I'm drooling!
Dean
>http://www.racesimcentral.net/
>nVidia said "FSAA has worth only with low resolution like 640x480".
>HAHAHA, what a joke! This 1600x1200 shots with FSAA are clearly superior.
=)
> I cannot wait to get the board!
>Y.Minami
If you look at the stats at the bottom of the page, you can see that GPL
takes a HUGE hit by running at 4x FSAA. Although at 2x FSAA it's still
running at 35fps. Obviously the numbers need to be confirmed, but things
look good. You're right though, at 4x FSAA the game will be a slide show.
You could say that GPL will then be running in F1 2000 mode. :)
-Andrew
http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/hardware/features/voodoo5/index4.shtml
nVidia said "FSAA has worth only with low resolution like 640x480".
HAHAHA, what a joke! This 1600x1200 shots with FSAA are clearly superior. =)
I cannot wait to get the board!
Y.Minami
--David Cook
wrote...
I can't wait!
Ivan
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
SLG
>Agreed - I've been anxiously waiting this card for months and months, and
>I'm pretty disappointed. They made such a big deal about FSAA (and
>appearance-wise, it *is* worth making a big deal about). Unfortunately,
>it appears it (in the yummy 4x mode) won't even be usable at a relatively
>low res (800x600), let alone the 1024x768 that you'd *want*.
>Hopefully there are driver issues to be sorted out still, since the GPL
>indicate that the 800x600 mode is not (memory) bandwidth limited.
>Doing some quick calcs:
> 1600x1200 x 14fps -> 26.8Mpix/s (4x AA)
> 1024x 768 x 21fps -> 16.5Mpix/s (4x AA)
> 800 x 600 x 24fps -> 11.5Mpix/s (4x AA)
>Based on the numbers above, it would appear that, if the 1600x1200 test
>was bandwidth limited, then there should be plenty of room to improve the
>lower res figures with driver improvments, or something.
>(And it doesn't appear that 1600x1200 4xFSAA is even bandwidth limited -
>it's hard to explain why in 4x mode they got 14FPS, yet in 2x mode they
>got 36FPS. *Whatever* is slowing it down (bandwidth or rendering engine)
>in 4x mode should slow it down half as much (ie, 28fps) in 2x mode.)
>Of course, for us GPL-heads, the fact remains that no matter what happens
>with this card, the various 5500 previews have shown that it's at least
>as fast as a current GeForce 256 with FSAA turned off; making it a viable
>upgrade to a V2 or V3. To wit, it'll run everything as well as the
>current Nvidia hardware, *may* be able to run some stuff usefully with
>FSAA turned on (so it'll look better), and (most importantly) will run
>GPL with full-speed mirrors! :)
>So I'm somewhat disappointed, but it'll still be my next video card.
>--John Bradley
> Did you see the test machine stats? Xeon P3 500, 2MG cache! Talk about
> overkill! I wonder how much this plays into the descent FPS with FSAA
> on?
> SLG
> >> If you look at the stats at the bottom of the page, you can see that GPL
> >> takes a HUGE hit by running at 4x FSAA. Although at 2x FSAA it's still
> >> running at 35fps. Obviously the numbers need to be confirmed, but things
> >> look good. You're right though, at 4x FSAA the game will be a slide show.
> >> You could say that GPL will then be running in F1 2000 mode. :)
> >Agreed - I've been anxiously waiting this card for months and months, and
> >I'm pretty disappointed. They made such a big deal about FSAA (and
> >appearance-wise, it *is* worth making a big deal about). Unfortunately,
> >it appears it (in the yummy 4x mode) won't even be usable at a relatively
> >low res (800x600), let alone the 1024x768 that you'd *want*.
> >Hopefully there are driver issues to be sorted out still, since the GPL
> >indicate that the 800x600 mode is not (memory) bandwidth limited.
> >Doing some quick calcs:
> > 1600x1200 x 14fps -> 26.8Mpix/s (4x AA)
> > 1024x 768 x 21fps -> 16.5Mpix/s (4x AA)
> > 800 x 600 x 24fps -> 11.5Mpix/s (4x AA)
> >Based on the numbers above, it would appear that, if the 1600x1200 test
> >was bandwidth limited, then there should be plenty of room to improve the
> >lower res figures with driver improvments, or something.
> >(And it doesn't appear that 1600x1200 4xFSAA is even bandwidth limited -
> >it's hard to explain why in 4x mode they got 14FPS, yet in 2x mode they
> >got 36FPS. *Whatever* is slowing it down (bandwidth or rendering engine)
> >in 4x mode should slow it down half as much (ie, 28fps) in 2x mode.)
> >Of course, for us GPL-heads, the fact remains that no matter what happens
> >with this card, the various 5500 previews have shown that it's at least
> >as fast as a current GeForce 256 with FSAA turned off; making it a viable
> >upgrade to a V2 or V3. To wit, it'll run everything as well as the
> >current Nvidia hardware, *may* be able to run some stuff usefully with
> >FSAA turned on (so it'll look better), and (most importantly) will run
> >GPL with full-speed mirrors! :)
> >So I'm somewhat disappointed, but it'll still be my next video card.
> >--John Bradley
> (All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new
> and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are
> due to too many English classes/teachers)
PS I DO see some difference, but it's not revolutionary enough for me
to buy a new card...
Andre
On Tue, 2 May 2000 06:33:33 +0900, "Yoshi Minami"
>http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/hardware/features/voodoo5/index4.shtml
>nVidia said "FSAA has worth only with low resolution like 640x480".
>HAHAHA, what a joke! This 1600x1200 shots with FSAA are clearly superior. =)
> I cannot wait to get the board!
>Y.Minami
> PS I DO see some difference, but it's not revolutionary enough for me
> to buy a new card...
> Andre
> On Tue, 2 May 2000 06:33:33 +0900, "Yoshi Minami"
> >Look at this. What a great with FSAA!
> >http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/hardware/features/voodoo5/index4.shtml
> >nVidia said "FSAA has worth only with low resolution like 640x480".
> >HAHAHA, what a joke! This 1600x1200 shots with FSAA are clearly superior.
=)
> > I cannot wait to get the board!
> >Y.Minami
>--David Cook
>wrote...
>> Look at this. What a great with FSAA!
>> http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/hardware/features/voodoo5/index4.shtml
>> nVidia said "FSAA has worth only with low resolution like 640x480".
>> HAHAHA, what a joke! This 1600x1200 shots with FSAA are clearly superior. =)
>> I cannot wait to get the board!
>> Y.Minami
John Nelson
> >Don't mean to be negative - but at 1600x1200 with FSAAX4 in GPL with a Voodoo5
> >5500 I bet you get about 5fps. That's probably why NVidia says that FSAA only
> >has worth at lower resolutions...
> >--David Cook
> >wrote...
> >> Look at this. What a great with FSAA!
> >> http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/hardware/features/voodoo5/index4.shtml
> >> nVidia said "FSAA has worth only with low resolution like 640x480".
> >> HAHAHA, what a joke! This 1600x1200 shots with FSAA are clearly superior. =)
> >> I cannot wait to get the board!
> >> Y.Minami
The screenshots are in .gif format. (256 colours?)
> John Nelson
I did an upgrade from a V2 to a V3 last week and can tell you that the shimmering
effects have almost diminished running at 1024x768 now. I really was amazed (posted
this earlier in this NG) how much difference this V3 upgrade made in my GPL-experience!
So it's certainly an option to do a minor videocard upgrade (to V3-3000 for example)
and wait for a while.
J.
|
J.H.Hovius.vcf < 1K Download |
Ignore the banding for now since those screen shots are 256 COLOR GIF
images. You might argue back that the non-FSAA has no banding
(although the dithering is there). I can counter that argument that
FSAA will mosty likely use more unique colors than the non-FSAA due
to the the anti-aliasing found along the edges. With more unique
colors, the program used to save the images probably couldn't quantize
to 8-bit very well, resulting in the banding seen in the sky.
GM
The release version of the V5 driver supports high-quality screen capture.
You will soon start seeing examples which show the true image quality to
expect.
skp
> : however I am slightly concerned by a new artifact: the sky seems banded in
> : the FSAA version of the screenshots.
> : best wishes
> : Tim
> Ignore the banding for now since those screen shots are 256 COLOR GIF
> images. You might argue back that the non-FSAA has no banding
> (although the dithering is there). I can counter that argument that
> FSAA will mosty likely use more unique colors than the non-FSAA due
> to the the anti-aliasing found along the edges. With more unique
> colors, the program used to save the images probably couldn't quantize
> to 8-bit very well, resulting in the banding seen in the sky.
> GM
|
skp.vcf < 1K Download |
