Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Image quality vs Speed

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Image quality vs Speed

    I was reading a message in one of Rage3d's forums about ATI increasing the speed of the Radeon at the expense of image quality in their drivers. This led me thinking. If Matrox were to drop the image quality of their products to *snigger* geforce levels, would we get GTS performance levels. Joking aside, what speed increase could we expect if something similar was done.


    regards MD
    Interests include:
    Computing, Reading, Pubs, Restuarants, Pubs, Curries, More Pubs and more Curries

  • #2
    I doubt they have the slightest clue what they're talking about.

    Got a link?
    "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind." -- Dr. Seuss

    "Always do good. It will gratify some and astonish the rest." ~Mark Twain

    Comment


    • #3
      I got one, but it's a german site...



      you will get the meaning of the word "cheat" in a picture, right?

      you have to move the mouse over some images to see the difference...

      (and follow the "weiter" - button)

      mfg
      wulfman
      "Perhaps they communicate by changing colour? Like those sea creatures .."
      "Lobsters?"
      "Really? I didn't know they did that."
      "Oh yes, red means help!"

      Comment


      • #4
        What ATI are doing, if I understand correctly, is disabling certain features, or putting them into "quick-n-dirty-hack" mode. The same way that nVidia for the longest time didn't REALLY do Trilinear filtering... but the driver said it was turned on, and it passed the tests for it - but looked like bilinear ('cuz it WAS).

        - Gurm
        The Internet - where men are men, women are men, and teenage girls are FBI agents!

        I'm the least you could do
        If only life were as easy as you
        I'm the least you could do, oh yeah
        If only life were as easy as you
        I would still get screwed

        Comment


        • #5
          Think this is it.

          General discussion, tweaking, overclocking and technical support questions about discrete Radeon graphics products.


          regards MD
          Interests include:
          Computing, Reading, Pubs, Restuarants, Pubs, Curries, More Pubs and more Curries

          Comment


          • #6
            Benchmarking Ethics and the ATI Radeon

            According to the latest official figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless...

            Comment


            • #7
              Usually, I look at screen shots and think, "well, I notice a difference, but I wouldn't during game play." The differences in the Firing Squad screenshots, however, are HUGE!

              This isn't the first time ATI has added really dubious optimizations. I recall a couple of years ago, they released a driver set and touted an increase in scores with a particular benchmark, but testing established they slowed the board down with everything else.

              You've got to hand it to them. They've single-handedly established Quack 3 as the new standard measure for OpenGL gaming performance.

              Paul

              Comment


              • #8
                Man, this really bothers me. ATi really tried to pull a fast one. It would have been one thing if they had just optimized the game, but they sacrificed image quality to do it, with no information or choice given to the consumer. Pretty fraudulent to me. And all just to increase benchmarks. This is just as bad as GDI manipulation. Worse, maybe, since GDI hacks don't reduce image quality.

                I really was considering an 8500, but no ATi for me now.
                Gigabyte P35-DS3L with a Q6600, 2GB Kingston HyperX (after *3* bad pairs of Crucial Ballistix 1066), Galaxy 8800GT 512MB, SB X-Fi, some drives, and a Dell 2005fpw. Running WinXP.

                Comment


                • #9
                  TdB

                  they should atleast give the user the option to turn the optimization off, most players canĀ“t feel the difference between 190 fps and 154 fps anyway.
                  my own gaming card (kyro2) also has some game specific optimizations, but i can choose the settings i want.

                  and even 154 fps is just crazy, if i get that kind of performance i begin to examine, if i can turn even more detail on, like fsaa or better filtering.

                  do we really need that kind of speed anyway??

                  if i turn v-sync off then i wont notice anything higher than 75 fps(im talking about constant framerate here), with v-sync enabled i noticed every single dropped frame, so a constant framerate equal to the monitorrefreshrate, is really all i need.

                  and i think 99.9% of all computer players feel the same way(im just guessing here).
                  This sig is a shameless atempt to make my post look bigger.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X