Image Quality Analysis Fall 2003: A Glance Through the Looking Glass

35 Comments

View All Comments

• nourdmrolNMT1 - Thursday, December 11, 2003 - link

  i hate flame wars but, blackshrike....
  
  there is hardly any difference between the images. and nvidia used to be way behind in that area. so they have caught up, and are actually in some instances doing more work to get the image to look a little different, or maybe they render everything that should be there, while ati doesnt (halo 2)
  
  MIKE

• Icewind - Thursday, December 11, 2003 - link

  I have no idea what your bitching about Blackshrike, the UT2k3 pics look exactly the same to me.
  
  Perhaps you should go work for for AT and run benchmarks how you want them done instead of whining like a damn 5 year old..sheesh.

• Shinei - Thursday, December 11, 2003 - link

  Maybe I'm going blind at only 17, but I couldn't tell a difference between nVidia's and ATI's AF, and I even had a hard time seeing the effects of the AA. I agree with AT's conclusion, it's very hard to tell which one is better, and it's especially hard to tell the difference when you're in the middle of a firefight; yes, it's nice to have 16xAF and 6xAA, but is it NECESSARY if it looks pretty at 3 frames per second? I'm thinking "No"; performance > quality, that's why quality is called a LUXURY and not a requirement.
  Now I imagine that since I didn't hop up and down and screech "omg nvidia is cheeting ATI owns nvidia" like a howler monkey on LSD, I'll be called an nVidia fanboy and/or told that A) I'm blind, B) my monitor sucks, C) I'm color blind, and D) my head is up my biased ass. Did I meet all the basic insults from ATI fanboys, or are there some creative souls out there who can top that comprehensive list? ;)

• nastyemu25 - Thursday, December 11, 2003 - link

  cheer up emo kid

• BlackShrike - Thursday, December 11, 2003 - link

  For my first line I forget to say blurry textures on the nvidia card. Sry, I was frustrated at the article.

• BlackShrike - Thursday, December 11, 2003 - link

  Argh, this article concluded suddenly and without concluding anything. Not to mention, I saw definite blurry textures in UT 2003, and TRAOD. Not to mention the use of D3D AF Tester seemed to imply a major problem with one or the other hardware but they didn't use it at different levels of AF. I mean I only use 4-8 AF, I'd like to see the difference.
  
  AND ANOTHER THING. OKAY THE TWO ARE ABOUT THE SAME IN AF BUT IN AA ATI USUALLY WINS. SO, IF YOU CAN'T CONCLUDE ANYTHING, GIVE US A PERFORMACE CONCLUSION, like which runs better with AA or AF? Which creates the best with both settings enabled?
  
  Oh and AT. Remember back to the very first ATI 9700 Pro, you did tests with 6x AA and 16 AF. DO IT AGAIN. I want to see which is faster and better quality when their settings are absoulutely maxed out. Because I prefer playing 1024*768 at 6x AA and 16 AF then 1600*1200 at 4x AA 8x AF because I have a small moniter.
  
  I am VERY disappointed in this article. You say Nvidia has cleaned up their act, but you don't prove anything conclusive as to why. You say they are similar but don't say why. The D3D AF Tester was totally different for the different levels. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? Come on Anand clean up this article, it's very poorly designed and concluded and is not at all like your other GPU articles.

• retrospooty - Thursday, December 11, 2003 - link

  Well a Sony G500 is pretty good in my book =)
  
  

• Hanners - Thursday, December 11, 2003 - link

  Not a bad article per se - Shame about the mistakes in the filtering section and the massive jumping to conclusions regarding Halo.

• gordon151 - Thursday, December 11, 2003 - link

  I'm with #6 and the sucky monitor theory :P.

• Icewind - Thursday, December 11, 2003 - link

  Or your monitor sucks #5
  
  ATI wins either way