What's the deal with G200 image quality?

[LAN_deRf_HA]

I saw this texture issue awhile ago but I just saw it happen again in a Tom's 4870X2 review. Look at the pictures and you'll see (especially on the distant mountain textures and tree line) that the 280 GTX performs poorly compared to even the 9800 GTX+. This really ticks me off because I just bought a G200, how can the image quality get worse the more cash you pay? I've seen this on much closer objects too like metal sheeting and the ground. Isn't there anything we can do about this? Is it just some shitty move to improve benchmarks that can be patched if we make a big fuss about it? If so, please... make a fuss. It's worked before

9800 GTX+

280 GTX

4870X2

 

[Wile E]

Do you notice it while actually playing the game? Can you even the see the difference without blowing the picture up?

If the answer to either of these questions is no, then it doesn't matter, AT ALL.

 

[rizla1]

have you got nvidias utilite installed it could be a mip map setting if im wroung correct me , you can force settings on or off if needed even for specific games there is varios settings fo texture quality , anstrovic filtering ,antialliasing and stuff . its worth a try

 

[Error 404]

Yeah, try using the nVidia control panel if you have it: my 7900 GS's settings were all screwed around with in it, asking for best image quality over performance, and changing the settings made a big difference.
TBH I can't see much of a difference at all anyway.

 

[qamulek]

Try ini tweaking

I believe ini tweaks are necessary for higher texture settings.

From a crysis ini tweak guide:

TEXTURES & LOD:
Distant LOD (level of detail) of textures and vegetation is probably my favorite section because it’s most noticeable as you look across the map and walk about.
e_detail_materials_view_dist_xy - Max view distance of terrain XY materials. This is things like certain cliffs and other materials horizontal LOD in game.
e_detail_materials_view_dist_z - Max view distance of terrain Z material. This is things like certain cliffs and other materials vertical LOD in game. This one doesn't need to be raised high, 256 or 512 max. (In the GPU benchmark when coming in from the sky this setting will show itself on vertical LOD).
A picture is worth a thousand words on how these two work...

Note: For the mountains to appear crisp like this you will also need r_TexturesStreaming set to 0.

The important part is the last part in bold. When changing the settings in game the mountain textures look fine on medium settings, but look like crap when set to high texture quality. That seems a bit stupid to make the game look worse when raising the texture quality :shadedshu

EDIT: BTW I can't see any difference between the three pictures when expanded pixel per pixel onto my screen. In all three pics the far mountain textures look like crap

 

[FilipM]

My eyes can't find a single different thing.

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

All blown up is how it actually looks when you play it... if you can't see the dif. right click on one and do "view image" (if you're using firefox) then copy the image url, go back and do view image again on the the other nvidia card. Then paste the url of the other image in and start flipping back and forth... very dramatic difference.

I'd like to believe it's just a default control panel setting issue but then why is it the weaker 9800 GTX+ has more draining IQ defaults? Also, aren't these drivers monolithic? So the default settings should be the same for both.

 

[xu^]

i also don't see a diff ,apart from it looks slight different on the ATI card ,nothing that seems noticeably worse on any of the 3 pics to me.

Maybe your just being to fussy and looking for things.

nothing is perfect ,make the most of what you do have.

 

[qamulek]

some bumps vs no bumps

I think I see a slight difference now that I looked *very* closely at them... The 9800gtx has some bumps on the mountains, the 4870x2 has a few more bumps, while the gtx280 looks like streaks of straight lines with no bumps. IMO the mountains in all the pics still look like crap and needs some fixing with ini tweaks or something...

 

[Asylum]

Good outlook xubidoo!!

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

I just figured on an enthusiast site someone would care about an utterly unjustified image quality drop off, especially on a new expensive line of cards. The IQ isn't as messed up as the 7 series but it's the same type of problem. Even if it's not on purpose it won't get fixed unless people care enough to say something. Also is everyone here using an LCD? These things seem to be a lot more obvious on a good CRT.

Here try this one, the G200 texture on the red metal sheeting look simplified and low res.

Here's an easier compare for the mountains (this is vs. G92)

 

[Binge]

I see other parts of the picture that look better than the G92. If you went back to the same place with your GTX280 and 9800 and took a SS would the textures look/load the same? I've had to do double takes in big Crysis maps when looking through zoom scopes because the textures would be weird. Could just be a function of the program.

 

[Jeffredo]

The GTX 280 shot looks slightly "lighter" than the GTX 9800+. I would like to see what sort of ingame settings they chose, what the driver settings were, monitor settings (gamma, contrast, brightness). I haven't seen two pieces of hardware, even from the same GPU family, render exactly the same image from frame to frame. They could have just gotten a crap sample to test for the GTX 280. There are such things as bad individual cards. If they are truly concerned they would have test another GTX 280 to see if they got the same results. Generally speaking, every review I've seen has said repeatedly there is no noticeable difference in IQ between ATI and Nvidia now. I would imagine you could extrapolate that out to no noticeable difference "within" ATI or Nvidia.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Yeah the mountain on the GTX 280 is a bit smooth. While the 4870 X2 & 9800 GTX+ shows a bit more detail. I recall a similar thread on this forum last year (I think).

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

What bugs me about this is I don't see how it could be a driver issue... I mean with it not affecting the 9800 GTX then doesn't that mean it must be a hardware difference? I doubt it's a case of a bad sample, the metal sheeting shot is from another site that did their test months ago. If it is hardware, does that mean it would take a new bios to fix it?

 

[LittleLizard]

ahhh, people, here in Uruguay the gamers have a different mentality: no matters how much do you have to turn it down, do it without ask
ITS JUST A GAME AND GRID LOOKS DAMN AWESOME EVEN ON LOW, SO WTF

 

[PuMA]

ahhh, people, here in Uruguay the gamers have a different mentality: no matters how much do you have to turn it down, do it without ask
ITS JUST A GAME AND GRID LOOKS DAMN AWESOME EVEN ON LOW, SO WTF

amen

 

[Kursah]

Any other games do this or is Crysis again the weapon of choice? (yawn)

No offense to you, I won't tell you what I really think of Crysis, but I am curious if that is all you play or if that small difference is really worth such a big deal? I have about 30 games on my rig, no I don't play them all, yes they all run and look great, no the IQ doesn't look like crap to me, and if a game is fun it's worth playing, if it's not...shelf it or sell it.

But maybe you could do comparo's in your other favorite games, whether they're a graphical benchmark of a game or not shouldn't matter, but maybe to get an overall idea of how the IQ spreads across different games. I've had my GTX260 since July, well stepped up to a Core216 in september, and really I have no complaints. But I am slightly intrigued by your research and findings...not to an extent it angers me in any way, at least for that game, but like I said I'd be interested in your comparison to other better, err...other games out there!

Again interesting findings, I'm more interested in what else you can find beyond crytek games.

 

[douglatins]

They downgraded image quality for better performance (FPS), because they thought people only cares about raw fps numbers

 

[hat]

I can't see any difference other than the GTX 280 image looks a little bit brighter. That's about it. I'd take a GTX280 over a 9800GTX+ any day.