![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
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.
nVidia: "Oops, I did it again" [56=NO]
- Thread starter Killa|3yte
- Start date
bluring the whole image is not cheating, it is simply another anti aliasing method, no one says you will be bound to pick one with blur, just like you aren't forced to use quincux or 4x 9tap on current nvidia cards, yet they are there and have blurring.
DocFaustus
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2002
- Messages
- 2,830
Originally posted by Killa|3yte
so its ok if they take a shit on the screen and then smudge it?
Stop being so melodramatic. The screen does not look like they took a shit on the screen and smudged it. It looks fine, and truth be told, when I am running around in a first person shooter, I barely notice the finer points anyway. So when all is said and done, I will go with whatever card gives the better frames at the desired detail level of my personal preference.
Since your question was ambiguous, I will even cover your other possible meaning: I don't care if nVidia(or ATi) kills kittens as part of a pact with Satan in exchange for Unholy Graphics Power. As long as they get the job done.
Killa|3yte
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2002
- Messages
- 2,266
pics plz kthx
DocFaustus
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2002
- Messages
- 2,830
hehe, I actually, those would be funny.
this from the same card that has 2 molex connectors and is the size of an elephant?
nvidia is beating down the wrong path I think..
[edit:] but nView still rules. im an nV fanboy, just currently own an ati card.. what else was I gonna buy? a 5700, LOL
nvidia is beating down the wrong path I think..
[edit:] but nView still rules. im an nV fanboy, just currently own an ati card.. what else was I gonna buy? a 5700, LOL
Would you please WAIT for the card to come out? And WAIT for the R420 to come out? So you could compare REAL results?
I'm feeling lost from nVidia too, but to jump to conclusions on their new part and it's not even out yet? That's a bit too premature. And THAT's called FANBOYISM.NightRaven
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2003
- Messages
- 1,359
Okay, I'm getting the sense here that part of the reaction is just placebo. The difference isn't of the type where you can say one "rox" and the other "sux" peeps, I actually prefer the nVidia, imo the ATI render seems a little less saturated (faded).
Howabout we hold up a bit here before going all crazy.
EDIT: Okay I did a direct one on top of the other flipping directly back and forth comparison and I can see the difference. It is very clear but I CANNOT honestly say that ATI's method is better.
Think about it this way, in real life when you're looking at small details far away, do they become pixellated? No, they get fuzzy and it seems like nVidia's method of AA has captured this effect surprisingly well.
Rather than say that ATI's picture is crisper, I have to say its *grainier,* which is not a good thing.
Notice things like the vents along the right wall. In ATI's render, you somehow LOSE half the grating, while in NV's render, the grating is clearly there, just harder to make out. The details on the far wall are clearly aliased. The NVidia render does lose a bit of detail though. At this point its clear that neither implementation is ideal, but I reiterate that you can hardly say that one is considerably better than the other.
Howabout we hold up a bit here before going all crazy.
EDIT: Okay I did a direct one on top of the other flipping directly back and forth comparison and I can see the difference. It is very clear but I CANNOT honestly say that ATI's method is better.
Think about it this way, in real life when you're looking at small details far away, do they become pixellated? No, they get fuzzy and it seems like nVidia's method of AA has captured this effect surprisingly well.
Rather than say that ATI's picture is crisper, I have to say its *grainier,* which is not a good thing.
Notice things like the vents along the right wall. In ATI's render, you somehow LOSE half the grating, while in NV's render, the grating is clearly there, just harder to make out. The details on the far wall are clearly aliased. The NVidia render does lose a bit of detail though. At this point its clear that neither implementation is ideal, but I reiterate that you can hardly say that one is considerably better than the other.
From what I can tell, the Ati picture looks like it was the way that the game was meant to be displayed.
Grainier to you means higher/sharper to me from the shots shown.
This is only my opinion, but it seems to be favorite of the thread. I can't wait until Brent gets ahold of this thing.
Killa|3yte
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2002
- Messages
- 2,266
Hmm, I'm pretty sure the ATi shots are just sharper, not grainier
I know brent already has one
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2000
- Messages
- 20,947
Originally posted by TommyW
why ohh why to molex conectors!!!???
i want to buy the new card i think if nvidia use to molex
so ati will have it too...
an i dont have 120$ to spend on a new power supple
two molex's due to power consumption...the AGP slot doesnt provide enough juice to run dick man.
however as stated the dual molex's are more than likely on just the review samples not on the retail.
Relax and wait to see what comes out first before freaking out
Originally posted by IYIENACE
I seriously doubt that the ATi boys are losing any sleep over what the nVidia camp is doing. I give nVidia props if that is an actual representation of the nv40. (accurate representation) But - I see a smack down coming.
fanboyism at its finest....you dont see a thing reason...neither chip is out and your only speculating...wait to see what the real thing does before saying shit like that man.
SilkenRogue
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2001
- Messages
- 1,219
Originally posted by Killa|3yte
Hmm, I'm pretty sure the ATi shots are just sharper, not grainier
Personally, I think the nvidia shots (supposed nvidia shots, that is) look better. Some slight blurring noticeable on the gun, but without a side by side comparison with something a little sharper, you'd never see it.
Very nice AA though..
Originally posted by Killa|3yte
Yes, I know what it is. AA is smoothing of the edges, not the whole picture.
All Digital Vibrance is: modifying brightness, contrast, and color saturation ...not exactly a 'special' feature
True, why they didnt include it is beyond me
Nvidia also has added image sharpening to the 56XX dets(maybe it was there in previous sets I just never noticed it), not that I use it, except to test it out once.
NightRaven
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2003
- Messages
- 1,359
Yes but you shouldn't have to change or adjust your color settings for every game.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2002
- Messages
- 1,225
Killa|3yte
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2002
- Messages
- 2,266
Originally posted by ApaThy_NeXT2
I must be blind or something I can't tell any big difference between the 2 shots. Only thing that I can notice is that the first shot is a bit brighter than the second.
Please explain to me what I should be seeing...
I can totally understand why most don't see it. Do full screen back and forth flipping. Try IrfanView.
Also, JPEGd to save space
SilkenRogue
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2001
- Messages
- 1,219
You are seriously exaggerating that.
And yes, I did a full screen flip comparison, and it's certainly not like a "smudge".
There's a faint blur, but it still looks damn good. Color is better as well, and the AA is perfectly smooth where in the ATi shot you can make out a lot of jaggies.
I'm still not convinced of the legitimacy of the nv screenshots, so I'm certainly not getting worked up over it.
NightRaven
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2003
- Messages
- 1,359
Yeah, I noted in my post that ATI was missing half the grating but its quite apparent that they aren't even using the same textures. Weird.
Either that or the aliasing is SOO terrible that the pieces are blending/cancelling each other out to create that pattern.
Either that or the aliasing is SOO terrible that the pieces are blending/cancelling each other out to create that pattern.
SilkenRogue
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2001
- Messages
- 1,219
Originally posted by creedAMD
The proof is in the pudding.
I don't understand what your point is. The top shot is the ATi one which as you can see loses all the detail of the grate, where the nv shot KEEPS the detail.
Actually, it shows nothing, just that they are using different textures.
I have found that the Nv40 has a lot less contrast, and, if you look at the damage powerup (purple) in the distance, above it, in the ATI shot there are some lines that seem to like they are seperating metal panels. The nv40 shot completely fails to render these.
I have found that the Nv40 has a lot less contrast, and, if you look at the damage powerup (purple) in the distance, above it, in the ATI shot there are some lines that seem to like they are seperating metal panels. The nv40 shot completely fails to render these.
SilkenRogue
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2001
- Messages
- 1,219
Different textures? Seems more like the same textures being rendered differently. I don't know shit about UT2004 though (or any UT games, since I hate them all with a passion, though I may give 2k4 a try)
I do agree that a couple lines in the textures in the far distance do seem to be missing, but to me that's extreme nitpicking.
compare, the nv40 uses the same texture for all the grates, the radeon uses one texture for the close grate (which is the same as the one in the nv40 screen) and a different texture for the grates farther away. why this is happening I don't know, but you are comparing two different textures. (possibly they come from different builds of the game? I don't know)
Killa|3yte
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2002
- Messages
- 2,266
You know, I noticed that exact same thing. I believe it may be a LOD issue??
Any Ideas?
Any Ideas?
It looks like UT2004 will use different textures depending on how much videomemory you have.
I tried it out myself with other peoples cards. A Radeon 9600 with 256MB and one with 128MB, one seems to have used a different texture set when set to the Holy *hit settings. It might be that UT does not load particular sets of textures if there is not enough onboard memory. If so, this would be one of the few instances where a game uses more than 128MB videoram.
I tried it out myself with other peoples cards. A Radeon 9600 with 256MB and one with 128MB, one seems to have used a different texture set when set to the Holy *hit settings. It might be that UT does not load particular sets of textures if there is not enough onboard memory. If so, this would be one of the few instances where a game uses more than 128MB videoram.
Killa|3yte
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2002
- Messages
- 2,266
hey now, a very sensible explanation, would seem to make a lot of sense too.