2900XT vs 8800GTX Image comparison.

Final8y · 13 May 2007 at 11:41

Fx-Overlord said:
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.

As someone has mentioned about the file size of the pics I think judgment will have to wait until we see more comparisons, its seems suspect.

xt1ae8 pic=109 KB gtx1xv2 pic=358KB

Firegod · 13 May 2007 at 11:41

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 noticed that. The metal sheet looks terrible on the ATi card. Much clearer on the GTX.

Pants · 13 May 2007 at 11:44

Fx-Overlord said:
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.

Yes this is exacly what I notice.

Apart from in the snow picture the XT seems o make a complete mess of the hut (bottom right). :confused:

EDIT:

Actually in light of the file size difference - these pictures are worthless as a comparison. So the IQ crown could go either way imo.

Final8y · 13 May 2007 at 11:45

Firegod said:
I noticed that. The metal sheet looks terrible on the ATi card. Much clearer on the GTX.

Yep it is.
Looks like the ATI pic has had a full scene smoothing filter done to it.

drak3 · 13 May 2007 at 11:46

Even tho these are compressed and MUCH altered, the nvidia screeens look better.

Pants · 13 May 2007 at 11:51

drak3 said:
Even tho these are compressed and MUCH altered, the nvidia screeens look better.

The question is... Does the GTX only look better because it appears that the XT pictures have been doctored?

I agree that on the 2nd picture it looks like the XT picture has been smoothed. And this would explain the lower file size - making the AA look beter and textures worse - which is what we are seenig ni this picture.

I'm not sure WTF is going on with the hut in the 1st picture?

Mekrel · 13 May 2007 at 12:11

Wow, a complete turn of tables of what image quality used to be like between previous generations of ATi and nVidia.

I remember in the 6800GT days, when I saw reviews on that vs X800, the 6800 series had better antialiasing and the X800 better aniostropic filtering.

In the screenshot, the 2900XT did seem to do antialiasing better but the GTX seems to do anistropic filtering better. This is noticeable for me when you click between the two tabs. The metal barrack in the foregroud seems much better than the XT.

Yet I think something is up with that XT screenshot, it seems to have more compression artifacts. If you look at the mast whilst switching tabs, a line appears along side the flag pole near the middle of the picture. This could explain why the aniostropic filtering seems worse.

Egosh · 13 May 2007 at 12:31

i dont see anything different that id notice in game which is whats important not looking at two pictures for a couple minutes trying to spot the difference...

Firegod · 13 May 2007 at 12:32

Egosh said:
i dont see anything different that id notice in game which is whats important not looking at two pictures for a couple minutes trying to spot the difference...

I would!

But, like stated, we need uncompressed images to make a fair comparison.

HighlandeR · 13 May 2007 at 12:40

Oh boy only till tommorow

Will be interesting to see if ATI doesnt get much performance loss with AF/AA modes enabeled, you never know may still outperform an GTX yet.

fornowagain · 13 May 2007 at 12:47

I have the original bitmaps, put them here, hopefully the XT owner will do the same.

http://www.sharebigfile.com/file/167947/gtx1-bmp.html
http://www.sharebigfile.com/file/167952/gtx2-bmp.html

LoadsaMoney · 13 May 2007 at 12:58

When you flick between the 2x you can see the detail on the GTX stands out more, looks sharper, especially on the hut in the first pic in the bottom right corner, and you can notice it on the dragons body to, so based on that id give the edge to the GTX, but we need a fair comparrison as has been pointed out, the file sizes are way different, so they suspect.

chaparral · 13 May 2007 at 13:07

Sir Random · 13 May 2007 at 13:47

I zoomed in on both pics with my mouse, and here's what I got:

8800GTX:

2900XT:

From the artifacts, you can see that the XT picture has been doctored, so any comparison is void.

willhub · 13 May 2007 at 13:50

Sir Random said:
I zoomed in on both pics with my mouse, and here's what I got:

8800GTX:

2900XT:

From the artifacts, you can see that the XT picture has been doctored, so any comparison is void.

So the XT most likely does not have as good image quality thats why its been doctored?

Sir Random · 13 May 2007 at 13:52

willhub said:
So the XT most likely does not have as good image quality thats wht its been doctored?

Not necessarily, maybe fornowagain can get the XT owner to post his originals, then we'd have a better idea of IQ.

fornowagain · 13 May 2007 at 13:54

Sir Random said:
Not necessarily, maybe fornowagain can get the XT owner to post his originals, then we'd have a better idea of IQ.

He's not responded, we'll "see" I guess.

sunlitsix · 13 May 2007 at 14:01

can you pause 3d mark whilst its doing a loop?
just wondering why both shots say 0fps

fornowagain · 13 May 2007 at 14:02

sunlitsix said:
can you pause 3d mark whilst its doing a loop?
just wondering why both shots say 0fps

Its a single frame render, you need the full version IIRC.

Duff-Man · 13 May 2007 at 16:34

Sir Random said:
I zoomed in on both pics with my mouse, and here's what I got:

8800GTX:

2900XT:

From the artifacts, you can see that the XT picture has been doctored, so any comparison is void.

What you're looking at in the XT picture are .jpg compression artifacts.

Until we get pictures in some kind of lossless compression format the comparisons are worthless (ie. .bmp or .png).

The GTX picture is 358kb, and the XT picture is 109kb. Clearly the XT picture has much more compression than the GTX one, and so cannot hope to replicate the same quality. This has nothing to do with the actual image quality and is purely a post-process artifact from compression.