ATI AA better than NV AA screens

[DarkMatter]

OK, firstly, read the links I post below. I post them not to fanboy it up, but more to educate. AA in ATIs current solutions are superior, if you simply go by a "apples to apples" comparison. This link http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=49008&page=15 was partly influenced by this link http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&articID=869. When the folks a B3D saw that at madshrimps, they responded. These are both reputable sites, and for learning about gfx, theres hardly a better place to go than B3D, as seen by the last line in the MadShrimps conclusion, which added the B3D info. Essentually, whats being said in these links is that yes, if you lower the ATI settings, youll get the same IQ that nVidia does, thus creating less stress on the ATI cards, and more fps. Keep that in mind when you view reviews

Moot comparison:

-$400 single GPU card vs. $550 dual GPU card. If they had compared a single RV770 to the GTX I'm sure there would be different. Dual GPU cards are well known to be able to attain higher AA levels than single GPU cards without a hit in performance. In fact, it's usually the only advantage they have. The dissadvantage is that sometimes Crossfire/SLI doesn't work and that is not reflected in the article.

-Nvidia does not use lesser quality AA by any means. When you choose CSAA yes (and so does Ati with CFAA), but MSAA vs. MSAA is exactly the same. Ati's MSAA results would never be higher as there's no change to be done there. They don't say anywhere the contrary BTW.

- Last one is personal opinion, but I think it's one that will be widely supported. At 1920x1200 it's a moot point to go higher than 4x AA. It's great if you can use 8x without a significant hit, but it would be even better if you could have 25% more frames in all the resoutions instead, except the higher one. The X2 because it's dual GPU solution can do the first one, but never the latter one. Take Crysis for example, the X2 does the same frames at lower settings than on higher ones, so yeah it does not take a performance hit, but it is neither playable in any of those resolutions. Look at any dual GPU in the past and you will find the same.

The X2 scales better trough AA levels than the GTX card, because as a dual GPU that it is, it was designed for that, but that doesn't mean it has better AA quality.

 

[SK-1]

OK, firstly, read the links I post below. I post them not to fanboy it up, but more to educate. AA in ATIs current solutions are superior, if you simply go by a "apples to apples" comparison. This link http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=49008&page=15 was partly influenced by this link http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&articID=869. When the folks a B3D saw that at madshrimps, they responded. These are both reputable sites, and for learning about gfx, theres hardly a better place to go than B3D, as seen by the last line in the MadShrimps conclusion, which added the B3D info. Essentually, whats being said in these links is that yes, if you lower the ATI settings, youll get the same IQ that nVidia does, thus creating less stress on the ATI cards, and more fps. Keep that in mind when you view reviews

This is what I thought would happen,...it just makes since that if you reduce the workload in the image quality area , then you will get more FPS and these links seem to prove just that. IQ is just as effected by additional workload as any other device would be effected.

 

[hat]

Hell a lot of times NO aa is fine. Crysis in 1650x1080 kicks ass even with no AA.

 

[SK-1]

Hell a lot of times NO aa is fine. Crysis in 1650x1080 kicks ass even with no AA.

I am quickly learning this as my monitors keep getting bigger.

 

[hat]

If you are running 1280x1024 or higher if you're not super picky 2xaa is fine. I would love to be able to play crysis in 12801024 with 2xaa but thats not possible with an 8600gts... I could do 1024x768 with 2xaa with worse performance and worse looks

 

[Risco]

What AA did you use for nVidia? Did you use CSAA or Q? The reason I ask is because Q is equivelent to ATI AA as it is pure MSAA.

If you are not using Q ( and it is not a special mode, CSAA is ) then it is not an apples to apples comparison. Also need to mention that 8XAA has a severe hit on 4870 512mb, either due to framebuffer or poor efficiency. I wager on the efficiency side, as there is no way Grid fills up the framebuffer, yet gets random and annoying slowdows at 8XAA.

 

[hat]

Just 2xaa thru the Crysis menu. Assuming it's nvidia style MSAA.

 

[jaydeejohn]

Im glad all you disagree with what Ive posted, as a fellow nVidia gfx card owner, Im just stating the facts. AA is important, if youre going to spend this amount of money on a card, youd expecxt all the eye candy, its just this one provides it. Heres a quote you maybe didnt read from my link at MadShrimps Quote : "Update 07-09-2008:: Some readers pointed out that NVIDIA uses different AA rendering modes compared to ATI and for fair comparison sake the following needs to be taken into account:


- NVIDIA 8xAA = 4xMSAA, 16xAA = 4xMSAA (CSAA mode), 16xQAA = 8xMSAA (CSAA mode)
- ATI 16xAA is a superAA mode where each core will render the same frame with a different AA pattern resulting in superior image quality.


This does put in perspective the performance of the Geforce GTX 280 when the high quality AA levels are forced to match ATI's levels, as the performance of the GTX 280 is really trailing then. Of course you have to consider how much AA you need for the game to look smooth to you, this changes from person to person.

We like to thank those who detailed the NVIDIA & ATI rendering modes, much appreciated" So there you have it. No guessing, no reaching, actually no doubt about it. They themselves didnt know, but they do now, as I hope others do as well from this. Also, its something for any Vista user to point towards as this debunks the "Vista cant play games as good as "rumour. Look deeper inot it, youll find what Ive said is correct. Not using something that does give a better gaming experience isnt going forwards, and as shown, "apples to apples" with the hit on current ATI cards, itd truly be a waste not to. Thos as said, this will change from person to person, but as a fellow nVidia card owner, more is better

 

[hat]

I never said you were correct or incorrect, I said that AA isn't really needed when you have high resolutions. I use 2xaa at the most because of my video card, unless I'm playing a game that my system could take in its sleep than yeah I would crank up the AA as high as it will go.

 

[DarkMatter]

Im glad all you disagree with what Ive posted, as a fellow nVidia gfx card owner, Im just stating the facts. AA is important, if youre going to spend this amount of money on a card, youd expecxt all the eye candy, its just this one provides it. Heres a quote you maybe didnt read from my link at MadShrimps Quote : "Update 07-09-2008:: Some readers pointed out that NVIDIA uses different AA rendering modes compared to ATI and for fair comparison sake the following needs to be taken into account:


- NVIDIA 8xAA = 4xMSAA, 16xAA = 4xMSAA (CSAA mode), 16xQAA = 8xMSAA (CSAA mode)
- ATI 16xAA is a superAA mode where each core will render the same frame with a different AA pattern resulting in superior image quality.


This does put in perspective the performance of the Geforce GTX 280 when the high quality AA levels are forced to match ATI's levels, as the performance of the GTX 280 is really trailing then. Of course you have to consider how much AA you need for the game to look smooth to you, this changes from person to person.

We like to thank those who detailed the NVIDIA & ATI rendering modes, much appreciated" So there you have it. No guessing, no reaching, actually no doubt about it. They themselves didnt know, but they do now, as I hope others do as well from this. Also, its something for any Vista user to point towards as this debunks the "Vista cant play games as good as "rumour. Look deeper inot it, youll find what Ive said is correct. Not using something that does give a better gaming experience isnt going forwards, and as shown, "apples to apples" with the hit on current ATI cards, itd truly be a waste not to. Thos as said, this will change from person to person, but as a fellow nVidia card owner, more is better

First of all, Nvidia's 16QxAA is true 16xAA. CSAA mode is named 16xAA, just as with 8xAA.

This thread is about AA quality, not AA levels. The OP uses the Nvidia Q variants of AA, and in-game AA (what most of us always use) is always the same for both cards. AFAIK only way to use CSAA is forcing it in the control panel. When AA is enabled in-game, both cards are using the same rendering path. That's why your claim didn't make sense, at least to me. CSAA is of lesser quality, yes, but it's not the default one. IMHO Ati's special modes are much worse than CSAA, and [H] did a comparison and came to the same conclusion. What I mean is that you can't compare CSAA to MSAA, compare it to CFAA. When it comes to Image Quality 8xAA box (8Q on nvidia), from both manufacturers are the same and that is what it is discussed here. Now performance wise the X2 is a beast for high level of AA, but keep in mind that the GTX 280 is better than a single HD4870, so in the end is just a matter of raw power, and price.

Anyway what we are all saying is that Ati is only faster when 8xAA and above are selected. At 4xAA that advantage is gone, and 8xAA is not needed at all. At (1920)1600x1200 it's even hard to notice if AA is enabled at all when gaming.

Summarising:

- At same AA level (CSAA and CFAA are not the same level) both have the same quality AND both do exactly the same amount of work. There's no room for something like: "How would Nvidia cards perform if they were put to the same quality". They already are at the same quality, given you choose the proper setting. Well it's better to say if you don't choose the wrong one, as the proper one is the one by default.

- The difference between 8xAA and 4xAA is questionable. The impact for gaming is much more questionable. I'm not saying it's totally pointless, as some people may want to use it, but it's just not something I would pay for. It's something that I will NEVER use. Believe me, never. There are tons of games where I could use 8x/16x AA, but there's no apreciable difference, so I don't bother. And I will never do considering how higher resolutions will be available soon.

 

[jaydeejohn]

[H] isnt a good source for anything concerning ATI. Ill get more info on this soon. Please dont quote or use [H] concerning ATI, as anyone owning a ATI card isnt happy with them. As far as 8x being needed, thats an opinion, nothing more. The difference between 8x vs 4x isnt questionable, its there and it exists. A great apology for not looking forward by not using AA, but as most here would find it very good to have if usable. When I get more infos, Ill bring it. Having the ability to use 8xAA shouldnt cost more and doesnt, as seen by my post/links. Its not as tho the 4xxx series is more expensive than the comparative nVidia equivalent

 

[mrw1986]

Meh, neither of them have bad IQ....and who the hell cares if theres ONE more jaggie in an entire screenshot. People need to start researching and comparing NON-Dumbass things.

 

[DarkMatter]

[H] isnt a good source for anything concerning ATI. Ill get more info on this soon. Please dont quote or use [H] concerning ATI, as anyone owning a ATI card isnt happy with them

LOL, so just because Ati owners don't like it, I don't have to mention them? [H] is as good as a source as any other. Reason that Ati people don't like them is because their benchmarking methods made Ati cards look slower in comparison to oher sites, so they claim bias. You just have to enter now and you will see how they praise HD4xxx's performance. They just test and say the results. HD4xxx performance on gaming is very good, but R600/RV670 was not. That's a fact thet I tried myself. There are a ton of architectural concerns (low texturing power being the most important one) that were responsible of Ati hardware performing worse on REAL gameplay than on various benchmarks. [H] only tests on real gameplay so HD2/3xxx cards were affected. Period.

[H] are not the only ones that say CFAA was a very bad AA mode, there are many others that say that. It's apparent on images at the first glance anyway.

And BTW I mention [H] because are the only ones that make extensive IQ comparisons that I know.

 

[jaydeejohn]

Look at the 4x. Saying that its acceptable to use 4x, you can clearly see the difference, and at 4xAA the ATI solution does take a lessor hit in fps over nVidia solutions with the current 4xxx series vs all nVidia. We shouldnt argue this away, nor accept lessor performance as good enough, or not needed, as theres clear evidence posted right here, using in game AA solutions, without the better and higher ATI AA solutions

 

[jaydeejohn]

Id point out, Im not living in yesterday. At no point have I mentioned the older 3series, or the nVidia 7 series either for that matter, which truly stunk it up concerning IQ. Ive only mentioned the 4xxx series and their new AA abilities.

 

[jaydeejohn]

If you actually compare the 2x ATI solution to the 4x nVidia solution, they looked alarmingly similar. Which goes back to what Id said, and linked to regarding AA and its ATI vs nVidia equivalent

 

[jaydeejohn]

Concerning [H], if you look at it, and Im not going to go there now, they always have a negative, no matter what for ATI, even in praise. They hand out awards as they cut and slam them. Everything deserves criticism, as nothing is perfect, but to me, after seeing ATI fail at highend, and at AA, youd think theyd have left any criticism out just the one time, which they didnt. Anyways, this isnt about [H], its about ATIs superior AA. I hate seeing the edges crawl as I turn in game. Seeing the results of this guys findings, its clear that using ATIs current solution mostly eliminates that at 4xAA, whereas the nVidia soltion doesnt, all the while, taking a lessor hit in performance doing so

 

[Widjaja]

I never said you were correct or incorrect, I said that AA isn't really needed when you have high resolutions. I use 2xaa at the most because of my video card, unless I'm playing a game that my system could take in its sleep than yeah I would crank up the AA as high as it will go.

It depends on what your monitor size is and what native res your monitor is.

I found 1280x1024 on my old 17" did not need AA, aas soon as I went to my current 19" widescreen with a native res of 1440X900 it definitely showed the jaggies without AA.

 

[SK-1]

It depends on what your monitor size is and what native res your monitor is.

I found 1280x1024 on my old 17" did not need AA, aas soon as I went to my current 19" widescreen with a native res of 1440X900 it definitely showed the jaggies without AA.

I am finding with my new 1920x1200 26' monitor, I can get by with less AA.
This is a good thing, because my cards are pushing more pixels than ever.

 

[Widjaja]

1440x900 has less pixels than 1280x1024.

So my current screen which is bigger but uses less pixels needs AA.

 

[Wile E]

Concerning [H], if you look at it, and Im not going to go there now, they always have a negative, no matter what for ATI, even in praise. They hand out awards as they cut and slam them. Everything deserves criticism, as nothing is perfect, but to me, after seeing ATI fail at highend, and at AA, youd think theyd have left any criticism out just the one time, which they didnt. Anyways, this isnt about [H], its about ATIs superior AA. I hate seeing the edges crawl as I turn in game. Seeing the results of this guys findings, its clear that using ATIs current solution mostly eliminates that at 4xAA, whereas the nVidia soltion doesnt, all the while, taking a lessor hit in performance doing so

No, it doesn't clearly show anything. First of all, the pictures aren't at identical angles, and therefor, not directly comparable, and secondly, for ATI having better AA, their AF takes a quality hit.

So, as everyone else has said in this thread, they are different, but neither are better.

You are trading one strong area for another.

 

[candle_86]

to be honest when im playing a game i don't just stop and say, OMG a jaggy

 

[Hayder_Master]

Not a problem, just found it funny.

hahah, you got me man , im just worried on my stars

 

[jaydeejohn]

The AF hit is old, and pertains to the 3xxx series as far as I know. Any links regarding current ATI cards and AF? For FPS games, you dont need the immersive eye candy experience, tho Crysis goes against this. Other games, it very nice to have, and it all comes down to any 1 persons perception, which isnt whats being talked about here at all. This is about what is. What is the difference between current ATI cards vs current nVidia cards using AA? The OPs post shows that ATIs as being superior, thats what is, not being subjective nor opinionated, just going by what is

 

[Wile E]

The AF hit is old, and pertains to the 3xxx series as far as I know. Any links regarding current ATI cards and AF? For FPS games, you dont need the immersive eye candy experience, tho Crysis goes against this. Other games, it very nice to have, and it all comes down to any 1 persons perception, which isnt whats being talked about here at all. This is about what is. What is the difference between current ATI cards vs current nVidia cards using AA? The OPs post shows that ATIs as being superior, thats what is, not being subjective nor opinionated, just going by what is

I don't need links, I can see it plain as day in the screenshots.

And the OP in NO WAY shows ATI's AA being superior in IQ. The pictures aren't even taken at the same angles. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

And even if they did happen to get the same exact angles, they used jpg compression for the pics. That in and of itself is introducing artifacts to the pictures.