actually ati does have a known issue with ut2k3... nothing a reviewer can't fix with a tweak to the .inf... unless they choose not to or prefer to harp on it
however there is nothing NOT being rendered or any such thing afaik...
Originally posted by: reever
Uhh go read Hardocp's review if you want to argue about filteirng issues. It is and has been a known issue that Nvidia's, not Ati's bri/tri filtering method is the one causing lower filtering and noticeable mip-map transitions. Now if only the geniuses at anandtech would have included fullscreen uncompressed images in their last IQ comparison, all of you would have seen that too. But I guess they felt it was necessary to shield your eyes from the real issue and instead cram BS down your throat and expect you to believe what they say with 0 proof whatsoever
Originally posted by: Sazar
Originally posted by: reever
Uhh go read Hardocp's review if you want to argue about filteirng issues. It is and has been a known issue that Nvidia's, not Ati's bri/tri filtering method is the one causing lower filtering and noticeable mip-map transitions. Now if only the geniuses at anandtech would have included fullscreen uncompressed images in their last IQ comparison, all of you would have seen that too. But I guess they felt it was necessary to shield your eyes from the real issue and instead cram BS down your throat and expect you to believe what they say with 0 proof whatsoever
actually ati does have a known issue with ut2k3... nothing a reviewer can't fix with a tweak to the .inf... unless they choose not to or prefer to harp on it
however there is nothing NOT being rendered or any such thing afaik...
Originally posted by: gorillaman
Originally posted by: reever
Uhh go read Hardocp's review if you want to argue about filteirng issues. It is and has been a known issue that Nvidia's, not Ati's bri/tri filtering method is the one causing lower filtering and noticeable mip-map transitions. Now if only the geniuses at anandtech would have included fullscreen uncompressed images in their last IQ comparison, all of you would have seen that too. But I guess they felt it was necessary to shield your eyes from the real issue and instead cram BS down your throat and expect you to believe what they say with 0 proof whatsoever
Umm dude? Anand stated in the 5700 review that they are doing a separate IQ comparison and they are working on it right now. Will be posted up on the site when it is finished. It was also said that they want to do the best job possible with all of the facts.
Here is the quote from the article:
"We are currently working on an entire article devoted to the image quality of current generation graphics cards. Where there are important or overt visual anomalies, we will note them here. Other than that, our IQ judgments will be compiled into our coming article. We attempt to be as thorough as possible and delve into as many aspects of image quality as we can. Stay tuned, as its stacking up to be very interesting."
So I guess you'll just have to give em a chance. And then you might get the anwers that you really want to hear. You know,
like (ATI has much better image quality than nvidia because....) or (Nvidia has caught up to ATI on the image quality because...).
I dont think there is any reason to think there is a conspiracy of "eye shielding" going on. LOL.
GM
Originally posted by: Genx87
Interesting review. Seems like the cards are pretty close to each other in performance. Some goes to ATI, others go to Nvidia.
One thing that is interesting is I think it was X2. Nvidia card beats up on the 9600 pretty good and this is a DX9 based game.
Originally posted by: Insomniak
Originally posted by: Genx87
Interesting review. Seems like the cards are pretty close to each other in performance. Some goes to ATI, others go to Nvidia.
One thing that is interesting is I think it was X2. Nvidia card beats up on the 9600 pretty good and this is a DX9 based game.
Very true. I was also suprised to see that benchmark where the 5700 Ultra beat the 9800XT. Granted, it was without AA and AF, but still...that should never happen.
Originally posted by: shady06
still have shader mark 2.0 problems
Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
Originally posted by: shady06
still have shader mark 2.0 problems
Good lord! That's a red flag if I ever saw one!
Originally posted by: Johnbear007
I think the 5700 and the 9600 XT are a bunch of crap. for 150$ you can get a little less performance from a 9600 pro, and for a little more cash you can get alot more performance from a 9700 pro or 9800 non pro. ATI and NVIDIA Both have there middle range boards priced too high, with too low performance, anyone that buys these boards is stupid.
Originally posted by: Johnbear007
I think the 5700 and the 9600 XT are a bunch of crap. for 150$ you can get a little less performance from a 9600 pro, and for a little more cash you can get alot more performance from a 9700 pro or 9800 non pro. ATI and NVIDIA Both have there middle range boards priced too high, with too low performance, anyone that buys these boards is stupid.
Originally posted by: X14
Where can I find the 5700 Ultra for sale online? This is the card I've been waiting for.
Why would somebody be able to afford the $220 5700, but not be able to afford the better performing $235 5900?Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
Originally posted by: Johnbear007
I think the 5700 and the 9600 XT are a bunch of crap. for 150$ you can get a little less performance from a 9600 pro, and for a little more cash you can get alot more performance from a 9700 pro or 9800 non pro. ATI and NVIDIA Both have there middle range boards priced too high, with too low performance, anyone that buys these boards is stupid.
Or just can't afford a better card.
I agree that something better performing should have dropped down to that price range by now, considering the 9700Pro is over a year old and still isn't in that range. But, nothing has, so this is the best we have until the new gen of cards are out.
I think the 9600xt for $200 with HL2 would have delivered the value...without HL2, I agree. The 5700 upgrades the 5600 to a competetive level with the 9600xt, where it really wasn't before. When these cards approach the price of the 9700 or 5900, clearly they aren't a value comparison to the higher end offering. $200 for these cards is really pushing it IMHO without some value added offering like the AIW or personal cinema, or a "great" software package.I think the 5700 and the 9600 XT are a bunch of crap. for 150$ you can get a little less performance from a 9600 pro
A completely rewritten 3D engine based on DirectX8 encompasses many visual effects such as volumetric Nebulae (gas clouds) that have a real impact in the game (you can hide in them), many new engine, shield, weapon and explosion effects. Objects cast real dynamic 3D shadows! Dynamic DP3 bump mapping allows a previously unseen level of detail. The built-in Automatic Quality Control (AQC) system changes the visual quality to achieve the highest possible frame rates on any given, supported system.
As there is no other price to compare to, no I don't see an issue. Do you really think that when the card is released that you'll see it for less than $200, even online? That's generally where the highest mid range cards price in, and is still only a $35 difference.Originally posted by: TheSnowman
you don't see any issue in comparing retail price to lowest avalable price eh BoberFett?
Originally posted by: reever
I was talking about the IQ comparison done in the high-end shootout review, hence why i said "last IQ comparison"
Talk to me when anand re-edits that review with fullscreen uncompressed jpg's that actually include the ground portion of the games
Originally posted by: Sazar
Originally posted by: gorillaman
Originally posted by: reever
Uhh go read Hardocp's review if you want to argue about filteirng issues. It is and has been a known issue that Nvidia's, not Ati's bri/tri filtering method is the one causing lower filtering and noticeable mip-map transitions. Now if only the geniuses at anandtech would have included fullscreen uncompressed images in their last IQ comparison, all of you would have seen that too. But I guess they felt it was necessary to shield your eyes from the real issue and instead cram BS down your throat and expect you to believe what they say with 0 proof whatsoever
Umm dude? Anand stated in the 5700 review that they are doing a separate IQ comparison and they are working on it right now. Will be posted up on the site when it is finished. It was also said that they want to do the best job possible with all of the facts.
Here is the quote from the article:
"We are currently working on an entire article devoted to the image quality of current generation graphics cards. Where there are important or overt visual anomalies, we will note them here. Other than that, our IQ judgments will be compiled into our coming article. We attempt to be as thorough as possible and delve into as many aspects of image quality as we can. Stay tuned, as its stacking up to be very interesting."
So I guess you'll just have to give em a chance. And then you might get the anwers that you really want to hear. You know,
like (ATI has much better image quality than nvidia because....) or (Nvidia has caught up to ATI on the image quality because...).
I dont think there is any reason to think there is a conspiracy of "eye shielding" going on. LOL.
GM
as with the previous problems with the nv38 articles... DON't post conclusions of the sweeping nature that AT is doing if you are doing more followups... PLEASE... it saves you having to go back and validate data...
or... AT can just leave the data there w/o validation and presume everyone will just overlook it and take a look @ the new information...
evan had a nice chat with many of us for a coupla weeks... and in that time we have had the 2nd nv38 [p]review... and this other review.. thats 2 reviews AFTER the whole "we will be doing a thorough job blah blah blah" statements...
Whats an uncompressed JPG?Talk to me when anand re-edits that review with fullscreen uncompressed jpg's