290 vs. 780 in Trine 2

G

gman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 24, 2001
Messages
1,887
290 looked horrible. The 780 I just got looks incredible. It's almost like a new game to me again. :D
 
Wow great to have this many Trolls respond.
 
Last edited:
Not trying to add any amount of terrible to this but...What parts of it were terrible...FPS? Quality? Frame Queue issues?...

Your post reads as a troll post without any additional information behind it.
 
Guys, look never mind. It was just an observation I had about the difference the cards made in that particular game. That's all. Not the best post in the world I guess.
 
Last edited:
Without pictures to prove so I think it's just placebo. I don't see how they could be that much different in a relatively simple side scrolling game like Trine 2. The most you'll see is some new Physx stuff.
 
gman said:
Guys, look never mind. It was just an observation I had about the difference the cards made in that particular game. That's all. Not the best post in the world I guess.
Click to expand...

People are quick to point out trolls :) I don't think you were trolling, just stating your personal opinion, which is fine. But next time a little more detail will keep the bashers away. Glad you are happy with your new card.
 
King Icewind said:
Without pictures to prove so I think it's just placebo. I don't see how they could be that much different in a relatively simple side scrolling game like Trine 2. The most you'll see is some new Physx stuff.
Click to expand...

He could have screwed up the colors on his 290 card though. On AMD, there is a setting which I miss in the Nvidia control panel, where you can choose to ignore EDID and set a custom color temperature instead. You find it under "my digital flat panels" -> Display color.

The color temperature slider there is great if you wish to compensate for stereoscopic 3d or "lightboost" which both can screw up your colors, or if your color temp is off on your monitor and you wish to lightly compensate in tasks that are not color critical.

Other then that, there is no difference in Trine 2, regardless if you use an AMD or Nvidia card. It looked better by default though in the HD3D setup then with the 3D vision setup in my opinion, since I preferred Tridefs convergence setting in stereoscopic 3d over the Nvidia 3D visions settings (a little bit more popout). But that can be manually adjusted to match and is more a personal preference then objective measuring.

Trine 2 uses only CPU PhysX.
 
Thanks DraginDime. Yea, I don't have the 290 anymore to grab a screenshot to compare so it was pretty much a moot post. I'll do better next time.:)
 
Hmmm very interesting actually. A friend and I noticed Trine 2 looked really weird when we were playing on our R9 290's. We had to mess with the gamma a lot to make it playable. We thought it was just the game.
 
subyman said:
Hmmm very interesting actually. A friend and I noticed Trine 2 looked really weird when we were playing on our R9 290's. We had to mess with the gamma a lot to make it playable. We thought it was just the game.
Click to expand...

Too dark? Too bright? What looked off? I'm curious.
 
It was really dark in some areas. A character would pass through a shadowed spot and you couldn't see them at all. The contrast and saturation seemed to be cranked to 100%. I played the first Trine on a 680, so I knew it looked very colorful, but it was so incredibly so this time that objects bled into each other and I couldn't see the scene properly. Maybe I can get a screen shot later today at standard settings.
 
subyman - alas I'm not crazy. That's sound very similar. Yes, it did seem as though the contrast was maybe way off with the 290 which messed up the colors.
I did adjust the brightness, but not the contrast. It would look a bit better, but still was fairly bad.
 
Last edited:
I will say Trine 2 played smoother with nvidia than amd. coming from 2x 7970's those suckers would ramp up good and get frame skipping. When on high detail, this game is a gpu hog.
 
subyman said:
It was really dark in some areas. A character would pass through a shadowed spot and you couldn't see them at all. The contrast and saturation seemed to be cranked to 100%. I played the first Trine on a 680, so I knew it looked very colorful, but it was so incredibly so this time that objects bled into each other and I couldn't see the scene properly. Maybe I can get a screen shot later today at standard settings.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I once had a GTX-560 and a Radeon HD-7750 and I didn't see any differences between those two cards.
 
subyman said:
It was really dark in some areas. A character would pass through a shadowed spot and you couldn't see them at all. The contrast and saturation seemed to be cranked to 100%. I played the first Trine on a 680, so I knew it looked very colorful, but it was so incredibly so this time that objects bled into each other and I couldn't see the scene properly. Maybe I can get a screen shot later today at standard settings.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the bug that the Source engine displayed when the G80 core (GeForce 8800 series) first launched.

On AMD cards (and older Nvidia cards), Source engine games looked fine. As soon as you tried to run it on a G80 based card like an 8800GTX, everything looked horribly washed out.

The depth-fog calculation was being handled incorrectly, causing it to appear too-close and making the game look washed out. I wonder if something similar is happening to Trine 2 on AMD cards.
 
I don't notice and differences at all on my 780s or the game running in my 7970s? I do recall Crysis 2 looking sharper in my Nvidia cards thou.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top