As I said I still get very good frame rates with BOTH FSAA and Anistropic 8x
on.
Some Call Me Tim
As I said I still get very good frame rates with BOTH FSAA and Anistropic 8x
on.
Some Call Me Tim
I'm just stating the strenghts of the GF4 compared to an R8500. If a GF4
4600 performs slower than an R8500 with aniso on then it's not such great
buy because the R8500 is alot less moola than the GF4.
That may well be true as the article is from February. I'm getting my
numbers from here
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q1/020206/geforce4-17.html#anis...
_performance
And the number in Q3 1024x768 32bit are:
R8500 8tap aniso = 188.7
GF4 4600 8tap aniso = 116.7
Is it possible for new drivers to improve by at least 72fps to equal the
R8500 score?
He goes on to say that because the framerate is so fast he couldn't comapare
the quality so the R8500 numbers may be suspect. But all he had to do was
take screen shots to compare the quality so I find his comment suspect and
think he is Nvidia biased.
He also says: Anisotropic filtering does enable a significantly better image
quality, but at the same time, it gobbles up a consinderable amount of
processing power.
Achim
...
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q1/020206/geforce4-17.html#anis...
Not to mention but I would dearly love to have that Matrox video quality
back. I remember using Millineum 2D cards several years ago and no one can
touch Matrox on visual clarity and text sharpness. Those folks really have
their act together in this area.
nVidia cards don't have great 2D. ATI is definetely better.
-Larry