Menu
3x GeForce4 Ti from Inno3D in the test: Cheaper range of models

3x GeForce4 Ti from Inno3D in the test: Cheaper range of models

AF & Image quality

Especially with the 3DMark2001SE we could see quite astonishing results. In high AF levels, the old GeForce3 could move very close to a Geforce4 Ti, while in Quake III this was far from the case.

Why now this discrepancy between the anisotropic filtering belowDirect3D and OpenGL?

The following diagram may be helpful for understanding as it shows very nicely where the problem seems to be.

3DMark 2001SE AF fill rate
Unit: points
  • without AF single texturing:
    • GF4 Ti 4400
      959,80
    • GF4 Ti 4200-64
      881.70
    • GF4 TI 4200-128
      819.20
    • GF3 classic
      668,30
  • without AF multi-texturing:
    • GF4 Ti 4400
      2,120.60
    • GF4 Ti 4200-64
      1,927.70
    • GF4 TI 4200-128
      1,864.50
    • GF3 classic
      1,382.00
  • with AF Single-Te xturing:
    • GF4 Ti 4400
      560,20
    • GF4 Ti 4200-64
      511.00
    • GF4 TI 4200-128
      511.00
    • GF3 classic
      411,40
  • with AF multi-texturing:
    • GF3 classic
      805.00
    • GF4 Ti 4400
      560.20
    • GF4 Ti 4200-64
      511.00
    • GF4 TI 4200-128
      510,20

The picture is still like this without AF As you would expect: There is a difference of almost 100% between the filling rate with single texturing and that with multitexturing. This is how it should be, since with the latter simply the second TMU (Texture MappingUnit) is used, which under these circumstances doubles the performance.

However, if you add anisotropic filtering, it is noticeable that the fill rate drops to about half in the GeForce3 and GeForce4, which is normal with this type of filtering (ATis Radeon8500 uses a different technology that uses significantly less performance degradation but at the same time poorer image quality). What catches the eye at second glance is that only with the GeForce4, multitexturing with AF apparently no longer makes use of the second TMUs, since the filling rate remains the same for single and multitexturing. This is an obvious driver problem, since this phenomenon already occurred under OpenGL up to the 28.32 detonators, but it was fixed with the unofficial 28.90 drivers and also works in the current 29.42 detonator. As a little proof of this diagram from our last test.

GL_Extreme AF fill rate
Unit: points
  • without AF single texturing:
    • GeForce4 Ti 4600
      1,102.0
    • GF3 classic
      607.0
  • without AF multi-texturing:
    • GeForce4 Ti 4600
      2,299.0
    • GF3 classic
      1,265.0
  • with AF single texturing:
    • GeForce4 Ti 4600
      576.0
    • GF3 classic
      389.0
  • with AF multi-texturing:
    • GeForce4 Ti 4600
      1.561,0
    • GF3 classic
      787 , 0

Here isEverything as it should be. The fill rate with multitexturing doubles, regardless of whether AF is active or not. The fact that the absolute values ​​do not match is due to the fact that 3DMark and GL_Extreme use different methods to determine the fill rate; the diagram is only a rough guide.

Let's hope that the next official driver release will finally release the full AF performance under Direct3D. According to some rumors, nVidia is now concentrating on the AF performance, after having previously been mainly concerned with the FSAA performance.

Then a few appetizing screenshots (approx. 100kB each) for the accessible or achieved image quality. We have selected screenshots from the game Serious Sam II, as this game is one of the few that allows a direct comparison between OpenGL and Direct3D and also offers a very good texture quality overall, so that the use of anisotropic filtering is definitely worthwhile.

SSSE + extrQ + 104x7x3 + 4xSFSAA + 0xAF + D3D
SSSE+extrQ+104x7x3+4xSFSAA+2xAF+D3D
SSSE+extrQ+104x7x3+4xSFSAA+4xAF+D3D
SSSE+extrQ+104x7x3+4xSFSAA+8xAF+D3D

In the the upper row contains the shots that are below he added the Direct3D API. The resolution is (as with the lower OpenGL shots) 1024x768 with 32Bit color depth. The game was set to extreme quality and the very nice 4xS-FSAA,which is currently only available under Direct3D. Normal 4xFSAA was used for the lower OpenGL shots. The AF level increases from left to right.

SSSE + extrQ + 104x7x3 + 4xFSAA + 0xAF + OGL
SSSE + extrQ + 104x7x3 + 4xFSAA + 2xAF + OGL
SSSE + extrQ + 104x7x3 + 4xFSAA + 4xAF + OGL
SSSE + extrQ + 104x7x3 + 4xFSAA + 8xAF + OGL

On the next page: Conclusion