• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

ATI vs Nvidia in AA

Which pic do you think has better 4xAA being done on it?

  • Total voters
    75
It's a toss-up for me.

In one picture, where the tree limbs attach to the tree, there appears to be less of a 'stair-stepping' effect, or better antialiasing.

However, in the other picture, the tree looks worse, BUT the tops of the fence posts look better aliased.

I guess I have no preference either way as I noticed subtle differences in each screen. So which is which?

EDIT: Tree looks better in A, but fence posts look worse. In B, tree looks worse, but fence posts look better. Just FYI.
 
the only thing different i can see is the tree in the B picture has no stairsteps on its outline when the A has just a wee bit of it.
 
They both look pretty good to me. ATI is known for having better AA aren't they?
 
Wolf-R1 said:
They both look pretty good to me. ATI is known for having better AA aren't they?
Click to expand...

I suppose you could say that now, with the addition of Temporal AA. In effect, if you have AA on and temporal AA enabled in the Catalyst Control Panel, it'll flicker two different types of AA back and forth every time the screen refreshes -- in effect 'tricking' your eyes into what looks to be 2x as good AA quality.

So, 2x quality with Temporal AA would appear to be 4x, 4x = 8x, and 8x = 16x.

However, you have to be getting at least 60 fps for this feature to work, AND you can't capture it via screenshot because it works by flickering TWO screens.

Weird, but cool technology.
 
Looks too damn close to be picky about, I definitely would'nt use it as a factor when buying my video card.
 
Tree looks better in A, but fence posts look worse. In B, tree looks worse, but fence posts look better.
Click to expand...
Same for me too. Which ever's which, it really makes you think about all those people who insist that ATi has superior AA and NV's AA is utter crap. ;)
 
Tower said:
I suppose you could say that now, with the addition of Temporal AA. In effect, if you have AA on and temporal AA enabled in the Catalyst Control Panel, it'll flicker two different types of AA back and forth every time the screen refreshes -- in effect 'tricking' your eyes into what looks to be 2x as good AA quality.
Click to expand...

I play my games at 1600x1200, so for me, I'd rather take 8xS anyday over temporal. 1600x2400 plus 4xAA plus 2x2 super sampling and texture aliasing > Temporal AA in my book.

As for which image is which, I'll tell it a bit later. Let more people have a chance to chime in with unbiased comments.
 
And just to throw my 2 cents in, I also think the second pic looks a tad bit better. This was my opinion BEFORE I found out which card was which.
 
I voted B because I perceived less of a stair stepping effect (an extremely minor thing), but both screenshots look great regardless.

So are you going to post an anisotropic poll next? :D
 
A is good...but when you stick your face to the screen B is, in fact, noticeably better...
 
I really cant tell the difference. How the heck can you tell if the games moving at 60 FPS.
 
trashcan said:
I really cant tell the difference. How the heck can you tell if the games moving at 60 FPS.
Click to expand...


Look for the different aa differences depending on angles of the polys ;)
 
The Batman said:
I play my games at 1600x1200, so for me, I'd rather take 8xS anyday over temporal. 1600x2400 plus 4xAA plus 2x2 super sampling and texture aliasing > Temporal AA in my book.

As for which image is which, I'll tell it a bit later. Let more people have a chance to chime in with unbiased comments.
Click to expand...

...?

I don't understand your post.

Temporal Antialiasing just flickers a different algorithym of a given type back and forth on your screen faster than your eye can perceive, which 'tricks' your eye into seeing quality that is approximately twice as good.

Temporal Antialiasing doesn't deal with resolutions or overall general antialiasing quality. It simply improves upon such.

So.. I don't understand your comment?
 
b looked fuller for the section that I looked at(only 1024 resolution, so I didn't fit the whole image)
 
Tower said:
...?

I don't understand your post.

Temporal Antialiasing just flickers a different algorithym of a given type back and forth on your screen faster than your eye can perceive, which 'tricks' your eye into seeing quality that is approximately twice as good.

Temporal Antialiasing doesn't deal with resolutions or overall general antialiasing quality. It simply improves upon such.

So.. I don't understand your comment?
Click to expand...

60FPS limit. Most games don't run a constant 60FPS at 1600x1200. ;)

So as you can see it would be useless to me, I'd have to drop to 1024x768 to get that kind of performence and that would defeat the purpose since my LCD is 1600x1200 native.
 
the way i figure, if it comes down to clicking between pictures fast enough to try and notice a difference, and getting 3 inches from the screen analyzing each and every detail... i'd say they're pretty much equal.

with that being said, it's almost undoubtedly some x800xt-pe vs. 6800ultra. (dunno which is which) so, i'd say that either or is good enough for me.
 
The Batman said:
A is XTPE.
B is 6800U.
Click to expand...

hmm...was that in-game AA or driver forced? and what game was it?

I find it odd that ATi would be that noticeably inferior...
 
It's Morrowind. In game or CP won't make a difference here, if there was no AA being applied to one of the pics we'd have noticed. All 50 of us can't be blind.
 
Cant tell now that I look at it more (originally voted A) but B looks better in its own areas. We need some consistancy =P
 
^eMpTy^ said:
hmm...was that in-game AA or driver forced? and what game was it?

I find it odd that ATi would be that noticeably inferior...
Click to expand...


Well it just shows ya Nvidia really did improve thier image quality, but its also dependent on the anigles too, ATi looks better from certain angles and nV look better in others ;)
 
just made a clone of this thread in another forums, 6 votes for pic 1(a) 2 for pic 2(b)
 
I voted B, but now that I know A is ATi I want to switch my vote :p .
 
I bet if you do a real test, your score will be nothing more than
a random guess.

ie,

Take 3 screenshots of the same scene from different angles for
both cards.

Show the viewer all 6 shots and have them identify all three shots from
the same card, if they can do this, then you can declare a point for the winner otherwise it's a guess.

1. ATI - # of votes where all three are guessed correctly
2, NV - # of votes where all three are guessed correctly
3. # of incorrect identifications

:p


In other words, if you go to the grocery store and see an apple,
you can distinguish the apple from the orange 100% of the time.
It's an Apple!

You need to do this type of test to say "It's ATI (or NV) !" screenshots...
 
Or better yet take three screen shots from the same card and tell people that one is ATi and the other is NV and see how people vote after they (think) they know which is which.
 
CrimandEvil said:
Or better yet take three screen shots from the same card and tell people that one is ATi and the other is NV and see how people vote after they (think) they know which is which.
Click to expand...

Smashing good idea. I might have to do that next time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top