Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Image Quality Comparison: Radeon Gallium3D vs. Catalyst

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

  • Image Quality Comparison: Radeon Gallium3D vs. Catalyst

    Phoronix: Image Quality Comparison: Radeon Gallium3D vs. Catalyst

    Coming up in the next few days will be benchmarks of Mesa 8.0 with Morphological Anti-Aliasing (a.k.a. MLAA) plus some other imaging-oriented work/announcements to come in the near future. With that said, this weekend prior to leaving for Munich I ran some tests of the Radeon Gallium3D and Catalyst drivers when comparing the image quality...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTA1NzI

  • #2
    I like the FOSS enemy more.

    Comment


    • #3
      on the purple bot (the second image) there is a redish cloud around the belly and the feet on the radeon driver, which doesnt appear on the catalyst. what is that? a bug, a feature?
      and why is the crack on the floor on the first picture different when using the r300g driver?

      a propos image quality
      is there any news about S3TC and its alternative S2TC? would it be useful to have a performance comparison between them? IIRC S2TC was faster, but of lower quality.
      -S3TC
      -S2TC
      -no compression
      how about the legal side? maybe a short statement on ACTA?

      will there be a quality difference with finished HiZ support?

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm afraid there's also some apparent differences caused by using JPG images - the images in the article are all JPG.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by AlbertP View Post
          I'm afraid there's also some apparent differences caused by using JPG images - the images in the article are all JPG.
          Indeed -- normally you are only showing some glaring visual issues, and jpg is enough, but please consider using png when you are comparing different renders.

          Comment


          • #6
            in my point of view the catalyst is just broken!

            they only get more fps speed by hurting the image quality.

            Comment


            • #7
              Its hard to say which one looks better because they both have good and bad aspects to my eyes at least

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by acrazyplayer View Post
                Its hard to say which one looks better because they both have good and bad aspects to my eyes at least
                are you kidding? the catalyst only do have wrong colors on the "warrior" picture.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                  are you kidding? the catalyst only do have wrong colors on the "warrior" picture.
                  How do you know which one is "correct"? I use the open-source driver, but the Catalyst one looks better to me.. (not that you would ever admit that).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I personally tend to agree with Q on this one. Catalyst tends to be faster because it uses shortcuts, lots of shortcuts. It used to be even worse. I mean, back in the day, you could see glaring graphical differences between say ATI and Nvidia cards.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by DanL View Post
                      How do you know which one is "correct"?
                      reverence software renderer!

                      Originally posted by DanL View Post
                      I use the open-source driver, but the Catalyst one looks better to me.. (not that you would ever admit that).
                      the question is not what "looks better" the question is : what is the reverence !

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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...

                        As for using software renderer as a reference... If my experience has taught me something, is that software renderers take a lot more shortcuts than accelerated ones, in order to overcome the fact that they are a lot slower. The software renderer of Unreal couldn't do basic things like transparency and pixel smoothing...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I think they are talking about using the same OpenGL renderer, but running through a software OpenGL implementation in the driver (swrast or softpipe).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I once tried to run MS Train Simulator in Wine while my graphics driver wasn't working. The screen was full of artifacts, the grass was black for example. With the nvidia binary driver the same game worked well. swrast is clearly not a good reference. Perhaps llvmpipe is better?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by LinuxID10T View Post
                              I personally tend to agree with Q on this one. Catalyst tends to be faster because it uses shortcuts, lots of shortcuts. It used to be even worse. I mean, back in the day, you could see glaring graphical differences between say ATI and Nvidia cards.
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X