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

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Qaridarium
              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


              • #8
                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


                • #9
                  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


                  • #10
                    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

                    Working...
                    X