Image Quality of various old video cards (Quake 3 comparison)

Discussion about old graphics cards, monitors and video related things.

Re: Image Quality of various old video cards (Quake 3 comparison)

Postby havli » 2017-7-23 @ 07:59

Am I the only one who can't see any significant difference in those two screenshots? Yes the GF3 and R9800 are slightly different... but which is better, thats just guessing to me. I don't think is is possible to tell the difference in regular gaming.

There is a huge difference in AF quality between various GPU generations which is easy to see. For example AF on R100/200 and NV1x is so ugly it is pretty much useless. NV2x/3x/R500 on the other hand looks great, while NV4x/G7x/R300 is not so good. And GF8 up to Pascal is superior to anything in AF quality.
But again, this thread compares only bilinear/trilinear at best (whis is pointless to use on R9800 or GF3) and on top of that on super closeup screenshot of blury texture of resoution 256x256 at best. So in short this hardly can make a difference in actual gaming.
HW museum.cz - my collection of PC hardware
User avatar
havli
Oldbie
 
Posts: 608
Joined: 2014-11-07 @ 16:51
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Image Quality of various old video cards (Quake 3 comparison)

Postby The Serpent Rider » 2017-7-23 @ 12:49

this thread compares only bilinear/trilinear at best

This thread does not compare mipmap filtering.
User avatar
The Serpent Rider
Member
 
Posts: 335
Joined: 2017-3-25 @ 19:07
Location: Stagnant Demesne

Re: Image Quality of various old video cards (Quake 3 comparison)

Postby Reputator » 2017-7-23 @ 15:54

havli wrote:Am I the only one who can't see any significant difference in those two screenshots? Yes the GF3 and R9800 are slightly different... but which is better, thats just guessing to me. I don't think is is possible to tell the difference in regular gaming.


Yeah it's a fairly moot point. We're talking different patterns of banding, though all cards exhibit banding with the example textures being shown. If you have to apply a filter to the screenshot to really tell the difference, it probably doesn't matter in-game.
User avatar
Reputator
Member
 
Posts: 115
Joined: 2016-10-12 @ 00:46

Re: Image Quality of various old video cards (Quake 3 comparison)

Postby The Serpent Rider » 2017-7-23 @ 17:13

It's crystal clear when you look at the sky in Q3.

Also on various lightmaps in many games:
UT Software.png
Software render for reference



UT GeForce 3.png
GeForce 3



UT GeForce 8800.png
GeForce 8800



UT Voodoo 2.png
Voodoo 2 (captured via Hypersnap)
User avatar
The Serpent Rider
Member
 
Posts: 335
Joined: 2017-3-25 @ 19:07
Location: Stagnant Demesne

Re: Image Quality of various old video cards (Quake 3 comparison)

Postby havli » 2017-7-23 @ 18:57

Crystal clear? I dont think so, these UT screenshots are all so ugly it hurts my eyes. It doesn't really matter which one is the best/worst. Also I don't remember UT looking this bad on any GPU (except maybe 16-bit dithering on TNT/TNT2... but thats a different issue).
HW museum.cz - my collection of PC hardware
User avatar
havli
Oldbie
 
Posts: 608
Joined: 2014-11-07 @ 16:51
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Image Quality of various old video cards (Quake 3 comparison)

Postby appiah4 » 2017-7-23 @ 19:00

If you cant see the difference above you may as well be blind.
A500:Rev6|512K+RTC|ACA500+|HxC/df1|C1084S
1994:PCI597-1|P133|32MB|Trio64|ES1868/S2
1997:S1573S|K6-2/400|64MB|M220|V2-SLI|CT4500/32M
2000:GA-BX2000|P3-700E|256MB|GF2GTS|MX300
DELL:GX110LP|PIII1000|512MB|G450|ES1938S/X3M
User avatar
appiah4
Oldbie
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: 2017-2-19 @ 07:36

Re: Image Quality of various old video cards (Quake 3 comparison)

Postby havli » 2017-7-23 @ 19:31

I see it, of course. But it must be some kind of weird settings used because UT usually doesn't look this terrible. The point is - I consider image quality of all four screenshots to be well bellow my level of acceptance.... and in that case I no longer care about the difference because even the best quality is useless for me.

The good way of comparing image quality for me is: decent resolution, maximum details, AA and AF that GPU in question still can run at acceptable fps... and of course screenshots taken from normal gameplay and pixep-pixel accurate position if possible. Pretty much all the Q3A screenshots comparison here looks way too "academic" with mostly zero impact on gameplay.
For example this is my way of doing image quality comparison:
https://abload.de/img/hl2_2017_01_23_21_49_hgzxq.png
https://abload.de/img/hl2_2017_01_23_21_48_chb9x.png
HW museum.cz - my collection of PC hardware
User avatar
havli
Oldbie
 
Posts: 608
Joined: 2014-11-07 @ 16:51
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Image Quality of various old video cards (Quake 3 comparison)

Postby kithylin » 2017-7-23 @ 20:37

havli wrote:I see it, of course. But it must be some kind of weird settings used because UT usually doesn't look this terrible. The point is - I consider image quality of all four screenshots to be well bellow my level of acceptance.... and in that case I no longer care about the difference because even the best quality is useless for me.

The good way of comparing image quality for me is: decent resolution, maximum details, AA and AF that GPU in question still can run at acceptable fps... and of course screenshots taken from normal gameplay and pixep-pixel accurate position if possible. Pretty much all the Q3A screenshots comparison here looks way too "academic" with mostly zero impact on gameplay.
For example this is my way of doing image quality comparison:
https://abload.de/img/hl2_2017_01_23_21_49_hgzxq.png
https://abload.de/img/hl2_2017_01_23_21_48_chb9x.png


I second this motion.. I wouldn't consider any screenshots to be useful unless they're taken at maximum anti-aliasing & AF possible while still maintaining good frame rates. And from general gameplay areas folks would commonly see while running around.. preferably a large "open area" section.. not some random hallway of darkness.

Regardless of image quality.. I'm one of those folks of that I usually won't even bother playing a game at all unless I can run it at maximum settings (all settings, including AA & AF).
User avatar
kithylin
l33t
 
Posts: 2157
Joined: 2011-4-19 @ 01:32
Location: Arlington, Texas

Re: Image Quality of various old video cards (Quake 3 comparison)

Postby The Serpent Rider » 2017-7-23 @ 20:53

But it must be some kind of weird settings used because UT usually

UT usually looks like this +/- your gamma settings. Square lightmaps of GeForce 3 screenshot is inherent problem of all old Nvidia cards, you can't fix it by any means.
User avatar
The Serpent Rider
Member
 
Posts: 335
Joined: 2017-3-25 @ 19:07
Location: Stagnant Demesne

Re: Image Quality of various old video cards (Quake 3 comparison)

Postby firage » 2017-7-23 @ 21:18

So, it turns out the GeForces optimized for texturing performance over quality more than the other two outfits. An interesting find. Could be the decider in some scenario, but not likely for my own setups. 3dfx's performance is stuck in the first half of the year 2000, and ATI's stuff doesn't have quite the level of backward compatibility that GeForce2 and GF4MX, or even the next couple of generations, offer.
User avatar
firage
Oldbie
 
Posts: 883
Joined: 2013-1-06 @ 21:43
Location: Finland

Re: Image Quality of various old video cards (Quake 3 comparison)

Postby appiah4 » 2017-7-24 @ 04:51

firage wrote:So, it turns out the GeForces optimized for texturing performance over quality more than the other two outfits. An interesting find. Could be the decider in some scenario, but not likely for my own setups. 3dfx's performance is stuck in the first half of the year 2000, and ATI's stuff doesn't have quite the level of backward compatibility that GeForce2 and GF4MX, or even the next couple of generations, offer.


ATi BC is fine for me the 8500 is my goto card for anything dX8- and its iq is much better than gf4-
A500:Rev6|512K+RTC|ACA500+|HxC/df1|C1084S
1994:PCI597-1|P133|32MB|Trio64|ES1868/S2
1997:S1573S|K6-2/400|64MB|M220|V2-SLI|CT4500/32M
2000:GA-BX2000|P3-700E|256MB|GF2GTS|MX300
DELL:GX110LP|PIII1000|512MB|G450|ES1938S/X3M
User avatar
appiah4
Oldbie
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: 2017-2-19 @ 07:36

Re: Image Quality of various old video cards (Quake 3 comparison)

Postby Putas » 2017-7-24 @ 09:00

havli wrote:For example AF on R100/200 and NV1x is so ugly it is pretty much useless.


And I claim for the generation of R200 anything without AF is useless loss of quality.
User avatar
Putas
Oldbie
 
Posts: 721
Joined: 2010-11-21 @ 06:58
Location: q3dm6

Re: Image Quality of various old video cards (Quake 3 comparison)

Postby appiah4 » 2017-7-24 @ 09:16

Putas wrote:
havli wrote:For example AF on R100/200 and NV1x is so ugly it is pretty much useless.


And I claim for the generation of R200 anything without AF is useless loss of quality.


R200 AF was great. No idea what he means probably he never owned an R200 card. A lot of fuss was made at the time about AF and trilinear not being possible together buy ultimately it made little difference.
A500:Rev6|512K+RTC|ACA500+|HxC/df1|C1084S
1994:PCI597-1|P133|32MB|Trio64|ES1868/S2
1997:S1573S|K6-2/400|64MB|M220|V2-SLI|CT4500/32M
2000:GA-BX2000|P3-700E|256MB|GF2GTS|MX300
DELL:GX110LP|PIII1000|512MB|G450|ES1938S/X3M
User avatar
appiah4
Oldbie
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: 2017-2-19 @ 07:36

Re: Image Quality of various old video cards (Quake 3 comparison)

Postby havli » 2017-7-24 @ 12:38

Are we even living on the same planet? :lol: AF on the R2xx is extremely angle dependent and on top of that it produces rather extreme shimmering. It may look "ok" on static screenshot but not in movement... which is the case of the actual gameplay. Yes, it is fast, while NV20 AF is very slow, but the quality difference is huge. As for the never owned R200... yeah, try that on someone else. I have pretty much everything starting with Voodoo Graphics all the way up to current gen GPUs. Including R200 (more than one card), it is not that rare. http://hw-museum.cz/vga/vga-list?category=3D

I don't have anything better at hand currently, but AF tester should prove my point.

R100 http://imgur.com/dGawtOE
R200 http://imgur.com/dk4k5Y8
R300 http://imgur.com/fJU2FB5
R500 HQ http://imgur.com/UIRkKMt
R600 http://imgur.com/v38VR8D
HD 5000 http://imgur.com/4oImvyl
HD 6000 http://imgur.com/RuUYiBj
CGN http://imgur.com/c24yQ2D

NV10 http://imgur.com/9tqSCQD
NV20 http://imgur.com/t8dIPIv
NV30 HQ http://imgur.com/vInAcD6
NV40 HQ http://imgur.com/epYliBe
G80+ HQ http://imgur.com/btn2YCa
HW museum.cz - my collection of PC hardware
User avatar
havli
Oldbie
 
Posts: 608
Joined: 2014-11-07 @ 16:51
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Image Quality of various old video cards (Quake 3 comparison)

Postby silikone » 2017-7-25 @ 01:28

Why is it that the pre-GPUs have better filtering, and why was it this bad for so many years?
Do not refrain from refusing to stop hindering yourself from the opposite of watching nothing other than that which is by no means porn.
User avatar
silikone
Member
 
Posts: 199
Joined: 2012-3-21 @ 19:53

Re: Image Quality of various old video cards (Quake 3 comparison)

Postby The Serpent Rider » 2017-7-25 @ 03:35

"Optimisations" probably. Quite effective since nobody really cared or noticed all this years. Well, at least for Radeon cards. Kinda funny in retrospective, if you remember that much older cards like original Rage 128 were blamed for horrible linear filtering. I won't be surprised if Radeon filtering optimisations were actually borrowed from Rage 128 Pro.

Meanwhile there are still a lot of cards to test if anyone interested.
User avatar
The Serpent Rider
Member
 
Posts: 335
Joined: 2017-3-25 @ 19:07
Location: Stagnant Demesne

Re: Image Quality of various old video cards (Quake 3 comparison)

Postby Putas » 2017-7-25 @ 11:01

havli wrote:AF on the R2xx is extremely angle dependent and on top of that it produces rather extreme shimmering. It may look "ok" on static screenshot but not in movement... which is the case of the actual gameplay.


If the shimmering was so bad that people disabled AF, than ... their perception of image is different than mine. Possible, though I doubt their numbers were significant.
User avatar
Putas
Oldbie
 
Posts: 721
Joined: 2010-11-21 @ 06:58
Location: q3dm6

Re: Image Quality of various old video cards (Quake 3 comparison)

Postby silikone » 2017-7-25 @ 21:21

The Serpent Rider wrote:Meanwhile there are still a lot of cards to test if anyone interested.


The compression sucks, but some interesting comparisons were done professionally back in the day.

Image

https://www.hardocp.com/article/2004/07 ... re_guide/4
Do not refrain from refusing to stop hindering yourself from the opposite of watching nothing other than that which is by no means porn.
User avatar
silikone
Member
 
Posts: 199
Joined: 2012-3-21 @ 19:53

Re: Image Quality of various old video cards (Quake 3 comparison)

Postby appiah4 » 2017-7-25 @ 21:41

Calling Kyle Bennett a professional would be stretching things quite a bit.
A500:Rev6|512K+RTC|ACA500+|HxC/df1|C1084S
1994:PCI597-1|P133|32MB|Trio64|ES1868/S2
1997:S1573S|K6-2/400|64MB|M220|V2-SLI|CT4500/32M
2000:GA-BX2000|P3-700E|256MB|GF2GTS|MX300
DELL:GX110LP|PIII1000|512MB|G450|ES1938S/X3M
User avatar
appiah4
Oldbie
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: 2017-2-19 @ 07:36

Re: Image Quality of various old video cards (Quake 3 comparison)

Postby F2bnp » 2017-7-25 @ 21:52

appiah4 wrote:Calling Kyle Bennett a professional would be stretching things quite a bit.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Shots fired!
User avatar
F2bnp
l33t
 
Posts: 3232
Joined: 2007-9-23 @ 10:19

PreviousNext

Return to Video

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests