As a gamer I'm confused with what you're talking about. What's "4hqaa?" and "X8HQ?" The term "HQ" corresponds to AF, not AA. And if you have everything on high but your AF is at 8x then I'm sorry but you don't have everything on high.I'm a gamer, mostly playing BF2 and 2142. With BF2 my 1900XT-512 (oc'ed) was perfect. With BF2142 however the settings I ran netted me between 35 and 60 (vsync) fps. Thats everything on high, 4hqaa and 8af (at 1680x1050). Usally it was in the 40s, which I wasn't happy with. Made a real difference when strafing in heavy fire fights.
Now, with the 8800GTX I'm at X8HQ and X16AF forced Trilinear. Frames never drop below 60 (well.. 59-60)...
Originally posted by: lopri
Image quality is also better with 8800 series cards. X1900 series do look better than 7900 series, but I had to look for the difference. With 8800 series, you can't avoid seeing the difference. Stronger contrast and hue, not to mention the near-perfect AF, I learned what 'image quality' is for the first time. 8800 series' image quality make that of 7900 series a joke.
Originally posted by: josh6079
As a gamer I'm confused with what you're talking about. What's "4hqaa?" and "X8HQ?" The term "HQ" corresponds to AF, not AA. And if you have everything on high but your AF is at 8x then I'm sorry but you don't have everything on high.I'm a gamer, mostly playing BF2 and 2142. With BF2 my 1900XT-512 (oc'ed) was perfect. With BF2142 however the settings I ran netted me between 35 and 60 (vsync) fps. Thats everything on high, 4hqaa and 8af (at 1680x1050). Usally it was in the 40s, which I wasn't happy with. Made a real difference when strafing in heavy fire fights.
Now, with the 8800GTX I'm at X8HQ and X16AF forced Trilinear. Frames never drop below 60 (well.. 59-60)...
I'm assuming you're meaning "4xAA" and "8xQAA?"
Originally posted by: thilan29
If you play at 1280x1024 and below then probably not...above that, and depending on the games, yes it would probably be better.
Originally posted by: amddude
Is the consensus that the GTS is indeed > than the x1900xt 512 by a large margin?
Not to mention you can overclock the GTS to perform like the GTX on air. Even an overclocked X1900 couldn't touch the overclocked GTX.Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: amddude
Is the consensus that the GTS is indeed > than the x1900xt 512 by a large margin?
It depends on the game. In some games like Oblivion and HL2 the gts is much faster. In others like FEAR, Quake 4 and Chaos Theory it's about the same.
Originally posted by: hans030390
The whole ATI>Nvidia in IQ is a myth. If it's true, it's so minimal that no one should really care in their right mind (because no one should really notice it).
Originally posted by: josh6079
Not to mention you can overclock the GTS to perform like the GTX on air. Even an overclocked X1900 couldn't touch the overclocked GTX.Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: amddude
Is the consensus that the GTS is indeed > than the x1900xt 512 by a large margin?
It depends on the game. In some games like Oblivion and HL2 the gts is much faster. In others like FEAR, Quake 4 and Chaos Theory it's about the same.
Originally posted by: Nightmare225
Originally posted by: josh6079
Not to mention you can overclock the GTS to perform like the GTX on air. Even an overclocked X1900 couldn't touch the overclocked GTX.Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: amddude
Is the consensus that the GTS is indeed > than the x1900xt 512 by a large margin?
It depends on the game. In some games like Oblivion and HL2 the gts is much faster. In others like FEAR, Quake 4 and Chaos Theory it's about the same.
Two overclocked X1900s could barely beat a stock GTX.