Quake3World

Psyche911 wrote:

shadd_ wrote:some responses i got from humus(coder for ati)concerning HDR and AA.

I agree. I'd say it sort of makes HDR useful. It's no longer one step forward and one step back for quality. Just steps forward.

Btw, the SDK was just released, so now you only need the card to test this.
http://www.ati.com/developer/radeonSDK.html

I did make a quick test run at work today btw, and the hit of going from No AA to 6xAA was 14%.

the new ati cards can run 6xaa from 4xx virtually free btw.

It totally depends upon the benchmark, shadd. You're taking the results of a "coder for ATi." They have reason to give you results that show ATi better than it might really be.

Yes, that is great that they can run AA with little performance impact, but that doesn't mean they always do.

For example, Anandtech's new (much improved over the first) review of the product shows that in DooM 3, 4xAA causes a 49% drop in framerate. In that benchmark the 7800GTX takes a 37% drop in framerate.

I'm not trying to bash ATi, I'm just trying to show the full story here. It's all about perspective.

I agree it's a good product, but it seems you're trying to show it being better than it is.

AA in HDR is very good and will be very important...in the future. Very few upcoming titles have HDR. By the time it's remotely common, I expect nVidia to have found a way around this limitation.

look closely what i said about aa performance. hdr+aa is a HARDWARE limitation, it can't just be fixed sometime.

hdr will also be in pretty much every major game coming out. quakewars wil have hdr. serious samII has hdr, splintercell has hdr.

whatever, no offense psyche, but your just fucking wrong in so many things. we'll see i guess in the next bit as things become clearer.

Dude, I already knew it's a hardware limitation. I'm saying nVidia will implement that capability into their chips by the time more than 5 games have HDR.

I want HDR, it's probably the nicest feature I'd appreciate of a new card like these over my current card. It's something I've wanted since I saw the first demos of Valve's "Lost Coast" (hadn't heard of it before then). So it is important to me, and yes, ATi seems to have a better implementation of it in their hardware right now.

I think you're taking this too personal, shadd. I'm just trying to illustrate it's not the completely superior product you seem to make it out to be. It has some superior features, as does nVidia. They both have their wins and losses in the benchmarks. You seem to want people to accept that it wins hands down, and it just does not do that.

o'dium wrote: This is what I mean about AA. Here is my Doom 3, how I run, and how I play. FPS are fine. This is Ultra detail, everything maxed out, 1280x1024:

Is the FPS drop REALLY worth such a little visual difference?

What's that vertical pink line about 1/3 way across the screen? Is that an effect of the nVidia shimmering I've been hearing about? I saw some FarCry screenshots with marks like that. Or is that just something that's supposed to be there?

Psyche911 wrote:

o'dium wrote: This is what I mean about AA. Here is my Doom 3, how I run, and how I play. FPS are fine. This is Ultra detail, everything maxed out, 1280x1024:

Is the FPS drop REALLY worth such a little visual difference?

What's that vertical pink line about 1/3 way across the screen? Is that an effect of the nVidia shimmering I've been hearing about? I saw some FarCry screenshots with marks like that. Or is that just something that's supposed to be there?

Thats a water drip in that cave

Oh, good.

Does AA improve the visual quality of HDR scenes more than it does non-HDR scenes?

If not, it would seem like running AA & HDR together wouldn't really be any bigger benefit to people than normal AA would be - IE a matter of personal preference in a lot of cases.

Psyche911 wrote:P.S.
o'dium, I don't think the average person complaining about ATi drivers has had anything to do with a game engine.

But if it gives the developers headaches, isn't it more likely that they will decide that it isn't worth the time involved to fix some of those problems in games? For instance, that might explain the visual problems I've had in games with my card.

But I haven't had them with my card is the thing (9800 Pro).

And about your HDR comment, I think you're confusing HDR with.....something else.

AA = AntiAliasing, it smoothes jagged edges as seen here:



See the power lines in the top 3 "slices" of that image? They are very jaggy in the top one, slightly less so in the second, and almost "real" looking in the third. That's what AA does.

HDR = High Dynamic Range (Lighting). It creates greater contrast between light and dark, as well as some other stuff I'm still working on understanding. There's an article that might be a good read here:

http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/lostcoast.ars

It results in more realistic lighting. This is unrelated to Anti-Aliasing.

Anyone remember what site had that HDR Lost Coast article that showed a single image with 1/2 the screen using HDR and 1/2 the screen not? That was a good example I'd like to use here.

There's also Anisotropic Filtering for improving image quality. The best demonstration of it I can find right now is here:



What you want to look for is the lower part of the wall towards the end. See how the textures on the "nVidia side" of the image blur more towards the far end of the wall than the "ATi side?" They have both improved the image from what it would have been without AF, but this demonstrates that ATi's "High Quality" AF is superior than the 7800 series. If you want to learn more about that, I'll try to find an article. But let me know because I don't know a good one off hand.

Yea, I know what AA is. I just barely know a little about HDR (just what I've seen from screenshots). I don't really know much at all about AF - as far as how it actually works, at least.

But one of the biggest advantages that shadd was talking about, is the X1000 series' ability to run both AA and HDR without a huge performance hit, right?

Well AA seems to be a matter of personal preference more than anything - at least as far as your personal performance/cost preference.

If someone doesn't use AA much in games anyway, why would they be likely to use it with HDR as well, unless HDR somehow requires it to look the best?


To be perfectly honest, I'm scared to spend the money on an ATI card, simply because of the experience I've had with my 9600XT. I know it's not much of a GPU, but the fact that it has weird video problems on some of my favorite games - some of the most popular games to boot - doesn't inspire enough confidence in them for me to drop 500 bucks on an ATI card.

I mainly want to play FarCry 2, Quake 4, Age of Empires 3, and Quake Wars, and I want to know my card will perform well in these games and I'll be satisfied with my purchase. I can't imagine how pissed I would be if I bought one of these cards and had similar problems with it. I was a little pissed when I saw them on my 9600, but I only paid $250 for it.

Plus nVidia has quite a bit better performance in DooM 3 engine games (Quake 4, Quake Wars).

I think the 7800GT is a great card.

The X1000 series doesn't just run AA + HDR with less performance hit, nVidia can't run both at the same time at all. One or the other. Not that they have anything to do with each other.

And while it's true, someone who doesn't use one might be less inclined to use the other as they probably aren't knowledgable about advanced image quality options. But people who are and who care want both, not to have to choose.

But regardless, they're both fine cards. My personal preference is leaning towards the 7800GT. Though ATi does have some appeal (as usual, as this is currently my 4th or 5th ATi card).

Psyche911 wrote:Plus nVidia has quite a bit better performance in DooM 3 engine games (Quake 4, Quake Wars).

I think the 7800GT is a great card.

The X1000 series doesn't just run AA + HDR with less performance hit, nVidia can't run both at the same time at all. One or the other. Not that they have anything to do with each other.

And while it's true, someone who doesn't use one might be less inclined to use the other as they probably aren't knowledgable about advanced image quality options. But people who are and who care want both, not to have to choose.

But regardless, they're both fine cards. My personal preference is leaning towards the 7800GT. Though ATi does have some appeal (as usual, as this is currently my 4th or 5th ATi card).

dude i'm in no way taking it personal. i never once said the card is vastly superior to the gtx. i said it was superior, meaning it's a better card that wins most games out now at high res aa+af, wich is what you want in a 600 dollar card. future games(meaning this years games too)will be faster on ati.

as far as quakewars go i would wait and see. there could be a few surprises there especially once ati ogsl is updated to perform OGL's equiv. of dynamic branching.

let me get something straight as well, the gtx is a fine card. it was and still is the fastest in some games. it has a few physical features that are faster than ati's. but i'd rather get 90fps instead of 110fps with considerable image quality improvements.

R00k wrote:Yea, I know what AA is. I just barely know a little about HDR (just what I've seen from screenshots). I don't really know much at all about AF - as far as how it actually works, at least.

But one of the biggest advantages that shadd was talking about, is the X1000 series' ability to run both AA and HDR without a huge performance hit, right?

Well AA seems to be a matter of personal preference more than anything - at least as far as your personal performance/cost preference.

If someone doesn't use AA much in games anyway, why would they be likely to use it with HDR as well, unless HDR somehow requires it to look the best?


To be perfectly honest, I'm scared to spend the money on an ATI card, simply because of the experience I've had with my 9600XT. I know it's not much of a GPU, but the fact that it has weird video problems on some of my favorite games - some of the most popular games to boot - doesn't inspire enough confidence in them for me to drop 500 bucks on an ATI card.

I mainly want to play FarCry 2, Quake 4, Age of Empires 3, and Quake Wars, and I want to know my card will perform well in these games and I'll be satisfied with my purchase. I can't imagine how pissed I would be if I bought one of these cards and had similar problems with it. I was a little pissed when I saw them on my 9600, but I only paid $250 for it.

there was probably something wrong with the card but hey if you feel comfortable with nvidia go with the gt. i'm sure you'll be happy with it. if i had enough bad experiences with a certain product i would'nt buy another regardless if it was the best or not.

I keep hearing they're updating their OpenGL stuff, but I heard that like 3 months ago. I hope they do.

Psyche911 wrote:I keep hearing they're updating their OpenGL stuff, but I heard that like 3 months ago. I hope they do.

no not the same thing. it's a small api update that allows branching to be done on ati through ogl.

as far as the overall update goes yeah i'm waiting for that also. :icon8: i'm not too impressed with their overall ogl performance.

if i'm not mistaken nvidia does well with the color black. when there is colorless pixels it can smoke em through quickly.

Psyche911 wrote:I keep hearing they're updating their OpenGL stuff, but I heard that like 3 months ago. I hope they do.

I heard that when Doom was released and the small improvement they did make wasn't great. I really like ATI and my last three cards have been some of theirs but yesterday I got sick of it and bought an Nvidia card. So far its a decent improvement.

what did you get?

shadd_ wrote:what did you get?

6600GT. I didn't feel like making a major video card upgrade and then having to again when I move to a new system with PCI-Express early next year. The old card was a 9800Pro.

right on. your 9800 die? or is that card a good bit faster than the 9800?

9800 Pro > 6600GT? Doesn't seem worth the cost to me. Unless you got a really great deal (like $150).

shadd_ wrote:right on. your 9800 die? or is that card a good bit faster than the 9800?

Its quite a bit faster. 100fps in Q3 (at a higher resolution) and 30-40fps higher in Doom3.

you play alot of d3 multiplayer right?

heh 'm just full of questions tonight.

shadd_ wrote:you play alot of d3 multiplayer right?

heh 'm just full of questions tonight.

Some. I haven't been deathmatching for about 6 months other than the odd match of UT Onslaught but with Q4 on the horizon I've been practicing up.

Psyche911 wrote:9800 Pro > 6600GT? Doesn't seem worth the cost to me. Unless you got a really great deal (like $150).

My 9800 is getting sold for $120 and the 6600 cost $200. A 30+ fps increase seems well worth the $80.

If you play a lot of Doom 3, i wouldn't of gone with the 6600. Besides the 6800 is on sale ATM for £180.

o'dium wrote:If you play a lot of Doom 3, i wouldn't of gone with the 6600. Besides the 6800 is on sale ATM for £180.

It does more than well enough and I didn't feel like shelling out over $450 Canadian for a card like the 6800 which will just get retired in a few months.