image quality between cards

[sanosizo]

rite now im using a tnt2 m64. what i wanna know is, if i change the 3d card to something like geforce4MX or geforce3Ti, how much is the improvement to the graphics quality on games like FF and other RPGs...

geforce 3 Ti (and above) users please comment on this

[Kane]

Graphics Quality. Hmmm
For PSX emulation, the differences are mainly FSAA (only worthwhile on a GeForce 3 or above), and better RFI(?) filters resulting in overall better picture quality.
If you are only using emu's, then a Voodoo 5 is the best choice as it has by far teh best image quality. For anything else tho, the V5 just can't keep up.
If games are running at a reasonable speed, and you are happy with the quality tho, stick with what you got.

[sanosizo]

can you (or anyone) post screenshot of any game with the FSAA in action?

[3x3cUt0r]

Originally posted by sanosizo
can you (or anyone) post screenshot of any game with the FSAA in action?

there are already some screenshots of games running with fsaa in the forum

[Demigod]

Well, frankly speaking Nvidia cards are rated among the worst in image quality. Most OEMs use cheaper parts so the quality is degraded. ATI cards are known for their superior image quality and Matrox is world renouned for theirs. I think the biggest difference between a TNT2 and a GeForce 3 is the FSAA, but cards like the Voodoo 5 have superior FSAA quality, albeit a little hard to find nowadays. If you're unhappy with the quality then I suggest you look into an ATI card. A GeForce 3 still trails behind the Radeon in terms of image quality (you have to enable anisotropic filtering to get the same quality).

[chp]

Demigod is right.

I own both ATI AIW 7200 and GF2 cards and ATI is way supperior to GFs in term of quality. But I heard that on the new GF4 from well known quality brands the diffs are hard to see.

FSAA or not? I tried both and my choice goes to NO FSAA with higher res (for ex: 1024*768*32bit).

BTW: a screen shoot is not good because when you capture an image you capture the Bitmap (internally in windows) not the analog output from the cards....

But if you would like a screenshot w/4xFSAA enabled, I'll be happy to obliege. The game is Breath of Fire 3 and my card is a GeForce4 TI 4600. Here it is.
sincerely,
sx/amiga

[JAZ]

Heres 4xFsaa on my Radeon I think you'll see the edges are more jaggedy than sxamiga's G4 but the screen is a lot less blurry..

[grahf]

JAZ: You have to keep in mind that he's probably using EPSXE to the max, ie: Screen smoothing, monitor dot matrix, 4sXFSAA, and 1024 768 resolution. With those settings, anything can and will look blurry.

[sniff_381]

sometimes it goes with the setup and not with the graphics card

[Demigod]

Originally posted by grahf
JAZ: You have to keep in mind that he's probably using EPSXE to the max, ie: Screen smoothing, monitor dot matrix, 4sXFSAA, and 1024 768 resolution. With those settings, anything can and will look blurry.

Not necessarily. Nvidia cards are just naturally more blurry than others. Tests done on Quake 3 prove this. The only way it can match ATI's quality is to enable anisotropic filtering (but then again so can you with the Radeon). ATI also has some clever tricks with its anisotropic filtering that allows a much better performance rate than Nvidia's.

The bottom picture shows the difference between the Radeon 8500's 4xFSAA and the GeForce 3's 4xFSAA. Nvidia's solution is a bit less jagged but also has significant blurring.

Picture courtesy of Anandtech

[sanosizo]

i guess i'll have to agree with you. radeon somewhat gives better quality graphics than geforce (after reading some reviews). i think radeon is a very good card and planning to get the 7500.
thanks for the great opinions...

[fivefeet8]

Yeah.. but the RAdeon's FSAA performance hit with FSAA is a lot more than the Geforce3's.. But in psx emulation, ani filtering makes no difference... And only good FSAA will be noticeable..

Here is a shot with my voodoo 5.. 4xFSAA.. BOF4..

[fivefeet8]

Originally posted by JAZ
Heres 4xFsaa on my Radeon I think you'll see the edges are more jaggedy than sxamiga's G4 but the screen is a lot less blurry..

That's because Sx is using screen smoothing which blurs things somewhat.. But Sx likes it that way.. I think it looks good too in certain situations..

Hmmm, depends. On most screenshots I would agree that the ATI seems to have superior quality. But what actually matters is when you're playing the game - nobody is going to notice that Q3 image when they're running around trying to frag someone else.

And you shouldn't be comparing the 8500 to the GF3, more like the GF4 (on price). In that case you can easily turn on 4 or 8-tap ansi with no probs, and then I think things are different...

As for me, since I got my GF4 I turned on quincunx aa and just forgot about it. With my GF2 Pro I'd have to turn off aa for some games (e.g. UT) because it would cause major slowdowns in places.

[JAZ]

Hmmm, depends. On most screenshots I would agree that the ATI seems to have superior quality. But what actually matters is when you're playing the game - nobody is going to notice that Q3 image when they're running around trying to frag someone else.

Well that sounds like your saying your not bothered by the quality when your playing games which seems a bit silly to me as Im sure you could notice it whilst playing.

And you shouldn't be comparing the 8500 to the GF3, more like the GF4 (on price).

Come'on the 8500 is cheaper than both of those geforces unless Im very much mistaken..

I'd still like a G4 myself though
But I wouldnt say no to a 8500 either

Originally posted by JAZ
Well that sounds like your saying your not bothered by the quality when your playing games which seems a bit silly to me as Im sure you could notice it whilst playing.

No, what I'm saying is that you don't notice minor graphic details in a game like Q3 while you're concentrating on fragging people. In other games where you get the time to 'admire the scenery' things are different. In a FPS consistent performance is the main thing.

Come'on the 8500 is cheaper than both of those geforces unless Im very much mistaken..

Cheaper than a Ti4200?

[jyang_99]

does it make a difference when you use softdrivers to play 2D games?

[Demigod]

Originally posted by charlesg
No, what I'm saying is that you don't notice minor graphic details in a game like Q3 while you're concentrating on fragging people. In other games where you get the time to 'admire the scenery' things are different. In a FPS consistent performance is the main thing.

Well, that was the same argument some people made when FSAA came out, that you can't notice jaggies when playing games like UT and Q3A. I used to hold this belief but lately I've found this to be false. I think a large part of the enjoyment of a game (even a FPS) comes from the quality of the graphics. When you're trying to snipe someone at a distance with a railgun sharper graphics really help. Still, I guess it's up to the preference of the person. Some people don't mind blurred graphics while others can't stand it.

I think the ultimate flaw of the Radeon is its supersample FSAA. It has a pretty big performance hit, although its 2x Quality FSAA is almost the same quality as Nvidia's 4xFSAA. However, it's graphics quality is unsurpassed. Its anisotropic filtering is much faster than Nvidia's (it uses a special technique to save memory bandwidth) so you can easily enable 16 tap ani filtering and it will have less than 10% performance hit. The R200 is kinda outdated though, since the GeForce 4 is out. Still, the quality of the GF4 is more or less that of the GF3. It's FSAA is still not as good as the Voodoo 5.

[Demigod]

Originally posted by jyang_99
does it make a difference when you use softdrivers to play 2D games?

No, it shouldn't matter when playing 2D games or using a software driver.