|
|
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=11838 |  cainam (3) Aug 27, 2006 - 09:20 am » Edited on Aug 27, 2006 - 09:22 am
| looking past the obvious fact that this comparison is incomplete, this article has the tone of "conclusiveness" to it.
it is also misleading in statements such as:
"the optimizations (nvidia's) produce a sharper point of delineation where the card switches from low detail to high detail textures, creating clear steps of detail change relative to the smooth transition of ATI’s upcoming hardware."
which makes it sound as if one has to purchase ati's upcoming hardware to benefit from this, when in fact it applies to all ati 1k series hardware.
i'm quite disappointed in the overall lack of objectivity this article seems to reflect. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=11838 | cainam (3) Aug 23, 2006 - 01:46 am
| what really leaves me scratching my head is that HQAF is not used in an article regarding image quality. wth??
nvidia's texture filtering is horrid with regard to mipmap transistions, and if compared with ati's HQAF, it's also bland and fuzzy in comparison.
come on, FS, if you're going to compare image quality, let's not completely ignore a huge feature which improved IQ dramatically - even if it's only available from one manufacturer. Flag this | Edit this post |
|
|
|
|
