Asus V8440 TD and V8460 ultra TD in the test: Two 'Ti' tans among themselves

Asus V8440 TD and V8460 ultra TD in the test: Two 'Ti' tans among themselves

FSAA and AF combined

To some it may seem like overkill, but the following is the reason why every year we go looking for a new graphics card: The best possible picture quality. And how would that be achieved if you weren't using full-screen anti-aliasinganisotropic filtering combined?

2xFSAA Asus V8460 ultra Asus V8440 GF4 Ti4200 (250/222) GF4 Ti4200 (225/250) + 0xAF 8295 7720 6465 7140 + 2xAF 7093 6374 5620 5575 + 4xAF 6111 5556 4768 4832 + 8xAF 5484 4959 4216 4315

Even if 2xFSAA alone may only cost relatively little performance with the new GeForce4 cards, things look a little different together with the anisotropic filter. However, you also have to see the very high level from which the loss of performance comes about. In the end, the result is high image quality at a still high performance level.

QC-FSAA Asus V8460 ultra Asus V8440 GF4 Ti4200 (250/222) GF4 Ti4200 (225/250) + 0xAF 8227 7796 6440 7139 + 2xAF 6957 6360 5629 5584 + 4xAF 6076 5535 4763 4835 + 8xAF 5475 4953 4213 4304

nVidia's advertising promise is fulfilled. Quincunx anti aliasing costs only negligibly little performance compared to 2xFSAA. However, everyone has to decide for themselves whether the more anti-aliasing outweighs the less texture sharpness.

4xFSAA Asus V8460 ultra Asus V8440 GF4 Ti4200 (250/222) GF4 Ti4200 (225/250) + 0xAF 5726 5068 4025 4541 + 2xAF 5193 4569 4009 3787 + 4xAF 4657 4109 3567 3474 + 8xAF 4248 3748 3219 3169

4xFSAA offers very good image quality in combination with AF, even if only the V8440 and the V8460 ultra are also able to deliver really convincing performance. With a GeForce4 Ti4200, one slowly but surely reaches the limits of what is useful.

4xS-FSAA Asus V8460 ultra AsusV8440 GF4 Ti4200 (250/222) GF4 Ti4200 (225/250) + 0xAF 5427 4800 3830 4251 + 2xAF 3977 3533 3019 3035 + 4xAF 3215 2874 2417 2487 + 8xAF 2848 2545 2133 2212

Even if the image quality is absolutely impressive here, especially in connection with 4xS anti aliasing, the additional losses with activated AF are difficult to get over. On the one hand, this is due to the fact that in all other FSAA modes only multisampling is used, which in contrast to AF almost only loads the memory bandwidth and the two options eat each other from two opposite ends through the available power. With the 4xS-FSAA, however, the significantly more memory-intensive supersampling is sometimes used, so that a negative synergy effect arises here in that pixels that have already been anisotropically filtered are processed again by SSAA (supersampling anti-aliasing).

Image quality

One of the most discussed topics in the last few weeks and months was and is image quality. Of course, with such a high-quality graphics card like the GeForce4 Ti (among others) from Asus, you expect not only high performance, but also flawless image quality. And this not only in the 3D area, for which the implementation of the functions in the chip and their implementation in the driver is solely responsible, but also and especially on the desktop. The respective manufacturer of the graphics card must be held responsible for this, as this depends on the components used on the card.

Without having expensive measuring equipment available to record the signal purity, a subjective impression must be sufficient here . On the test system with an IIyama Vision Master 451, the image quality could not be distinguished from that of the Matrox G400, which was used as a reference, up toResolutions of 1280x1024 in 100Hz, the high-contrast image was characterized by very good sharpness and good legibility of the characters on the screen.

Now we come to the image quality in 3D mode, for which the chip and driver are responsible. First a comparison series for the anisotropic filter.

IQ 8x6x3 0xFSAA 0xAF
IQ 8x6x3 0xFSAA 2xAF
IQ 8x6x3 0xFSAA 4xAF
IQ 8x6x3 0xFSAA 0xAF
IQ 8x6x3 2xFSAA 0xAF
IQ 8x6x3 3xFSAA 0xAF
IQ 8x6x3 4xFSAA 0xAF
IQ 8x6x3 6xFSAA 0xAF

Noticeablehere is that there doesn't seem to be any apparent difference between the 2xFSAA and 3xFSAA (quincunx mode). That would of course explain why quincunx mode is 'for free'. The textures are only treated in 4xS mode (6xFSAA), so that when using this mode, not only an improvement in edge smoothing can be achieved, but an overall higher image quality. And now to top it all off: 4xFSAA plus anisotropic filter

IQ 8x6x3 4xFSAA 0xAF
IQ 8x6x3 4xFSAA 2xAF
IQ 8x6x3 4xFSAA 4xAF
IQ 8x6x3 4xFSAA 8xAF

But it is even nicer: 6xFSAA or the 4xS mode plus AF.

IQ 8x6x3 6xFSAA 0xAF
IQ 8x6x3 6xFSAA 2xAF
IQ 8x6x3 6xFSAA 4xAF
IQ 8x6x3 6xFSAA 8xAF

Since especially between the 4x and 8x AF settings in 4xS mode hardly any differences can be seen, here two last screenshots, excerpts from the IQ test at 1920x1440x32 with 4xS-FSAA and AF:

4-fold AF in detail
8-fold AF in detail

We have marked the differences a little to make them easier to discover.

All screenshots on this page come from the image quality test (IQ = Image Quality) of the 3DMark2001 SE in a resolution of 800x600x32Bit. The respective FSAA and AF options were not set in 3DMark but with the Rivatuner, which is why NoFSAA is written above, which is definitely not true.

On the next page: Conclusion