Who's right, Anand or Lars?

[luser]

Isn't it obvious that u should concentrate on performance with AA enabled. I wouldn't buy a card for $400 and don't use the AA. Seems like Anand made his homework a little more thorough than Lars at tomshardware.com

What ya think??

//Luser

 

[paulj]

good point. Anandtech's review makes a lot more sense.

<font color=red>The solution may be obvious, but I can't see it for the smoke coming off my processor.</font color=red>

 

[dhlucke]

Tom's is the most optimistic review of all of them online right now.

<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">Introducing the NVIDIA GeForceFX: The first Videocard designed exclusively for deaf people!</A></font color=red>

 

[Crashman]

No way, I don't use AA, never have, probably never will. To me it's like wearing beer goggles. I'd probably buy the card and use it without AA enabled. Why? I could play all current games, even the toughest ones, at 1600x1200 with full effects and get huge framerates. As future games put greater demands on the card, I'd still get resonable framerates at 1600x1200 for a couple years.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>

 

[Ghostdog]

Tom's is the most optimistic review of all of them online right now.

It seems that alot of reviews are desperetly trying to find good things to say about the card. Sad, nVidia could have done better.

<font color=red>I´m starting to feel like a real computer consultant.</font color=red>

 

[Jake75]

I rarely use AA as some of the 'details' gets blurry and it´s hard to see where things is, this is especially true when playing games like MOHAA online.
Car games and such looks neat with AA though.

<font color=blue>My sig, not yours</font color=blue>

 

[davepermen]

well, if you have a card that can do real aa, and anyso at the same time, and still is fast, believe me, you never move back. it all remains sharp, just the edges (wich really are ugly once you played a bit with aa😀) get smoothed. no nvidia screenshot can yet show me the quality of my radeon images. they look like straight from 3dsmax rendered, or so.

and i'm currently following some threads about stopping simulating light with colors (r,g,b), but with its heat.. illumination gets much more realistic, combined to very modern, realistic environments, shading, and all that. aliasing just doesn't fit into those scenes, wich, some of them, just look like taken from shrek or so.. and all that realtime..

aliasing sucks. but you need anysotropic, too.. else it gets blurry, yes..

"take a look around" - limp bizkit

www.google.com

 

[Civilized]

I have found that anandtech does reviews a bit more thorough than toms does....especially with bios/overclocking features and stress testing(which toms never has done before) but its good to see two reviews

 

[phsstpok]

I'm with Crashman. If I can use a higher resolution with better framerates than a lower resolution + AA but lower framerates (or even the same framerates) I'm going to go with the higher resolution.

Still, The Anandtech review was an eye opener. I did not expect the GefarceFIX to do so poorly with AA + AF. That non-functioning 2X and QC AA seems like a cheat for better scores. Hopefully these and low performance are correctable by new and refined drivers. It better be because I am certain ATI already has an answer to even GeforceFX's anticipated performance nevermind the disappointing actual performance.

<b>99% is great, unless you are talking about system stability</b>