candle_86 wrote:yea but Radeon R300 and R400 based GPU's dont support angel independent AF
I don't think any card supports angel-independent AF (sorry I couldn't resist). 😊
True "angle-independent AF" didn't come about until later than any of the cards mentioned here (GeForce 8 and Radeon HD 5000 and up if you want to get picky; Radeon HD 2000-4000 are "good enough" though imho, and the X1000 series can get close enough via control panel options). Basically none of this is relevant for Windows 9x though.
brostenen wrote:Ohh my... This escalated pretty quickly. :-D :-D
I just wanted to know if I can get more muscle-power out of an GF4-TI4200 compa […]
Show full quote
Ohh my... This escalated pretty quickly. 😁 😁
I just wanted to know if I can get more muscle-power out of an GF4-TI4200 compared to my Radeon9600 on Win98SE. 😉
EDIT:
All I want to do, is to mount the card. Install the drivers and go gaming. What the choose, what to choose?
I do not want any FX5XXX line of cards. My FX5200 just don't run NFS-Porche-2K without any tweaking.
And tweaking is what I really don't want to do just to get one single game running.
If you already have it working with the Radeon 9600 then what's the problem? Or did I miss something earlier?
I agree with stermy - under 9x I'd rather have an nVidia card (be it GF2, 3, 4, FX) as the ATi drivers for 9x leave out some features that you would otherwise have in 2k/XP/Vista. I'm not at all familiar with NFS, so I've got no idea what is or isn't happening with the FX card there.
Stermy - I've done a few Intel IGPs too:
Intel GMA 950 on 965G
Intel HD3000 (iGPU from Core i5-2467M)
SPBHM wrote:
I think the 5850 result from the ones I posted is the closest to ideal, the other shapes are are a result of angle dependent optimization, so I guess the geforce 6 and 9500 PRO are trying to do it (performance optimizations) in similar ways, although I think the 6150 is better because it's a lot smoother
Technically yes the 5850 is ideal, but from in-game image comparisons the "square" that Radeon HD 2000-4000 will put up looks close enough that you probably won't notice without a microscope.
Examples from TechReport are here: https://techreport.com/review/12458/amd-radeo … ics-processor/5
To rip a few images for those who won't click:
D3DAF Tester:
HD 2900XT:
8800GTX:
X1950XTX:
In-game:
X1950XT "flat" (the other two will look basically the same)
X1950XT "angled"
HD 2900XT "angled"
8800GTX "angled"
The 2900XT is technically inferior to the 8800GTX as measured, but in practice they are both significant improvements over the X1950 and other older cards. GeForce 6/7 will/should behave more similarly to the X1950 in its "default" mode, cheating issues aside (see below link).
Also worth noting, the 2900XT's AF mode is nearly identical to the "high quality" (e.g. "control panel tweaks") on the X1950; I do not recall if the X850 offers the same mode with the latest drivers or not.
TechReport also has a comparison with 9800XT, X800, 6800 Ultra (with and without cheats), and FX 5950: https://techreport.com/review/6672/ati-radeon … s-processors/17 (all in-game with colored miplevels).