2900XT vs 8800GTX Image comparison.

fornowagain · 13 May 2007 at 03:20

These two images borrowed from here. Same settings, part of the 3dmark06 rendering options with the Pro version. Jpeg compression makes them of limited use tbh, but its a start. Feel free to add any you find yourselves. NV drivers 158.16

Both: 3DMark06 1280x1024 8xAA 16xAF

2900XT left. 8800GTX right.

Post #41 has the full lossless PNG versions.

Post #80 has Oblivion PNG lossless comparison

Duff-Man · 13 May 2007 at 03:44

Well, like you said jpg compression makes the comparison somewhat useless. We really need a png or some other lossless compression format for the pictures

Gerard · 13 May 2007 at 03:44

I think in the top pic the wires coming off that mast in the xt shot are slightly less jagged. Though thats me with my face practically pressed to the screen, nothing you'd notice in gameplay.

Don't really notice much dif in the other one.

Still gonna be interesting come monday, reviews with images blown up 400x pointing out stuff thats virtually unnoticable. Doesn't matter to me unless its noticable in gameplay, all this blowing up of images to retarded sizes is just dumb imo.

Final8y · 13 May 2007 at 04:06

Gerard said:
I think in the top pic the wires coming off that mast in the xt shot are slightly less jagged. Though thats me with my face practically pressed to the screen, nothing you'd notice in gameplay.

I noticed that as well but in the second scene i could not see a difference.

Borden · 13 May 2007 at 07:59

The snowline horizon in the top one looks less jagged on the xt than on the gtx. I don't think a difference like that would influence my buying decisions though so i don't think it matters that much, price/performance is far more important to me.

Darkwave · 13 May 2007 at 09:06

It looks to me like the GTX screenshot has way more artifacts from the JPEG compression, which is a bit odd considering they're showing the exact same thing. Is anyone else spotting this?

Note: Before some fanboy takes this as making excuses for the GTX, I should let everyone know that personally I think that the new ATI antialiasing modes look superior to what we currently have on the Geforce 8 series from what we've seen so far.

stickroad · 13 May 2007 at 09:40

Why are we comparing the 2900XT to the GTX? :confused:

The 2900XT is post to give the GTS a run for the money not the GTX.

Darkwave · 13 May 2007 at 09:42

stickroad said:
Why are we comparing the 2900XT to the GTX?

The 2900XT is post to give the GTS a run for the money not the GTX.

The image quality on all Geforce 8 series cards is identical. :confused:

stickroad · 13 May 2007 at 09:47

Ulfhedjinn said:
The image quality on all Geforce 8 series cards is identical.

Lol my bad, thanks. :rolleyes:

willhub · 13 May 2007 at 10:03

I notice on that image with the red dragon thing that the HD2900XT gives better quality with AA/AF, less jaggy parts.

Devious · 13 May 2007 at 10:22

On the snow picture the GTX definatly has more 'jaggies' than the XT.

When lining up the pictures an toggling between them, the side of the hut with the corrogated metal sheets looks much sharper/clearer on the GTX, its looks rough on the XT in comparison.

willhub · 13 May 2007 at 10:27

Devious said:
On the snow picture the GTX definatly has more 'jaggies' than the XT.

When lining up the pictures an toggling between them, the side of the hut with the corrogated metal sheets looks much sharper/clearer on the GTX, its looks rough on the XT in comparison.

I wonder what it would be like with 8xQAA?

elmuzzy66. · 13 May 2007 at 11:06

Fx-Overlord · 13 May 2007 at 11:11

The XT is better at edge antialiasing but that comes at a price of blurring the textures more but that could be jpeg compression as the GTX pictures are A LOT larger.

Final8y · 13 May 2007 at 11:18

Well it looks like its back to the usual stance of ATI having better IQ but this time ever so slightly.

but as people have said the compression may have something to do with it.

Pants · 13 May 2007 at 11:20

How come you lot think the GTX has more jaggies. I'm I looking at the pictures the wrong way round!

Look at the bottom left on the snow picture. The GTX looks much smoother to me - it's very clear despite jpg compression?

On the 2nd picture the XT has slightly better AA but the textures look noticably better on the animal on the GTX. I prefer the GTX on this demo.

As said PNG pictures would be much better to compare tho.

ugly ferret · 13 May 2007 at 11:27

Pants said:
How come you lot think the GTX has more jaggies. I'm I looking at the pictures the wrong way round!

Look at the bottom left on the snow picture. The GTX looks much smoother to me - it's very clear despite jpg compression?

On the 2nd picture the XT has better AA but the textures look noticably better on the animal on the GTX. I prefer the GTX on this demo.

As said PNG pictures would be much better to compare tho.

LOL, they both look exactly the same to me. Maybe you're all just seeing what you want to see!

Final8y · 13 May 2007 at 11:29

Pants said:
How come you lot think the GTX has more jaggies. I'm I looking at the pictures the wrong way round!

Look at the bottom left on the snow picture. The GTX looks much smoother to me - it's very clear despite jpg compression?

There is a slight fuzziy shadow on the ATI pic on the curved front of the corrugated hut & the sun flare that is inline with the hut is smoother on the GTX.

Fx-Overlord · 13 May 2007 at 11:30

Pants said:
How come you lot think the GTX has more jaggies. I'm I looking at the pictures the wrong way round!

Look at the bottom left on the snow picture. The GTX looks much smoother to me - it's very clear despite jpg compression?

On the 2nd picture the XT has slightly better AA but the textures look noticably better on the animal on the GTX. I prefer the GTX on this demo.

As said PNG pictures would be much better to compare tho.

I agree. I prefer the GTX pictures too.

Also notice on the bottom right hut roof: the xt picture looks like someone has applied a sharpening filter on that part and it looks horrible in comparison to the GTX picture.

EDIT: Just noticed this is post 666. :cool:

Pants · 13 May 2007 at 11:40

ugly ferret said:
LOL, they both look exactly the same to me. Maybe you're all just seeing what you want to see!

Oi i'm no fanboy!

I just lined up both pictures pixel to pixel then alt-tab betweeb them. If you have half decent eyes you should notice what I have!

But I doubt it's really gonna be much of an issue running around at 20mph in crysis.

But I would give the IQ to the GTX based on these pictures. (which are questionable due to compression...)