Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Image Quality Comparison: Radeon Gallium3D vs. Catalyst

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
    Indeed, difference being that Nvidia was the one with awful driver "optimizations", like downgrading shader precision to 16 bits in order to improve their atrocious 3d Mark and Half Life 2 performance. Ati was using 24 bits throughout, with better image quality and better performance to boot.

    It was only with the Geforce 8 series that Nvidia caught up (and surpassed) Ati in rendering quality, mainly because DX10 had very strict IQ guidelines for conformance. Even so, Ati still has the edge in analogue (VGA) signal quality. Imagine my surprise when my half-a-decade old X1650Pro produced a cleaner picture than my brand new 9600GT (and 8600 and 7800 before that). I thought it was my monitor, but put the old card in and presto! a crystal clear image.
    hey I'm really sick of these driver "optimizations" cutting down the quality

    i want 100% reference software rendering quality with RS-SSAA and the maximum AF quality.

    i don't want shit on my screen.

    because of this i love the opensource drivers because they don't put shit on my screen.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
      Hmm, to me it seems that fglrx doesn't render reflected bloom. It makes things sharper, but that's probably not what was supposed to happen...
      I think what's *actually* going here is that both r300g and r600g are rendering the bloom in the wrong place in the "Enemy" scene. It's been shunted down quite a lot, and possibly left a bit, compared to where it's supposed to be. This explains the odd pink glow on the floor, the dim wall pattern overlaid on top of the enemy, and the white glow to the side of the weapon muzzle: none of these are present in the Catalyst rendering, but the areas which *should* be bright are noticeably brighter.

      IMHO, this isn't a difference in image quality, it's just a bug in the open-source drivers. Or - possibly, but less likely - a bug in Nexuiz which does not manifest itself when using Catalyst due to differences in driver code.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by mangobrain View Post
        I think what's *actually* going here is that both r300g and r600g are rendering the bloom in the wrong place in the "Enemy" scene. It's been shunted down quite a lot, and possibly left a bit, compared to where it's supposed to be. This explains the odd pink glow on the floor, the dim wall pattern overlaid on top of the enemy, and the white glow to the side of the weapon muzzle: none of these are present in the Catalyst rendering, but the areas which *should* be bright are noticeably brighter.

        IMHO, this isn't a difference in image quality, it's just a bug in the open-source drivers. Or - possibly, but less likely - a bug in Nexuiz which does not manifest itself when using Catalyst due to differences in driver code.
        ati+nvidia have a long history in cheating by closed source driver tricks.
        back in the time Quake3 comes out ati cheats 400% of speed by turning the quality to ZERO.
        nothing new here nothing special but i don't believe the open source drivers "Cheat"
        and i don't believe in magic bugs in opensource software opensource software tent to be bug free compared to the complete hopeless bugged closed source software.

        there are scientific studies about bugs in open vs closed software and all studies say the same: open software do have less bugs.

        there are not 1 single study with the result that closed software is more bugfree than open software.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
          and i don't believe in magic bugs in opensource software opensource software tent to be bug free compared to the complete hopeless bugged closed source software.

          there are scientific studies about bugs in open vs closed software and all studies say the same: open software do have less bugs.

          there are not 1 single study with the result that closed software is more bugfree than open software.
          What, you think I'm trolling, or somehow implying that closed-source software is better? Oh, teh lulz

          I'm just pointing out that, in this specific scene, with these specific drivers, there appears to be a rendering issue. I'm not saying the closed-source drivers are perfect, or ever have been; all graphics card vendors have had major driver issues, and will continue to do so, purely due to the complexity of the drivers themselves, the complexity of the hardware, and the complexity of applications running on top of the drivers. However, the open-source drivers aren't perfect yet. I hope that one day they will be, but at the moment, they're not.

          Also, hinting that Nexuiz might possibly have a bug doesn't mean I'm saying it's crap. I'm a programmer by profession, I deal with a lot of bugs in code both I and others have written, day after day.

          To prove that I'm not in anyway biased against the drivers, here's a snippet of output from glxinfo on my box, which I ran just now, especially for you:

          OpenGL renderer string: Gallium 0.4 on AMD CAYMAN
          OpenGL version string: 2.1 Mesa 8.0

          See that? Yup, I'm using r600g as I type this.

          Comment


          • #20
            PNG instead of JPEG!

            I get upset every time I see this.
            IMO, anyone writing an article about image quality and presents the data (i.e images) using lossy compression (that had nothing to do with the comparison) just makes themselves look silly as it distorts the data.
            I have unfortunately seen this on other tech sites as well.
            *sigh*

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Azmo View Post
              I get upset every time I see this.
              IMO, anyone writing an article about image quality and presents the data (i.e images) using lossy compression (that had nothing to do with the comparison) just makes themselves look silly as it distorts the data.
              I have unfortunately seen this on other tech sites as well.
              *sigh*
              Ironic: he only use jpeg because its opensource and png is bad closed source software!

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                Ironic: he only use jpeg because its opensource and png is bad closed source software!
                lolwhut? http://www.libpng.org/

                Seriously, that's not even trolling, that's just ignorance.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by mangobrain View Post
                  lolwhut? http://www.libpng.org/

                  Seriously, that's not even trolling, that's just ignorance.
                  Now expect a five page rambling, meandering, and poorly punctuated reply. Just look what you've done.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by mangobrain View Post
                    lolwhut? http://www.libpng.org/

                    Seriously, that's not even trolling, that's just ignorance.
                    LOL you don't read the "Ironic" word LOL ...

                    YOU FAIL!!...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      if you look closely you can see that this blur has the shape of the head and shoulders with these red lights on the helmet.
                      considering the discussion about webgl some time ago...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by mangobrain View Post
                        I think what's *actually* going here is that both r300g and r600g are rendering the bloom in the wrong place in the "Enemy" scene. It's been shunted down quite a lot, and possibly left a bit, compared to where it's supposed to be. This explains the odd pink glow on the floor, the dim wall pattern overlaid on top of the enemy, and the white glow to the side of the weapon muzzle: none of these are present in the Catalyst rendering, but the areas which *should* be bright are noticeably brighter.

                        IMHO, this isn't a difference in image quality, it's just a bug in the open-source drivers. Or - possibly, but less likely - a bug in Nexuiz which does not manifest itself when using Catalyst due to differences in driver code.
                        What we need is a driver which passes all conformance tests. The only thing we can say right now is that no driver renders things correctly. If Nexuiz is following the standard is probably impossible to say right now.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Silverthorn View Post
                          What we need is a driver which passes all conformance tests. The only thing we can say right now is that no driver renders things correctly. If Nexuiz is following the standard is probably impossible to say right now.
                          really? why it is so hart to pass all tests ?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                            LOL you don't read the "Ironic" word LOL ...

                            YOU FAIL!!...
                            It might possibly have been a teensy bit ironic had your statement actually been true, but calling something ironic doesn't magically make it ironic. You're currently failing harder than Michael did when he used lossy compression in the first place. It's like those shops that put up notices in the window titled "POLITE NOTICE". You don't get to tell me it's polite up front, I have to read it and decide whether or not it's polite. Otherwise you might just as well put "POLITE NOTICE: F**K YOU!".

                            Face it, Q, your posts have been rapidly going downhill of late.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                              really? why it is so hart to pass all tests ?
                              Why don't you go and write your magical, bug-free driver then come back and tell us how hard it was? Have you ever actually *written* any code?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                                really? why it is so hart to pass all tests ?
                                The standard is so large, many tests don't even have a full definition of what it is to be correct. Lots of corner cases don't get fully defined, just like in the HTML standards.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X