I knew this from the start since i never saw what the shills claimed in bf4 with my titan x. But yah their effort to make something out of nothing was a bust, much like the fury x.
I learnt a lesson from all this and that is to check and double check before submitting anything. But pleased to conmfirm that all settings are correct and present. Monitors are calibrated and the NCP is set for "Prefer max quality".
Sorry to everyone for my noobness but very new to this capture card recording and will get better with time
Glad to see you got it sorted, just one question though. As far as I understand switching to the ROG monitor fixed the colour issues, but what about the AF issue? In other words, have you tried running with the default NCP settings (instead of "prefer max quality") on that monitor (also if possible, it might be interesting to test it by alt-tabbing in and out of BF4, as someone else mentioned that this might be a factor)?
The AF issue was debunked first by countless people across multiple forums posting their results with default NCP settings.
Gregsters results were only repeatable when AF was forced to zero in the NCP, which absolutely is not the default setting.
That one went a bust right off the bat. So then the color difference started getting all the attention, which again, was just an issue with his setup. The moral to the story, be mindful of your settings. When changing out HW, if something doesn't look right, check your settings or ask people who know more for help. This was blown into some huge conspiracy and it kind of funny. The more of these kind of threads, the less serious people might take the next issue.
Sorry for being a noob at this, but if you go into the ncp and change the settings isnt that then going to effect the fps? Hence then going to to effect them going head to head putting the titan x and the fury against each other then to get the same quality out of the box? Meaning if the amd looks good out of the box without having to change anything when they review it, but the nvida does not, but is faster when they review it, then you go and change the settings in the ncp to make the titan look as good as the amd, that then will slow it down wont it, then decreasing its fps then, making it come close to the amd when you test it again against the fury wouldnt it?
I would think that, if after you sort it out, and make the titan look as good as the fury after messing with the setting in the ncp, you should then retest it against the fury and see where the fps are at to get are accurate testing then, or am I wrong?
I guess I would be pretty disgruntled too if I wasted the $$$ on a titan x.
I found that putting the settings to "prefer max quality" made the image the same as the Fury X and this is what I wanted to test. Everything is now apples to apples in my testing and that is the way forward.
I think that's more to do with reviewers being lazy. For example, AMD's Evergreen cards had abysmal AF, but very few people seemed to notice it (despite the blatant crawl/shimmer), and only a few reviewers like computerbase.de bothered to test it. That pathetic AF was the reason why I sold my HD5870 and went back to my GTX 285.
You can't just say "the days of differing image quality are long gone". Either of them could pull that kind of crap at any time.
I think that's more to do with reviewers being lazy. For example, AMD's Evergreen cards had abysmal AF, but very few people seemed to notice it (despite the blatant crawl/shimmer), and only a few reviewers like computerbase.de bothered to test it. That pathetic AF was the reason why I sold my HD5870 and went back to my GTX 285.
You can't just say "the days of differing image quality are long gone". Either of them could pull that kind of crap at any time.
Is that kind of trash really necessary? You may think you've scored some points there but it's off topic and kind of cringe worthy.Originally Posted by 5150Joker View Post
I knew this from the start since i never saw what the shills claimed in bf4 with my titan x. But yah their effort to make something out of nothing was a bust, much like the fury x.
I knew this from the start since i never saw what the shills claimed in bf4 with my titan x. But yah their effort to make something out of nothing was a bust, much like the fury x.
What is more interesting about these kind of controversies is the fanboy nature of people buying into these cards. An impartial observer who valued the truth first and foremost would attempt to recreate the results to confirm and then potentially investigate the source of any difference in IQ.
Instead we have hordes of rabid fanboys eager to jump on any difference no matter how imaginary, it might be worth reflecting why you feel compelled to do this. It is helpful to weed these people out of online communities.
Is that what you got out of this thread? You want people banned for examining the report?
Wrong.Some fanboys wanted to create a false report so they could justify AMD fury failure.Is that what you got out of this thread? You want people banned for examining the report?
I found that putting the settings to "prefer max quality" made the image the same as the Fury X and this is what I wanted to test. Everything is now apples to apples in my testing and that is the way forward.
That's probably overkill, but this thread was pretty helpful (to me) in determining who the shills are, and who I can ignore moving forward.
With some fiddling on Nvidia control panel the image quality on GTA5 is broadly similar with the quadfire overall a bit better than 980ti. I still feel like I need an additional pair of glasses to focus people 50-80m away with SLI whereas they seem much clearer in GTA5 with quadfire. In Arma 3 the 980ti SLI definitely has the edge giving less stutter and longer playable view distances by a good margin (500M-1.5k). I was going to send the 980ti s back but now I think it's the 295x2s. This is real world gameplay and Arma 3 benchmarks with both images looking pretty much identical the extra power/memory/less overhead of the the 980ti SLI has me sold so far.
The GTA5 and Dirt Rally best show what I've experienced comparing 980ti to 295x2 quadfire. Imo the Fury x and in my case 295x2 image quality seems sharper/less blurred. The spectators in Dirt Rally are a prime example, with Titan x they're blurred whereas with Fury X they're sharper. Arma 3 it's not nearly as pronounced and as I play that far more than anything else I'll probably keep the 980ti SLI. I'm still tempted to return them and see how fury x crossfire works. It's also pretty sad that hardware review sites can't compete with home broadcast enthusiasts any more and don't bother to do these crucial side by side comparison tests.
I totally get this, and I can understand if you can't be bothered digging more in this, I was just curious as to the exact nature of the bug that lead to this in the first place, but since you obviously have a setup now where it isn't present, figuring out the exact nature isn't really that pertinent.
That is in NV control panel? So in the end, the "stock" image quality is different?
Have you ever looked at the BF4 Profile? Or at the global settings of the driver?