A good unbiased image quality article.

[crabcakes66]

http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/imagequalityshootout/default.asp

 

[subs]

cool

 

[Hudson]

lmao crabcakes i love the text in your sig

 

[nw909]

Thats not fair, why didn't they both have 256 MB or both have 128 MB, its uneven

 

[jAkUp]

its fair. more mb's doesnt increase image quality

 

[nw909]

Ok then, nm, anyway it looks even, ati = better aa nvidia = better af.

 

[Pressure]

I'd go with ATi but thats personal prefrence.

 

[Hudson]

I also now side with ATI

very good article

 

[Ridic]

just got my 9800pro 128 and its incredible....i enabled 4xAA and 4xAF and i get 85-100 fps in bf1942 with max settigns at 1024x.......i love it. Everything looks top freaking notch.

 

[Xtasy0]

Originally posted by [Hunter]Ridic
just got my 9800pro 128 and its incredible....i enabled 4xAA and 4xAF and i get 85-100 fps in bf1942 with max settigns at 1024x.......i love it. Everything looks top freaking notch.

i run all my games at 16xAF it's basically free from my experience(meaning theres no performance hit, or its negligible), AA on the other hand i run 6xAA in OGL and 4xAA in D3D, but the AA i change sometimes depending on the game, but AF is always 16x

 

[Ridic]

hrm..i dont really need or want any thing above 4x for each..heh

The one really ****ing funny thing is that i get 85-100 fps in bf1942, but i get 60-100 in dod. JUst shows dod is ****ED UP...just like the team who made it.

 

[Sgt.Igneri]

Not up to DoD, you would be blaming the game engine...

 

[dawdler]

I posted about this in the 5600vs9600 thread, and the only thing unfair is the angles all AF shots are taken at. ATI is using a different method than Nvidia, its has much smoother transitions and filter like a star, but is also bad at certain angles. That's what 16xAF help! It also filters these angles! But they didnt try it maxed!!!!!!!!! So it is actually biased if you look at it that way, they are NOT showing what ATI can do. They are also not showing a single game where ATI AF equals Nvidia AF (where the angles are better, for example UT2k3 or SS2 or EF2, or any such game)

 

[Asus]

Originally posted by dawdler
I posted about this in the 5600vs9600 thread, and the only thing unfair is the angles all AF shots are taken at. ATI is using a different method than Nvidia, its has much smoother transitions and filter like a star, but is also bad at certain angles. That's what 16xAF help! It also filters these angles! But they didnt try it maxed!!!!!!!!! So it is actually biased if you look at it that way, they are NOT showing what ATI can do. They are also not showing a single game where ATI AF equals Nvidia AF (where the angles are better, for example UT2k3 or SS2 or EF2, or any such game)

huh? sry its late.
But you do know ATI's AA filters weird at angles?
Also...
If you can run the game in max res (1600x or 1280x), why run a game in lower res with AA enabled?
I know in most cases, it may reduce performance less than running full res. But why emulate high res and make it blurry (enabling AA) if you can actually play with it in high res without creating fake pixels and having the blurry effect?

edit: I believe the reason ATI's looked better compared with Nvidia's on the first page, when they said Nvidias looked washed out, is because Nvidia changes their minimaps sooner than ATI.

 

[dawdler]

Originally posted by Asus
huh? sry its late.
But you do know ATI's AA filters weird at angles?
Also...
If you can run the game in max res (1600x or 1280x), why run a game in lower res with AA enabled?
I know in most cases, it may reduce performance less than running full res. But why emulate high res and make it blurry (enabling AA) if you can actually play with it in high res without creating fake pixels and having the blurry effect?

edit: I believe the reason ATI's looked better compared with Nvidia's on the first page, when they said Nvidias looked washed out, is because Nvidia changes their minimaps sooner than ATI.

Hehe, its early
Anyway, ATI 8xAF (not AA) does not filter at around 45 degrees, its a well known fact. The more towards this angle, the less it filters. That's cause its in a star pattern (whilel Nvidia has a circle pattern). 16xAF enables filtering of these angles (its still not as good as Nvidia, but its better than 8xAF). That's why its an unfair advantage for Nvidia in this comparison.

In the FSAAvsRes issue, I think 10x7 with 6xFSAA (ATI) is perfect. Cause its smooths the movement. Even at 16x12, you still see jaggies, and the entire screen jitters when in motion. FSAA makes it MUCH smoother... Of course, high res AND high FSAA isnt all that bad
Also, it doesnt create fake pixels. You actually see MORE using ATI FSAA... http://w1.855.telia.com/~u85528876/bfcomp3.bmp
That's at 10x7 with 4xAA and 16xAF. You dont actually need higher resolution with FSAA if done right (the ATI way)

And yes Nvidia does change their mipmaps (not minimaps, hehe) earlier, and ATI does it much smoother than Nvidia (because of previously mentioned star pattern).

 

[Asus]

Yes mipmaps...told you it was late.