Originally posted by: chizow
You should, given you claimed ATI still held the IQ crown, when once again, they clearly have not since G80 launced 2 years ago.Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Wow, wrong. THE ISSUE (the one you conveniently sidestep) is FC2 and the screen shots taken. Instead of discussing that topic you go on a tangent about IQ for the past 2yrs and honestly I COULD GIVE LESS OF A **** what happened the last two years.
What is there to explain? It doesn't appear to be a rendering issue at all, as your friend's screenshots confirm the indentations are clearly there. The PCGH screenshots clearly show heavier shadowing on ATI parts after 8.12, so it could either be a shadow contrast tweak in ATI's drivers or a difference in shadow detail between the two vendor's drivers. Tweaks and optimizations between vendors are a far cry from actual rendering errors. Again, if you want to talk about rendering errors in Far Cry 2, just look up "half-rocks" or "sunken tires" with 8.10.How about explaining the NVIDIA rendering issue in FC2 and then explain why ATi doesn't have that problem? Thats the issue and the only one. Get a grip and a clue :roll:
As others have already agreed, it would be difficult to come to the conclusion you've come to without seeing the difference from both vendors, which you claimed you did, yet you clearly haven't as you haven't seen the difference on an ATI part "with your own eyes".
Originally posted by: taltamir
However I still see that theres people saying that ATi has the better IQ when you "see" it. Thats because the default color settings for ATi cards seem more vibrant than nVIDIA's default value which is for a fact abit "washed out". Thats why we have this little option in the nVIDIA control panel called digital vibrance. However, its true that not many people/enthusiasts like to fiddle the control panel, or testing gazillion AA/color settings (unlike SirPaulie ) and instead expect results straight outta the box.
Its not washed out, its the real colors that the item you are watching is supposed to have... digital vibrance, and its ATI equivalent, is just over saturating the colors to make them look like fruity puke. It is better to try to display colors as accurately as possible, not as loud as possible. This is like people saying that pair of speakers B is better than pair A because their lowest volume is higher by default.
Funny, who was it that said God himself in a review SS wouldn't matter enough to dissuade you from what you had seen "with your own eyes".Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Yeah because those SS are not "with my own eyes". How many ways can chizow divert the topic? Not only was it shown with xbit's SS, but ALSO with Sliceup's SS. This is the evidence submitted regarding FC2. How about you go into FC2 yourself and take some SS's from the same distance? Make sure you turn all the settings up too. I'll be waiting Or will you divert AGAIN into a completely different topic?
Originally posted by: chizow
Funny, who was it that said God himself in a review SS wouldn't matter enough to dissuade you from what you had seen "with your own eyes".Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Yeah because those SS are not "with my own eyes". How many ways can chizow divert the topic? Not only was it shown with xbit's SS, but ALSO with Sliceup's SS. This is the evidence submitted regarding FC2. How about you go into FC2 yourself and take some SS's from the same distance? Make sure you turn all the settings up too. I'll be waiting Or will you divert AGAIN into a completely different topic?
Again, you don't seem to understand, there is a difference, but its clearly a shadowing difference and not necessarily a rendering error or even an difference in IQ. It could be caused by a number of things, most probably due to ATI's heavier shadowing silhouettes as clearly seen in PCGH's comparison SS. It could even be as simple as time of day with sun angle. Or it could be a difference in detail shadow distance between Nvidia and ATI. Sliceup's SS confirm this, as the deeper shadows are there and eventually fade out based on distance.
You mean where you dismissed the screenshots and opinions of reviewers in favor of your own opinion, based on screenshots you saw "with your own eyes"?Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
This is where you miss it. You need to go back and read what I wrote. Seeing the SS is with my own eyes and how you don't understand that is beyond me. Maybe you have issues, thats not my problem. When you look at the SS from FC2 it is blatantly obvious NVIDIA's IQ is not on par with ATi.
Rofl, it is a shadowing difference, its clearly obvious. The texture is exactly the same, the veins of marble are simply obscured in the pictures with ATI parts due to heavier shadowing. You can clearly see it in these two pictures from Xbit. Just copy and paste each into a browser tab and go back and forth.Well I guess when you look at it, it says shadowing to you. To most others its a damned flat surface. Yeah, its wind, rain, sun, moon, stars but definitely NOT an NVIDIA issue. :disgust:
Originally posted by: chizow
You mean where you dismissed the screenshots and opinions of reviewers in favor of your own opinion, based on screenshots you saw "with your own eyes"?Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
This is where you miss it. You need to go back and read what I wrote. Seeing the SS is with my own eyes and how you don't understand that is beyond me. Maybe you have issues, thats not my problem. When you look at the SS from FC2 it is blatantly obvious NVIDIA's IQ is not on par with ATi.
You're right though, they don't speak for your own eyes as review sites actually make sense.
- Review sites don't speak for my own eyes. If I see a difference in the IQ, it doesn't matter if the reviewer said God himself was in the game, seeing is believing.
Rofl, it is a shadowing difference, its clearly obvious. The texture is exactly the same, the veins of marble are simply obscured in the pictures with ATI parts due to heavier shadowing. You can clearly see it in these two pictures from Xbit. Just copy and paste each into a browser tab and go back and forth.Well I guess when you look at it, it says shadowing to you. To most others its a damned flat surface. Yeah, its wind, rain, sun, moon, stars but definitely NOT an NVIDIA issue. :disgust:
ATI
NV
You can clearly see ATI's shadow contrast/silhouette is darker throughout the scene. Your friend's own SS also confirmed that the darker indentation is there with Nvidia parts, but fade out of view as you move further away.
LOL, sure I get it, which is why I was more than willing to leave it with your opinion meaning nothing. Unfortunately for you, reviewer's opinions are going to carry more weight than yours here or anywhere, and not even God is going to change that.Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
You still don't get it. You won't no matter how I spell it out for you. Again I'll tell you just for sh**s and giggles. Thier words mean nothing to me. None. Thier words mean nothing to me. None. What I see in those SS is what I go by. What I see with my own eyes is what I judge. That's it, its really simple. Did you get it this time? I hope so for your sake.
We got here because you still can't seem to distinguish between a rendering error and a difference in shadowing techniques. I've already provided evidence confirming this in both screenshots and in their conclusion:Been there done that, how do you think we started this discussion in the first place?
Where is your evidence to the contrary with FC2 SS's? Oh thats right, you have provided NONE. Still waiting....
Originally posted by: chizow
I can't replicate the screen shots PC Surgeon. Stop bothering me.
There's no need for me to, "Sliceup" has already confirmed the difference is due to shadowing contrast and viewing distance.Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Well at least we have that straightened out. When you can show the same SS with the indentation correctly rendered at the same distance and settings please post them.
Originally posted by: chizow
There's no need for me to, "Sliceup" has already confirmed the difference is due to shadowing contrast and viewing distance.Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Well at least we have that straightened out. When you can show the same SS with the indentation correctly rendered at the same distance and settings please post them.
The fundamental problem with your analysis is that you're assuming ATI's interpretation and render output is correct. Of course, that's highly questionable given the difference in shadowing from 8.11 to 8.12 as I've already linked to:Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I guess NVIDIA is incapable of rendering it correctly. Being that the ATi SS is further away, are you also implying that NVIDIA has a shorter viewing distance? In addition to lackluster "shadowing"?
Originally posted by: chizow
The fundamental problem with your analysis is that you're assuming ATI's interpretation and render output is correct. Of course, that's highly questionable given the difference in shadowing from 8.11 to 8.12 as I've already linked to:Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I guess NVIDIA is incapable of rendering it correctly. Being that the ATi SS is further away, are you also implying that NVIDIA has a shorter viewing distance? In addition to lackluster "shadowing"?
PCGH Far Cry 2 Comparison
Really simple, mouse over 8.11 compared to 8.12 and you'll notice a significant difference in shadowing contrast on the railroad tracks.
Now, mouse over 8.12 compared to NV's 180.48 and you'll see a similar difference.
The 8.12 is simply using a higher shadow contrast setting or perhaps a denser shadow mask. That doesn't necessarily mean its "correct" though, its simply an interpretation.
Again, go back to the Xbit pictures, place them in their own tabs, then switch between them quickly. The geometry and textures are the same, there is no difference in what is rendered besides the difference in shadow contrast. If you applied the deeper shadows to the Nvidia SS, you'd see this was the case, its the same as classical facade painting to give 3D perspective to a 2D surface.Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Yes there is more shadowing with ATi, I agree with that. What I have a problem with is in that one particular SS (xbit) showing where the indentation should be, but is not with NVIDIA. Which clearly means its inferior. Whether its shadowing or view distance, they need to fix it.
Clearly a nice difference in IQ, but does that mean AMD needs to change their render output to match? Of course not.....Originally posted by: masteryoda34
Crysis In-game Testing Mini Review
Image Quality
Graphic Settings
Image Comparison
Image Comparison 2
Ambient Occlusion gives a significant improvement to Crysis Image Quality. Even the low and medium settings are nearly as good as high in my opinion.
Originally posted by: chizow
Again, go back to the Xbit pictures, place them in their own tabs, then switch between them quickly. The geometry and textures are the same, there is no difference in what is rendered besides the difference in shadow contrast. If you applied the deeper shadows to the Nvidia SS, you'd see this was the case, its the same as classical facade painting to give 3D perspective to a 2D surface.Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Yes there is more shadowing with ATi, I agree with that. What I have a problem with is in that one particular SS (xbit) showing where the indentation should be, but is not with NVIDIA. Which clearly means its inferior. Whether its shadowing or view distance, they need to fix it.
Your friend's screenshots only confirm this, the geometry is the same between screenshots, the only difference is the shadowing. The difference in IQ is interpretation, nothing more. Just because ATI decided to change their shadowing contrast/depth in 8.12 doesn't mean Nvidia needs to fix their drivers to match.
Here's an example of one vendor using driver settings to alter IQ:
Clearly a nice difference in IQ, but does that mean AMD needs to change their render output to match? Of course not.....Originally posted by: masteryoda34
Crysis In-game Testing Mini Review
Image Quality
Graphic Settings
Image Comparison
Image Comparison 2
Ambient Occlusion gives a significant improvement to Crysis Image Quality. Even the low and medium settings are nearly as good as high in my opinion.
Again, the indentation is rendered the same, the texture and geometry are identical for both ATI and NV. The difference is in the shadowing, which is just an interpretation seen in ATI's 8.12 driver.Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
So why is it when the SS are up close, both ATI and NVIDIA render that indentation nearly identical but when further away ATI still shows a clearly defined indentation while NVIDIA doesn't? There is clearly a problem here. One looks good and one doesn't, thats blatantly obvious to anyone. NVIDIA should fix this issue ASAP.
Originally posted by: dadach
it has been like this for "ages"...even though nvidia was mostly fastest card on the market, if the sheer speed was not the most important, but rather IQ was, people will buy ati, and no ammount nvidia (wannabe) focus grp members will ever change that
at least i know im not the only one...after switch from 7950GX2 -> 1950xt, and 8800gts -> 2900/3870, it seemed like i have bought a brand new monitor that shows sharper and more colorful images...no ammount of screenshots and reviews will ever replace what i saw with my own eyes during the gameplaying...and thats what i tell people when they ask me which company has better IQ...trust me, if it was other way around, i would be on nvidia hardware
Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Originally posted by: taltamir
However I still see that theres people saying that ATi has the better IQ when you "see" it. Thats because the default color settings for ATi cards seem more vibrant than nVIDIA's default value which is for a fact abit "washed out". Thats why we have this little option in the nVIDIA control panel called digital vibrance. However, its true that not many people/enthusiasts like to fiddle the control panel, or testing gazillion AA/color settings (unlike SirPaulie ) and instead expect results straight outta the box.
Its not washed out, its the real colors that the item you are watching is supposed to have... digital vibrance, and its ATI equivalent, is just over saturating the colors to make them look like fruity puke. It is better to try to display colors as accurately as possible, not as loud as possible. This is like people saying that pair of speakers B is better than pair A because their lowest volume is higher by default.
Whether you like it or not, nVIDIAs default color values do make things look "washed out". It has been like this for a very long time now (NV4x and probably beyond). Some like you argue that one should display colors as accurately as possible while others like what they see straight outta the box (generally the latter refers to ATi fans). Guess you dont remember the holy crusades about this topic spanning for ~4 years between the two camps.
How is it a private debate when someone makes a comment about image quality based on pictures linked by the OP from Xbit? The comment made is FUD, pure and simple. I understand AT and its moderators are biased towards AMD/ATI and unwilling to correct misinformation perpetuated on these forums, but saying its OT is clearly inaccurate.Originally posted by: AmberClad
PC Surgeon and chizow -- both of you take your discussion to PM if you wish to continue with it. This thread is not for the two of you to conduct your own private debate in, over issues that aren't specifically related to the video card being discussed.
- AmberClad (Video Mod)
LOL, another "believer". Unfortunately, reviewers and those familiar with the technical aspects of both cards do not agree with you, and have not for the last 2 years since G80. And their credibility will always be greater than yours, especially given some of the comments you've made in the past.Originally posted by: dadach
it has been like this for "ages"...even though nvidia was mostly fastest card on the market, if the sheer speed was not the most important, but rather IQ was, people will buy ati, and no ammount nvidia (wannabe) focus grp members will ever change that
at least i know im not the only one...after switch from 7950GX2 -> 1950xt, and 8800gts -> 2900/3870, it seemed like i have bought a brand new monitor that shows sharper and more colorful images...no ammount of screenshots and reviews will ever replace what i saw with my own eyes during the gameplaying...and thats what i tell people when they ask me which company has better IQ...trust me, if it was other way around, i would be on nvidia hardware
Originally posted by: chizow
Ya the 295 cooler hurts it compared to single-card SLI and even the 4870X2, as it actually draws less power than the 4870X2 or even 260 SLI. As for microstutter only being an issue with dual GPU cards, that's not true, it occurs with single-card in SLI as well, it just might be less noticeable on faster solutions due to higher frame rates.Originally posted by: Woofmeister
The thing that really throws me off from biting the bullet on the 295 is not the price/performance improvement ratio, its the complaints about heat and noise that shadow the 295 in every review. Add in the continuing problem of microstutter with NVIDIA dual GPU cards and SLI 285s look more attractive IMO even at a $150 price premium.
I guess it depends which reviews you trust, especially given the fact this site wasn't able to replicate their performance gains in their 9.1 comparison done a day later. Here's a few other reviews I posted earlier in this thread that all come to the conclusion the 295 is the faster part, even in a majority of high res AA/AF settings:Originally posted by: Sliceup
http://www.computerbase.de/art...ia_geforce_gtx_295/20/
ATI still holds the crown? at high res aa/af
Originally posted by: chizow
Certainly a bit surprising how Nvidia seems to have caught up in high bandwidth/VRAM situations from the initial set of previews done with beta drivers. Really comes down to whether or not the additional $50 or so is worth it.