Zotac nVidia GeForce GTX 275 Amp! Edition Review

I wanted to also add that this is the only review I found so far that actually used a retail GTX 275. The performance of this retail card is no where as high as I found in other reviews using none retail cards.

@ECH

No. I think we both have the same point directed to different directions.
In case you don't know, The adaptive aa is more demanding and effective than the Multisampling aa.Nvidia's transparency multisampling aa is the same as the original multisampling aa but with a slight difference, the transparency msaa doesn't disable some of the HDR effects that the original multisampling does.The same goes for ATI's adaptive aa.

Now take a look at this chart that compares ATI's ad aa to the original ms aa:

http://www.pureoverclock.com/images/review/video_cards/connect3d_x1900gt/aa_adaa.jpg

You can see how the dapative aa is more effective than the multisampling aa.
The adaptive aa that ATI uses is more effective than Nvidia's transparency multisampling.The TSms aa that nvidia uses, uses the same number of pixel textures and color samples/ pixel as the original ms aa .
So xbitlabs, used a better quality aa with ATI cards.Because the adaptive aa is better than the multisampling aa and the transparency multisampling aa that was used for nvidia cards.

Talking about the antisotrpoic setts that were used.First let me notify you that AF has a very samll effect on performance unlike aa.In worst cases you gte 1-2 fps drop with
16x af.

Now at xbitlabs, they put texture filtering / mipmap detail quality "the same thing" for both card on high quality.but they turned of the trilinear optimizations for nvidia cards, which has nothing to do with the image quality produced.cuz texture buffering methods should be selected by the game.That's why he didn't use any specific af rendering method for both ATI and Nvidia cards.

John,

I believe we are in agreement but pointing out different aspects of the review. Yes, we know that Adative AA is better but can take a hit in performance as well. Therefore, there should have been an IQ comparisons between the two when those type of settings are enabled. AdAA & TrAA is used to anti-alais pologons that use transparent textures were MSAA cannot. It really compliments MSAA more so then anything else IMO. So yes, I do understand how it works.

Now here is were things gets interesting (at least for me). They put both texture filtering and mipmap quality on high quality. In Nvidia's control panel it defaults to quality. For CCC it's defaults to high quality. How many other reviews do this (or at least tell you what settings are used)? This is why I believe the 4890 won. It's because IQ was equitable. As far as Texture Filtering - Trilinear Optimization: On; it should be common knowledge that this option has a negative effect on IQ.

Did you know there are games that use CSAA inherently? Some of these games are, RaceDriver Grid, Fear 2, Crysis and Crysis Warhead, Company of Heroes, etc. For example, at 8xAA, MSAA uses 1 texture/shader sample, 8 stored color/z samples and 8 coverage samples. At 8xAA, CSAA uses 1 texture/shader sample, 8 stored color/z samples and 4 coverage samples. Unfortunately when someone says they used 8xAA it doesn't necessarily mean they use MSAA. This is why I mentioned the H review earlier as they specifically mention having to force MSAA.

Correction:

...For example, at 8xAA, MSAA uses 1 texture/shader sample, 8 stored color/z/ctencil
samples and 8 coverage samples. With CSAA 8xAA uses 1 texture/shader sample, 4 stored color/z/stencil samples and 8 coverage samples...