Graphics Beginners\' Guide, Part 1: Graphics Cards

[cleeve]

WHY on gods earth are you even bothering with games . . . because obviously, you're not enjoying it.

That's a bizarre conclusion. Where's your line of reasoning?

If I rode a bicycle alot and upgraded my shifters and gears to nicer ones, would you conclude that I don't enjoy bicycling?

That makes no sense. Obviously I enjoy gaming. As an entheusiast, I look for features and hardware that will enhance my experience, because I enjoy it so much.

You seem to dislike the idea of enhanced graphical options. Does that mean you stop enjoying games when AA & AF are enabled?

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Hadn't looked in here for a while (now the 3rd installment sends us back to this thread so saw and had missed this);

However, I must correct the article on the mention of HDR. While I'm glad to see that the writer recognized that OpenEXR was developed for movies, not games, it is not used by Oblivion, at least if the game's developers are to be believed;

Wow... Ill look into that.

Actually I think it's a question of terms, yes true it doesn't use "OpenEXR HDR", but it does use FP16 HDR similar to the format set forth by ILM in their OpenEXR standard.

Mention of this can be found in the description of how the chuck patch works;
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=5282&page=3

So it's really like saying Klennex or tissue, and likely for similar reasons of licensing, etc.

 

[twile]

Third article was a lot shorter than the other ones, but if there wasn't much left to cover then I guess it can't be helped. However, I did notice that it said 200% performance increase in reference to Crossfire and SLI not living up to the theoretical performance gains. I think what was meant is either "100% performance increase" or "2x performance" or something along those lines. Most people probably wouldn't expect twice the hardware to give three times the performance

 

[yyrkoon]

You seem to dislike the idea of enhanced graphical options. Does that mean you stop enjoying games when AA & AF are enabled?

I dislike the Idea of enhanced graphical options WHEN there is little or no point to even worry about it. Comparing the difference between AA, and NO AA at 1600x1200 vs adding better components to a bicycle is a weak arguement at best. Adding a better smoother shifting mechanism to a bicycle is going to benifit the rider, where 8xS AA will only benifit a game user IF all they do it stared at the screen while thier avatar is motionless, which leads me back to my original arguement, "Why are you even bothering . . ."

 

[cleeve]

Adding a better smoother shifting mechanism to a bicycle is going to benifit the rider, where 8xS AA will only benifit a game user IF all they do it stared at the screen while thier avatar is motionless

Aha! We've found the crux of the argument; You're making some pretty big assumptions.

But you should consider that just because you can't see a marked difference with 8x AA, that doesn't mean other people can't...

Similarly, someone not into bicycling might not be able to tell the difference between bicycle shifters, while some entheusiasts couldn't live without the best shifters available.

I don't begrudge you for the inability to perceive the difference Yyrkoon, more power to you; just don't begrudge others for turning it on because we can see and experience a huge difference.

 

[yyrkoon]

Adding a better smoother shifting mechanism to a bicycle is going to benifit the rider, where 8xS AA will only benifit a game user IF all they do it stared at the screen while thier avatar is motionless

Aha! We've found the crux of the argument; You're making some pretty big assumptions.

But you should consider that just because you can't see a marked difference with 8x AA, that doesn't mean other people can't...

Similarly, someone not into bicycling might not be able to tell the difference between bicycle shifters, while some entheusiasts couldn't live without the best shifters available.

I don't begrudge you for the inability to perceive the difference Yyrkoon, more power to you; just don't begrudge others for turning it on because we can see and experience a huge difference.

First of all, I can see the difference, but its like the last thing im worrying about when playing a game, second of all, I dont begrudge anyone anything, if you want to be anal, more power to ya, just dont expect me to want to listen to 'you' whine about it

 

[tj_the_first]

Anal? Whine? You're making yourself look bad Yyrkoon.

How can you say it looks better but isn't worth it. I mean you're already only getting 11fps in a very static location and I'm guessing only 7-8 in more open areas. At that rate you almost are staring at motionless pictures. You're argument is invalid (to me) because you've already compromised the gameplay so much by reducing it to such apalling framerates to look better. Besides if I had the hardware (I don't) to run all these options and get a framerate & res I'm happy with then why wouldn't I turn them on. I've been too scared to play Oblivion because with the 9800Pro I had it would look like crap at 5fps and to me that's unplayable. Morrowind looks horrible in my opinion but it's still a good game (at least it was for the first couple of hundred hours) running at decent speed. Now with my 2nd hand 6800GT it'll look better with AA and AF turned on but I'm not anal because of it.

 

[yyrkoon]

How can you say it looks better but isn't worth it. I mean you're already only getting 11fps in a very static location and I'm guessing only 7-8 in more open areas. At that rate you almost are staring at motionless pictures. You're argument is invalid (to me) because you've already compromised the gameplay so much by reducing it to such apalling framerates to look better.

First of all, 11 FPS isnt the norm, even on that old 3200+ XP system with a 6600GT AGP card, typical was 30 FPS +, 11 FPS was during heavy compbat with multiple hostiles on screen at once. Secondly IT ISNT WORTH IT, not when you're getting a decent 30 FPS at 1440x900, and when you even enable 2x AA, you drop to 24 FPS. As for AF, I've noticed a performane hit, but not as bad as AA, but it shows very little if ANY difference. Thridly, its hardly motionless, it was very playable, just because you have a FX-62 system with SLI 7900GTX's (or whatever you're using) doesnt make my old system perform any better. Lastly 'apalling' . . LMAO, get real, there are plenty of people who have systems way worse than mine, and play Oblivion.

Besides if I had the hardware (I don't) to run all these options and get a framerate & res I'm happy with then why wouldn't I turn them on. I've been too scared to play Oblivion because with the 9800Pro I had it would look like crap at 5fps and to me that's unplayable. Morrowind looks horrible in my opinion but it's still a good game (at least it was for the first couple of hundred hours) running at decent speed. Now with my 2nd hand 6800GT it'll look better with AA and AF turned on but I'm not anal because of it.

Do whatever makes you happy, except hijack this several page debate. If you read all the posts, this started over a screen shot that was zoomed 200% of how bad AA / AF was, and progressed from there. As for your 6800GT playing fine, I've no doubt, my 7600GT in this current system plays much smoother, on high settings, and even looks better (somehow). I say 'somehow', because Ive used my older system with the 6600GT with higher settings (that 5 FPS screenshot), and it didnt look as good as it does with this video card, and you know what, I STILL dont use AA or AF . . .

[EDIT]

Oh, since none of you realized it, I'll mention it, my screenshots are compressed JPEGs, Oblivion saves out as BMP, the jaggies are much more pronounced in the modified screenshots, than they are in game.

 

[tj_the_first]

I have read every post in the thread Yyrkoon and I've enjoyed the discussion as you, nottheking, and cleeve (as well as some others) know a lot more about graphics settings than I do. I was also enjoying your to-and-fro with Cleeve but felt you were getting a bit personal - 'anal' and 'whine'. It's his review remember.

The impression I got from your posts was that you were debating 8x vs 16x and that you were running 8x all the time. The alley picture you posted is mentioned as being No AA/No AF and you got 11fps then and that 5fps was with the extra texture pack but the settings you regularly use. The outdoor picture looks absolutely stunning and I thought your point was the framerate drop. Instead it appears you were debating the use of AA at all. My mistake, that's why I don't like to post much. I'm surprised that the characters are the biggest system drain, I would have thought scenery was hence my confusion with the screenshots.

That said I play a bit of DoD:Source and the AA in that is well worth it as it really adds to the look (but only on the 6800 because I'd prefer the fps and res on the 9800). Half Life and UT:2003 make it even more apparent because the textures are simpler. Also it does indeed seem my computer could now handle Oblivion which is excellent news. I'll have to check out Morrowind again first though because I want to see how good it could have looked. Anyway I'll butt out now.

 

[cleeve]

First of all, I can see the difference, but its like the last thing im worrying about when playing a game, second of all, I dont begrudge anyone anything, if you want to be anal, more power to ya, just dont expect me to want to listen to 'you' whine about it

lol. Well, same argument.

If it's the last thing you're worrying about when playing a game, you aren't capable of seeing the difference the same extent that other people can. So that's great for you if you can't perceive it, just turn it off and enjoy higher framerates. I wish I couldn't see it enough to make a difference to me either, then I would turn it off, too.

It does seem like you're trying to mislead people, implying that the AF screenshots are zoomed. They aren't, I have stated so at least twice now. The antialiasing comparison is however, and it's stated clearly on the comparison shot for all to see.

As for your 'whine' comment, I've looked at this thread and can't see any evidence of that in my posts, but if you provide an example I missed maybe the other readers and myself would consider your comment something more than sour grapes.

On your part, you have accused me of disliking games, of being anal, and of whining... Hmmmmm... I wonder who among us is emotionally involved enough to sling insults? :roll:

 

[yyrkoon]

I never accused you of being anything, 'you' was meant in a general way, meaning, you. me, whoever. Now, if YOU, Cleeve, want to take things personally, fine, go right ahead.

I am not mis-informing anyone, everyone has thier own opinion (yes, including me . . .). Any one peticular person can make the call on thier own, and I never said the AF shots were zoomed, gheesh I though we had that ironed out 5 pages ago . . . However, I have yet to see that much of a difference between no AF, and whatever amount of AF you choose (because I've tried every possible AF setting). Now, I'm guessing you're going to retort about maybe its my system only ? Well, I own 5 computers, a Laptop, and we have somewhere around 20 computers here all together, not to mention all the customers PC that come through here now and again, and the gaming rigs we build for customers. Not to mention the people who already agreed with me about this debate . . .

Now, without calling anyone any names, for someone who seems bent on claiming I'm telling everyone the AF screenshot is zoomed (I think perhaps YOU should read what I've said, because I've explained this atleast once already), and that I'm calling YOU inpeticular names, YOU cannot seem to get over the fact, that nanometer jaggies arent going to bother everyone (even when zoomed, 'to illustrate the difference'). Which brings me THIS point, why zoom the AA shots at all ? does it take that much to notice them ?

Now, perhaps you should also read the post where I mentioned the screenshots I post links to are compressed JPEGs, and that actual in game screens look much better. The blurryness, wasnt effected, but the jaggies definately were. Now, without AF, or AA on the current system listed in my signature, I see ZERO jaggies, and the roads, bricks, etc look much sharper (this has to do with what I said earlier about the textures being used, and the fact my newer system can handle Oblivion in the same resolution, but with graphics quality set to high, which includes large textures)

Zero AF

16x AF

Here, I will conceed 16x has a noticable effect, if you look on the top center of the picture, you will see the 'far away' bricks are sharper. However, this could arguably be considered unrealistic, since humans eyes dont focus on everything you see, at once, AND distant objects arent as easily seen comparred to close up objects. Also, the image is slightly skewed comparred to the zero AF shot. Both of these pictures use ZERO AA, and if you can find a jaggie without zooming in further than 1440x900, then you need a life . . .

[EDIT]

All this, and you know what ? IF I hadnt taken these screenshots, I wouldnt have known the difference at_all.

 

[cleeve]

I never accused you of being anything, 'you' was meant in a general way, meaning, you. me, whoever. Now, if YOU, Cleeve, want to take things personally, fine, go right ahead.

lol. Well, forgive me (and other readers) for thinking the use of a specific pronoun in posts that were responses to my own were directed at me. Assuming you're actually serious, your communication skills need some serious honing, man. But keep hacking away at the forums, practice makes perfect.

However, I have yet to see that much of a difference between no AF, and whatever amount of AF you choose (because I've tried every possible AF setting). Now, I'm guessing you're going to retort about maybe its my system only ?

It has nothing to do with your system. You either have less of an ability to percieve these image quality options than others like myself, or perhaps you are using worst-case-scenario situations to notice it. Either way, your inability really doesn't detract from me (and others) being able to see an obvious difference in many situations.

YOU cannot seem to get over the fact, that nanometer jaggies arent going to bother everyone (even when zoomed, 'to illustrate the difference').

Heheh. You've answered your own qualification with the word 'everyone', a claim I never made. You should go back and read my posts... I never once said 'everyone'.

In fact, quite the opposite... I have suggested many times that if you're unable to see the difference you should leave the options off.

My position is that if you're capable of seeing a marked diffference (like many of us are able to do), then these image options are excellent. Still not sure why you are trying to impose your personal one-size-fits-all opinion on the world when clearly, there are people here who can and do see a difference with these options enabled...

All this, and you know what ? IF I hadnt taken these screenshots, I wouldnt have known the difference at_all.

heheh, the key word: "I wouldnt have known the difference at_all"

That's why you should keep the options disabled. I don't think I ever suggested you personally should turn them on.

As for me and many others, we can see the difference easily thanks, and we'll keep on using AA and AF.... Hope that doesn't upset you too much.

 

[twile]

Come on guys, this is just getting silly and out of hand!

Hopefully this hasn't gotten so far gone that you two can't walk away now and agree to disagree on your AA/AF preferences.

Now I'll admit that I'm a big fan of AA and AF when my framerate can afford it, but I'll try and take a fair look at the two.

Antialiasing is of course a personal thing, whether you can see it and whether your hardware can even realistically run with it enabled is up to you and your computer. There are things that will make it more or less noticable, without exception (although whether this passes into your threshold of actively noticing is again personal). A well-lit or high-contrast scene with darker objects directly over lighter ones makes the difference more noticable than a darker or more uniformly lit scene. This is why the previous screenshots didn't show much visible aliasing--the bricks of the streets were largely the same color and darkness. A low-motion scene will make aliasing more noticable, especially when movement slows to a crawl and some edges are at angles near vertical or horizontal, where you can really see the saw-tooth edges creeping along; conversely a high-motion scene will see less benefit from AA. An LCD, with clearly defined square or rectangular pixels, will see more benefit from AA than a CRT, which do not have physically defined pixels. Running below the native or recommended resolution on a display will make the pixels even more noticable, hence the aliasing; conversely running at a very high resolution will make it harder to see, especially if you sit back a few feet from your monitor. Playing games with motion-blur and light bloom should both decrease the difference made by antialiasing, as the jagged edges may end up being naturally blurred along with the scene, or obscured by the light bloom "spilling out" from bright objects over dark ones. So all in all, the way to best notice the effects of FSAA is to view a scene or play a game with lots of contrast, no light bloom or motion blur, and not much camera movement while using an LCD at a lower-than-optimal resolution (though if you can spare the frames, you should play at native). The best way to NOT notice the effects is to play a fast-moving scene in a dark area on a CRT, especially if you have motion blur or game elements that distract you from actually looking at things (such as Doom 3. Dark, always moving, focusing on zombies rather than jaggies).

With AF things are a bit simpler. It largely boils down to the particular shot you're looking in; any game can show the effects of blurry textures, or not depending on the angles involved. Newer games will make it more noticable, especially if the nearby textures are crisp and ones on the distance fade to almost a single color. The reason that AF didn't make a huge difference in the screenshot shown above is that the angles involved are generally not so extreme, the surfaces are close, and the focus is almost entirely on the main area. Realistically you wouldn't be staring at the ground while playing Oblivion right there, you'd be looking up at the road ahead of you. The clear, crisp textures at your feet won't be on-screen, instead you'll see mostly the blurred textures near the top of the example screenshot. Depending on the particular scene, the angles may be shallow or not. The regularity and colors of the particular texture are also important; dirt textures blurring are much less likely to be noticed than a highly regular pattern, especially one with contrast such as red bricks and white mortar, or writing on a surface at a rather shallow angle.

Again, these are just graphical enhancements and whether you can notice them or not is subject to your discretion. I sat down at a CRT today and instantly realized it had a 60 Hz refresh rate. Nobody else could tell the difference, and my friends use computers a lot. I turned it up to 85 and it looked so much better. It's all in the eye of the beholder, as they say. If you don't see the need for AA and AF, then great, you get extra FPS and still think the game is gorgeous. If you do see a difference, then whether it's big enough to justify the performance hit is all your call.

One thing to realize is that, regardless of your preferences, testing sites generally WILL test with these features, for the same reason they don't benchmark everything at 640x480. They're trying to see how far they can push these graphics cards. We already know they can do standard graphics at good rates. Such tests would be CPU bound, or have arbitrarily high framerates. Adding in the AF and AA is really needed to differentiate them.

 

[yyrkoon]

I never really payed much attention on my CRT, I have a 21" techtronics CRT sitting next to my 19" widescreen LCD, and refuse to use it, the difference is that great. While before using a LCD, I swore is what the best thing since sliced bread. Honestly, you'd have to sit behind my LCD on my PC, to know what I'm saying. Those screenshots were dark yeah, but lit, or not, its pretty much the same thing.

Maybe its because I've been playing since games were made in graphics mode 10h, using a 320x200 resolution, I dont know, but I hardly think having to zoom into a screenshot greater than the played resolution justifies having to run AA. Perhaps my LCD screen is superior, I dont know, all I can do is tell you how it looks here, and assume that my word will be taken as is. If 'you' have to use AA, well then, in my opinion, that sucks for you. I do know that if I played at 1600x1200 (with a system that could handle it well), the thought of using AA wouldnt even cross my mind, unless the monitor I used was so crappy, the jaggies were really bad (and believe me, a monitor like that wouldnt last long in my system).

As for the comment about the top center AF being important, I dont feel the same way, distant objects shouldnt be as clear as nearer objects, and having it as such, detracts from realism (because thats not how it works in real life), although, when you focus on a certain area of the screen, and its not that particular area, your eyes would already do this for you. So, again, its a matter of prefference I guess.

[EDIT]

Also, I think if you look at the majority of TH's benchmarks, you'll find they bench with, and without AA /AF

 

[Gary_Busey]

I don't use AA or AF in Oblivion because I need as many FPS as I can get, but in Half-Life 2 of Battlefield 2 I use both, and the difference is drastic. Both look incredibly better with AA and AF, especially on things like chain link fences. And I can notice the difference in everday gameplay, I don't zoom in or any shit like that.

 

[twile]

As for the comment about the top center AF being important, I dont feel the same way, distant objects shouldnt be as clear as nearer objects, and having it as such, detracts from realism (because thats not how it works in real life), although, when you focus on a certain area of the screen, and its not that particular area, your eyes would already do this for you. So, again, its a matter of prefference I guess.

I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong. While distant objects might not be as easy to see as clear objects, in no way does the texture just blur into a single color. With games it is terribly exaggerated. Additionally, without AF, it's possible to see the border between filtering levels move as your perspective changes. I noticed this while playing a 3rd person game on my Dreamcast years ago, and walking through a hallway. After a while the region between crisp, blurry, and really blurry just popped right out at me.

Human eyes are pretty powerful; when you look closely at something, near or far, you can see a decent bit of detail. I've got a large screen and play fairly close, the edges are already a bit blurry. Last thing I need is to turn my eyes and focus something by the edge, and have it still be plagued with blurry textures.

 

[cleeve]

Maybe its because I've been playing since games were made in graphics mode 10h, using a 320x200 resolution, I dont know

Doubt that's it. I've been playing games since 'pong' on the Coleco Telestar. Not sure of the resolution though, but if it was 320x240 I'd be surprised...

If 'you' have to use AA, well then, in my opinion, that sucks for you.

It sure does! It means 'we' have to have a freamerate hit. On the other hand, it also sucks for you in a way because you're berift of the perceptive ability to appreciate the difference.

Of course, nobody 'has' to use AA and AF, it's a nice option for those who can appreciate the visual fidelity though.


So in the search for common ground, I think everyone here can agree that if you appreciate AA and AF, you should enable it, and if you don't appreciate it, you are probably better off leaving the options disabled.

That's a pretty simple and non-confrontational rule of thumb, eh fellowes?

 

[Gary_Busey]

Simple + non-confrontational = BORING.

Come on, duke it out. I want to hear broad, sweeping generalizations and mis-informed half-truths. I need some entertaining debate because work is boring me.

 

[yyrkoon]

Doubt that's it. I've been playing games since 'pong' on the Coleco Telestar. Not sure of the resolution though, but if it was 320x240 I'd be surprised...

Well, I can go back much much further than that, but since this is a PC forum, I was trying to keep it as such.

It sure does! It means 'we' have to have a freamerate hit. On the other hand, it also sucks for you in a way because you're berift of the perceptive ability to appreciate the difference.

Here we go again, making assumptions about my ability to percieve . . . and you tell me I'm making assumptions, starting to wonder why I havent truely become confrontational yet ?

Anyhow, I should have been done with this 'conversation' a long time ago, so I think Ill end it right here.

 

[yyrkoon]

As for the comment about the top center AF being important, I dont feel the same way, distant objects shouldnt be as clear as nearer objects, and having it as such, detracts from realism (because thats not how it works in real life), although, when you focus on a certain area of the screen, and its not that particular area, your eyes would already do this for you. So, again, its a matter of prefference I guess.

I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong. While distant objects might not be as easy to see as clear objects, in no way does the texture just blur into a single color. With games it is terribly exaggerated. Additionally, without AF, it's possible to see the border between filtering levels move as your perspective changes. I noticed this while playing a 3rd person game on my Dreamcast years ago, and walking through a hallway. After a while the region between crisp, blurry, and really blurry just popped right out at me.

Human eyes are pretty powerful; when you look closely at something, near or far, you can see a decent bit of detail. I've got a large screen and play fairly close, the edges are already a bit blurry. Last thing I need is to turn my eyes and focus something by the edge, and have it still be plagued with blurry textures.

Sorry twile, you can not tell me my opinion is wrong, well you CAN, but you'd be wrong. So instead of arguing about it, I'll agree to disagree with you on the subject

 

[cleeve]

Well, I can go back much much further than that, but since this is a PC forum, I was trying to keep it as such.

So could I, but for what? We've already established that older graphics have no bearing on our current discussion. What would mentioning text adventures add to the point?

Here we go again, making assumptions about my ability to percieve . . . and you tell me I'm making assumptions, starting to wonder why I havent truely become confrontational yet ?

Assumptions? Mmmmkay... :lol:

You are telling me, over and over again, that it makes little or no difference to you if these options are on or off.

Nope, no assumption there... was I incorrectly assuming you're telling the truth?

On the other hand, I, and others, can see a marked difference easily and have commented as such...

Once again, no assumption. Personal experience and claims by other people support that...

What assumption am I making, exactly?

You, on the other hand, seem to be assuming that no-one else can perceive a desirable difference when using these options based on your own personal inability to perceive it.

I think it's pretty clear who'se doing the assuming, Yyrkoon.

What's your argument, exactly? That anyone who claims they can see a marked difference is a liar, because you're incapable? :roll:

Anyhow, I should have been done with this 'conversation' a long time ago, so I think Ill end it right here.

I couldn't agree more, mate! You should have...
.

 

[twile]

Sorry twile, you can not tell me my opinion is wrong, well you CAN, but you'd be wrong. So instead of arguing about it, I'll agree to disagree with you on the subject

There are some things that aren't matters of opinion. "I'm sorry officer, but I don't think I was going over 70 MPH, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree" won't get you very far at all.

Take a look at this sample image.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that people see the world the way the Bilinear filtering works? Are there visible bands where the level of texture detail your eyes perceive changes? That's one of the problems which better texture filtering does, and unless you have really messed up eyes, I don't see how this texture banding can be considered more realistic and life-like. This isn't a matter of opinion, there are ways in which our eyes see the world, and calling it a matter of opinion really doesn't make it so.

 

[DrTrunks]

This guide is seriously not even worth mentioning.
I mean come on!

First you start off with the clock speed comparison, and 25% more clockspeed gives +46% performance. And just 1 bnechmark... And if you would compare the x1900xt & x1900xtx wich differ 25/50Mhz you would only see like 1~5% extra performance (for +60,-)...

Second benchmark:
Far Cry, again only 1 benchmark, you just picked the one with the highest gain? Ofcourse there is extra performance gained by more pipelines, but just showing 1 FC benchmark wont cut it. You could as well just use a 6800GT/Ultra and disable some shaders, that would have been a better comparison.

The third benchmark is the worst. It says nothing, why use the very first card with 512mb ? The card itself cant live up to the potentional of 512mb RAM, you should have used a better card, like a 7800/7900 or a x1800/x1900, these cards can actually use the 256mb extra. And I don't know how the benchmark did its calculations, but Q4 (based on the D3 engine) has an extra texture pack voor Ultra Quality, so on a 512mb card the games looks a lot better then on a 256mb card... And then again, only 1 game tested, BF2 could also have been a very good benchmark.

In the fourth benchmark, there are 2 old medium-end cards used.
And again just one benchmark is shown.
All low-end cards significantly gain FPS from extra bandwith as it is their main bottleneck. When you use mid-end cards, you'll see that when AA & AF enabled you will gain a lot of FPS. And if you just have 128bit on a high end card... you can't really call it high end.

The fifth benchmark, there is a little gain in this benchmark.
Probably this is from latency, i haven't figured out myself.
I compared the results in 3dmark05 on a 6800GT (350/1000@460/1200)
PCIe 16x vs PCIe 2x

My score lowered from 6644 (PCIe 16x) to 6550 (PCIe 2x).
I hope you all know that this is 4133mbp/s vs 250mbp/s.
Bandwith on todays graphics card are just for the TurboCache and HyperMemory cards, the rest wont win much.

In the last benchmark, SLI is reviewed.
Just one screen of 1 benchmark. People who have SLI don't play on 1024*768, they use higher resolutions (because they can also afford a good monitor). And then again, not every game is optimized for multi-gpu solutions. You want to know the gain in UT2k4? or B&W2 ? its near to nothing, just a waste of money. Overall SLI scores best at raising your PSU rating.

My conclusion is that this guide is really bad compared to the previous two. And I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who is beginning with graphics cards, unless they use reviews to fill in the huge gaps in this guide.

 

[cleeve]

This guide is seriously not even worth mentioning.
I mean come on!

Sorry you feel that way. I think however that you're completely missing the purpose of these examples.

If you were looking for a fully-features benchmark of every resolution in every game in the world, this isn't the place to find it, and frankly that wouldn't support any learning at all.

These benches are used only to illustrate some general principles; for example, that increased clockspeeds equals higher performance; that advanced architecture (i.e. 8 pipelines vs 16 pipelines) increases performance; that 256mb vs 512mb of ram can have very little impact on performance; that the 8xAGP bus is about as fast as PCIe in real-world benches; etc.

All we're trying to do is debunk some popular myths (like more RAM always = more performance), and show what factors impact performance for people who have no knowledge of these things.

We did this by finding benchmarks between two cards where all other factors are equal; for example, the Radeon 9700 and 9500 PRO might be older cards, but it's an excellent example of every factor other than the one tested being virtually identical, to remove other factors from influencing the results; these cards have identical clockspeeds and GPUs, the ONLY difference is the 128-bit vs 256-bit memory bus. Therefore, it's these cards that were used to illustrate the difference memory bus width can make.

Since you obviously already possess some video card knowledge, you aren't really the intended audience - although it's nice to know you took the time to browse the article.

If you have a problem with some of the basic premises we're trying to teach - for example, if it's your stance that increased clockspeeds don't increase performance, I'd be happy to debate those points with you. But since you have some videocard knowledge I don't think you would debate those elementary things.

I hope that cleared things up for you.

 

[penguin1]

It jus needs one more test to be perfect!!

Same card, DVI vs Analog! I always wanted to know how they fair in a fight.

ADD IT PLEASEEEEEEEEE..............