQ when you are zooming around a deathmatch map.

/end rant (which one am I on?)

[OpStar]

Originally posted by Paladyr
OpStar, are you capturing some high IQ pics???

Yeah.

Everytime I use rivatuner to switch from ps2.0 to mixed mode I have to restart, as well as each time I switch cards.

I'm trying to save the game in 9 spots (including the tunnel) and replay those spots with each setup.

I'm just making sure I don't have to do this again

[Paladyr]

Post the high IQ screenshots from both the 9800 and the 5900 and we'll see if the differences are noticeable, or if we have to zoom in and check it out.

[JustW]

Originally posted by OpStar
not comparing two zoomed in screenshots to reassure yourself you got better IQ when you are zooming around a deathmatch map.

Not that it matters, I just wanted to point out that UT2k3 gif I had in the other thread wasn't zoomed it, it was cropped from the original picture to save bandwidth

I think we can all agree that most people aren't going to be able to tell the differences in IQ without an animated gif image. That still doesn't change the fact that one card has better IQ than the other, and if IQ is a big deal to you then it does matter. If IQ doesnt matter to you then why do you own a top of the line card? A Ti4600/9500 would suit your needs perfectly for playing without AA/AF high details.

I am an IQ whore, so yes even the slightest bit in IQ difference matters to me. People always bring up the "well you aren't going to be watching the scenery while you're playing", but every little detail just makes the game all that more immersive. Not only that, but not every game out there is a fast paced FPS.

[Idiot356]

Well I tend to agree...

My upgarde path went like this, Radeon VE, Radeon 7500, Radeon 9000, then GF3 Ti200 I could notice a difference in the image of the Radeons and the GF3 very much so. Then I went to the Radeon 9500, great IQ, then my computer got stolen, so I used my 9000Pro for the new comp.

This Christmas I got a 5900NU, and I cannot tell a difference in image quality vs. ATi, I could however on the GF3 line of cards.

[Mike09702]

Originally posted by Idiot356
Well I tend to agree...

My upgarde path went like this, Radeon VE, Radeon 7500, Radeon 9000, then GF3 Ti200 I could notice a difference in the image of the Radeons and the GF3 very much so. Then I went to the Radeon 9500, great IQ, then my computer got stolen, so I used my 9000Pro for the new comp.

This Christmas I got a 5900NU, and I cannot tell a difference in image quality vs. ATi, I could however on the GF3 line of cards.

Currently I'm using my friends Geforce3 ti200 because I just sold him my 9600xt and am waiting for my 5900nu. I can definately notice a HUGE difference in IQ from the 9600xt to the Geforce3 as well, though when compared to a newer GeforceFX, that noticable difference just isn't there.

[davnport]

Originally posted by russ_watters

Just to be clear, my opinion on image quality is pretty simple: FSAA & AF (moreso FSAA) are key. You're absolutely right that if image quality differences are so small you need identical screenshots and the zoom function on your image editor to see them they are unimportant. But the difference between the fsaa and non-fsaa pics you posted practically jumps off the screen and slaps you across the face.

For that reason, I have been of the opinion for quite some time that reviewers shouldn't go below 1024x768 and shouldn't benchmark without fsaa except perhaps to investigate the framerate hit you get with fsaa. Its also one of the main reasons why 3dmark is such a farce.

It is also the reason for my opinion that ATI's performance lead right now is huge. The 9800XT might only be 5% faster than the 5950U without FSAA/AF (Tom's, UT2003, 1024x768), but with FSAA/AF, the lead is 45%!! That is absolutely huge - in fact, not since 3Dfx was alone in the industry did one company have such a huge lead in performance as ATI does now.

I think that this is one of the best statements in this whole post. 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. Because so many people have been buying ati cards whether it be because they realize that the speeds are better with eyecandy on them or because they are being told by a friend to get them... they are forcing companies like nVidia, who once was the titan in the vid card domain, to reevaluate their designs. Don't think that reps from those companies don't scour the forums like these just searching for why "kids like us" are buying so and so's product over theirs. They are! If people sway towards ati temporarily it will force nVidia to produce better products. I know that this point I am making isn't what was originally meant for this thread, and I apologize. I just want to say that regardless of whether or not we could tell opstar was using an ati/nvidia card, it was the eyecandy that WAS noticeable. Not everyone can fork out $200 (or $450 for that matter) bucks for a top quality card, so as far as the midrange cards go, I think that ati and nvidia are pretty evenly matched. But in the upper end, as pointed out by russ_watters, the results are in and ati is faster with aa/af.

opstar you had some real valid points, and I actually liked your post. I have used nvidia cards in the past, the only reason I have 2 ati cards now is because I had a connection with them for good prices. But one of the points you made, aside from technology, is that if you don't like what someone writes, don't read it. If you read a post bashing nvidia and you feel like stepping in with a clever suggestion like you did in this post, by all means do so. But you shouldn't get distressed that other people are swearing by ati and pushing the 9700pro over the 5900nu. That will always happen... especially when people don't know what they are talking about or know just enough to think they know what they are talking about but are still inexperienced on the topic. I try to keep up on the reviews, yet there is always stuff I don't know, which will always be the case. But I like it when I see your kind of thinking because it helps me to understand views that are hard to grasp when I don't have the technology in front of me to compare.

as far as the argument about the tnt in a cave. I also like this because I was once in a cave . I only played for acceptable fps, not for eyecandy. I didn't know I could have a combo of both and be satisfied, but this is why I thikn opstars posting of the 5900 anonymously was clever, because we struggled to determine which was different, since we saw the difference in the last setups quality. I think the comparison of opstars pics to the 9800pros shown later are blatantly obvious (and wow those are awesome), but opstar was showing that at a budget level, the quality of his 5900nu is just as acceptable for playing, if not a better value (since it is cheaper and still gives nice quality) than spending more on the ati simply because of IQ. I for one, will not play at a fps less than 30, not in todays market of vid cards.

But from that cave theory, I think opstar should see that the average gamer is moving to higher resolutions for playing games, even if only because they are being told to by others, the change is happening. When I play on my 2nd rig, I use 12xx X 1024 (I can't remember the exact #s) always. But I am forced to play at the 1024x768 on the rig I use now because of my 15"lcd. I much rather be playing on the higher resolution. Can't say that there is a huge diff, but there is some. So, the reviews that show how a card performs at the highest extremes are invaluable, because they show what a card is really capable of.

Hope I didn't offend anyone, its just I thought so many people had great points, even if they were from different sides of the fence.

[OpStar]

Far Cry Screenshots V 2.0 (redux)

Settings Used:

[OpStar]

Here we go:

Probably not what you guys want (I'm too damn random to take exact same screenshots)

[OpStar]

More of Version 2.0 FC SS (redux)...







So, what complaints do we have now, besides I can't stand in teh same spot twice

[OpStar]

Final shots from V 2.0 FC SS (redux)...

I'll do some more later...






I'm gonna take a nap.

Rant while I'm gone

BTW - I hope these are HIGH QUALITY ENOUGH FOR YOU

[Mike09702]

Man, I saw the settings you were gonna use before you posted those screens, and I almost pooped in my pantaloons.

Off topic a little but, is there any particular reason why FSAA/AF filters are even necessary? Maybe this has been answered before, but why can't they just design the hardware to automatically implement these things into everything. That way they wouldn't have to worry about optimizing drivers to make it run faster, and can just concentrate on making the hardware MUCH faster. Plus, wouldn't a hardware based FSAA/AF be flawless?

Maybe I am crazy.

[OpStar]

Originally posted by Ackmed
Where do you do reviews for, Opstar? Id like to check some of yours out.

No one, but I'd like to.

I'm just doing a review/comparison of the 5950 Ultra and the 9800XT using real world games.

I'll be doing it a lot like I did today, but more refined (ie: same screenshot).

This was just some random thing that I thought about while playing the demo.

This other review I decided to do because a few guys asked me to buy a 9800XT.

I figured since I pretty much am able to take the CPU bottleneck out of the question, we can get a really good comparison of the two.

I plan on doing the same when the nv40/r420 come out

Thanks for the interest though, that's pretty rad.

[OpStar]

Originally posted by Mike09702
Man, I saw the settings you were gonna use before you posted those screens, and I almost pooped in my pantaloons.

Yeah, that's why I was ranting about "high quality".

I hope you got some $$$ if you wanna play the next generation titles MAXED OUT.

As these screen shots can attest too, I need some better computer power myself.

This is why I stick to CS

[Ackmed]

9800XT and 5900NU. Same settings.




9800XT:


5900NU:


9800XT:


5900NU:


9800XT:


5900NU:


Thats taken without any third party software, just everything in the drivers set to high, and app preference for AA/AF.

Not much of a difference to me. I realize they are not in the exact same spot.. but its pretty close. I think both of their AF sucks on that path.