Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
You can thank Nvidia for bugger all on the Dx10 front 
Last edited:
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
ATI First Again.
- Thread starter explicit4u
- Start date
The Ati 4000 series are good. The drivers are just as good/bad as Nvidia.
Nvidia have no well performing value parts. They have no DX11 parts yet either.
You're wrong to rag on Ati here. They're doing what chip developers should. Improve their products.
Where's Nvidia's next gen chips? They've been recycling old tat for a long time.
Nvidia have no well performing value parts. They have no DX11 parts yet either.
You're wrong to rag on Ati here. They're doing what chip developers should. Improve their products.
Where's Nvidia's next gen chips? They've been recycling old tat for a long time.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
Even if DX10 had been "properly" implemented with most of the features that "should" have been in there...
We barely have hardware capable of running those effects properly even now... and look how many developers even bother with token DX10 features let alone anything more, they aren't even scratching the surface of whats capable with DX10 now let alone what it could have been.
We barely have hardware capable of running those effects properly even now... and look how many developers even bother with token DX10 features let alone anything more, they aren't even scratching the surface of whats capable with DX10 now let alone what it could have been.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2008
- Posts
- 3,011
people seem to be slating ATI when really they have done quite a few good things over the past couple of years. Its good they are pushing new software and features like this, without the advances in software it woudn't matter how many 295's you use, games would look the same.
Contrary to this we have nvidia, who i used to back quite a bit, but have recently been rebranding every 8800 under the sun with a heftier price tag and negligable performance gains
Contrary to this we have nvidia, who i used to back quite a bit, but have recently been rebranding every 8800 under the sun with a heftier price tag and negligable performance gains
In terms of raw performance nVidia tend to be better...
In terms of performance\price ratio ATI tends to get it better... you can often pay 50% more for an nVidia card thats only 15% faster than the equivalent ATI.
Terms of picture quality its swings and roundabouts. ATI may marginally edge image quality overall tho.
In terms of performance\price ratio ATI tends to get it better... you can often pay 50% more for an nVidia card thats only 15% faster than the equivalent ATI.
Terms of picture quality its swings and roundabouts. ATI may marginally edge image quality overall tho.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,222
More trolling as picture quality between them is pretty much the same with none of them having superior quality. As said above only article i seen of late gives ati an advantage aa wise but you need to zoom in to really see it. As for the higher frame rates for cheaper most of the time its around the same frame rates for cheaper.
Last edited:
Nvidia picture quality is better.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/3way-sli-crossfire_4.html#sect0
That article?
"As opposed to ATI’s solutions, the difference is far more obvious: when you turn MS TAA on, the fence is displayed more neatly, with fewer undesired gaps. The fence looks sharper than on the ATI Radeon HD. It improves even more in the SS TAA mode and becomes better-looking than in the Adaptive AA modes on the ATI Radeon HD cards."
Is the best comment...
Personally I prefer nVidia's image quality, especially on the 200 series with 10bit processing and I find I need lower levels of AA on nVidia to have the same effect of removing my perception of jaggies regardless of which one might actually look better.
Last edited:
take a look, there is a artical, its mainly focused on AA comparison through, cards tested was the HD4870 and the GTX260 I must admit even at 4x AA the AMD looks smooth as hell partucaly with edge detect, which is supposed to use the cards shaders. I will find the artical again and post it
it could be, one of them not the one I seen, I m googling
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1343688
thats the closest I got so far, it only focuses on the image quility rather than performace, just so one can see the difference, but claiming that Nvida has better image quitly is a bit on the false statment as im struggling to see any differnece in detail.
it could be, one of them not the one I seen, I m googling
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1343688
thats the closest I got so far, it only focuses on the image quility rather than performace, just so one can see the difference, but claiming that Nvida has better image quitly is a bit on the false statment as im struggling to see any differnece in detail.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2008
- Posts
- 3,011
surely overall image quality depends on many things. Like whether the game is optimised for different gpu's, the actual in game settings and the different driver releases
Yeah that all has an effect - and you can take 2 lots of screenshots from a game from slightly different positions and in one lot ATI will look better and in the other nVidia will...
Now now lads, let's try and prevent this turning into this week's third graphics card flame-athon
From what I understood, ATi traditionally had better IQ, but things have got much more even in recent times. Personally I can't tell the difference.
From what I understood, ATi traditionally had better IQ, but things have got much more even in recent times. Personally I can't tell the difference.