Fall 2003 Video Card Roundup - Part 2: High End Shootout
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Derek Wilson on October 7, 2003 5:30 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Aquamark3 IQ
Aquamark3 is a synthetic benchmark based on a game called Aquanox, and it uses the DX9 API. In Part 1 we included it for completeness, but our main focus this time around is image quality. There have been lots of IQ problems found around the net that have helped earn NVIDIAs 51.xx drivers the title "cheatenators". With the 52.14 drivers we have been using, we didn't notice any image quality issues on a visual inspection, which was a very good sign, Lets take a closer look at frame 4000 to point out problems:
NVIDIA 45.23
Note the ground around the explosion
NVIDIA 52.14
Note the difference between the new and old drivers
ATI Catalyst 3.7
Identical to NVIDIA
As we can see, the lighting problem that was once there no longer exists, and the image is consistent with what it should be. On top of this, the 52.14 drivers give us about a more than 50% performance improvement over the 45.23 drivers. We have to remember that this is a benchmark, and any company that wants to sell anything is going to try to fix benchmark problems first. Of course, that's just anther reason I really don't like synthetic benchmarks: I'd rather have NVIDIA and ATI hard at work on the games I'm playing rather than on something I'll never care about using.
Here we can also see a comparison of the images with the highest quality AA setting in the game and 8xAF:
NVIDIA 45.23
NVIDIA 52.14
ATI Catalyst 3.7
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
117 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - link
You need to look at the FSAA each card empolys...go back and look again at the screenies, this time looking at all the jaggis on each card....especially in F1, it doesn't even look like nVidia is using FSAA....while on the ATI, it's smooth ......I don't think it's a driver comparison, just the fact that ATI FSAA is far better at doing the job....At least I think that's what he's talking about..hard to tell any IQ differences when the full size screenies are not working, but poor FSAA kinda jumps out at you (If your'e used to smooth FSAA)Also worth noting, nVidia made great jumps in performance in DX9, but nothing that actually used PS2.0 shaders : (
Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - link
#14 Blurred? Are you not wearing your glasses or something? Nice and sharp for me...Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - link
of course you do, you're a fanATIc...Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - link
I like the way he discounts Tomb raider. Saying it is just not a good game. Thats a matter of opinion. It almost seems like he trys to undermine that game before revealing any benches.And the benches for that game are not done in FPS but on percentage lost on PS2.0.
On first inspection of the graphs it appears that Nvidia is leading in tombraider. But if you look at the blurred print on the graph it does say "lower is better" Very clever!
Why no FPS in that game?
Nice information in this review but it almost seems that he is going out of his way to excuse Nvidia.
I smell a rat in this review.
Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - link
#3, #7: If you take the screens into photoshop and observe the result of their 'difference', you'll see that there's a fairly significant difference between the 45's and 3.7's, but almost no difference whatsoever between the 52's and 3.7's. In most of those screenshots it's impossible to do this since the shots aren't neccessarily from the exact same position each time. Try the ut2k3 ones for example. Also these are jpeg's, so there'll be a little fuzz due to the differences in compression.Also, if I need to take two screenshots into photoshop to be able to discern any difference between them, that's really saying alot. And since we can't refer to a reference software shot, it could be ati's driver that's off for all we know.
In any event I'm pleasantly surprised with nvidia. Their IQ has definitely caught up, and their performance is quickly improving. Hopefully the cat3.8's will pull a similar stunt.
Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - link
No he's just a "fanny"AgaBooga - Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - link
They must have a reason for choosing those drivers. Anandtech has been around long enough for that :)The reason is probably along the lines of when they started this benchmarking because they did soooo many games, resolutions, AA and AF levels, times the number of different cards, etc. That takes quite some time. Had they waited for the newer ATI drivers, it may have delayed this article one, or even two weeks till publishing. Also, they did mention they will do a followup articles with the new drivers, so patience is the key here.
Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - link
#8 seems like a fanboy himselfdvinnen - Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - link
well #8, Nvidia was able to do it with the wonder driver, I dn't see why Ati can'tAnonymous User - Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - link
LOL, the ATI fanboys are already coming out of the woodwork. Listen #3 and #7, it's a fact, there is no IQ difference at all between the 50 Dets and the 3.7 CATs. And if you honestly believe you're going to see much of a difference with the CAT 3.8's....you're just stupid.