G70-Flimmer Artikel

[eXodia]

Hi!

Ich mach mich an die Übersetznung vom "Start weg bis zur AF-Blume"

Bitte Postet hier wer den Rest wie Übersetzt und postet die Übersetzungen dann auch hier.

GrUß

[eXodia]

So bin grad fertig geworden:

HighEnd chip G70: Only with flickering Graphic?

13. August 2005/ aths/page 1 of 2

With the GeForce 7800GTX Nvidia showed that the anyway strong GeForce 6800 Ultra Performance in SM-3-Generation isn´t the end of the flag bar. The G70-Chip offers more pipelines, which besides were improved, and more clock speed. In addition there are useful new Antialiasing modes, too.

But Nvidia seems to estimate the texture claims of quality of its HighEnd customers as unusually low. Otherwise we cannot explain, at present, why the new HighEnd chip G70 (Geforce 7800 GT/GTX), with activated anisotropic filter, still seems to offer texture flares. Just to memorize: This is with the NV40 (GeForce 6800 series) at standard exactly the same, but with the activation of the HighQuality-Mode in the drivers you are able to switch it off.

At the G70-Chip the activation of "HighQuality" ,in the drivers, doesn´t bring the desired effect - the card is inclined further to texture flares. Did it create Nvidia with the NV40-Standard to accustom the user at AF textur flares - so that their are no more options for the G70-Chip to get flicker-free AF textures?

The anisotropic filter (AF) is by definition actually for the quality improvement of textures - nevertheless if the textures at the end, produced by a 500-Euro-Hardware, flicker, you can problebly talk hardly about "qualitiy improvement". Good quality costs naturally speed. "Achievement" is however "work per time". At the "optimized" AF their is less work - so the performance doesn´t rise.

Who wants to spend some 100 euro on a new card, problebly doesn´t want to play without anisotropic filtering. Here it is remarkable that the G70-Chip, as well as the NV40-Chip, with activated 16xAF, treats some ranges still with maximally 2xAF. That was perhaps still acceptable at times of the R300 (Radeon 9500/9700 series), is not however today any longer up-to-date (also the R420-Chip suffers under this restriction). With a SM3-Product like the NV40 or G70 we don´t understand such compromises at the AF.

Which concerns the G70-flickering, at the Launch of the GeForce 7800 GTX this was only described by one side: In the article on Hardware.fr of Tridam. Also we on 3DCenter offered at the launch apart from benchmarks in quality-mode (here we left negligent-proved on Nvidias Reviewer's Guide) only descriptions to the improved Pixelshader technology. As long as the texture-probleme with the G70 isn´t solved, we see however no cause to write details about the Shader technology: Firstly the Multitexturing must function satisfyingly, then you can concerne also with other things.

In older news we named the cause for the G70-AF-flickering, underfiltering. We have to owe Demirugs investigations now the realization that the cause could be stored also differently: The necessary data are read out of the texture, all data, but they are wrongly recalculated. Nvidias attempt to produce with less work the same quality was a good idea, but unfortunately it failed. This could be a hardware-bug or a driver error.

At the end this doesn´t play a role: That the G70-Chip, which offers a texelpower of more than 10 Gigatexels uses 2xAF with adjusted 16xAF angledependently partly , and in addition to texture flares bends, this is simple an evidence of incapacity. In the same course we must criticize Nvidias statement in the Review Guidelines. There stands (we have taken over the bold print from the original) following:


"Quality" mode offers users the highest image quality while still delivering exceptional performance. We recommend all benchmarking be done in this mode.

This attitude flickers on the NV40 as well as it flickers on the G70, but Nvidia calls this "the highest image quality". A picture which stresses only the designation "quality" (also without "High"), should not be inclined to texture flares, in our opinion. To the topic High quality there is to be read:


"High Quality" mode is designed to give discriminating users images that do not take advantage of the programmable nature of the texture filtering hardware, and is overkill for everyday gaming. Image quality will be virtually indistinguishable from "Quality" mode, however overall performance will be reduced. Most competitive solutions do not allow this level of control. Quantitative image quality analysis demonstrates that the NVIDIA "Quality" setting produces superior image fidelity to competitive solutions therefore "High Quality" mode is not recommended for benchmarking.

However, we cannot confirm this: The anisotropic filter of the G70-Chips does flicker also under High quality, the current Radeon cards doesnt flicker under High quality. We would be really intereted in which criterions Nvidias "quantitative image quality analysis" examines the image quality.

[moeb1us]

The image shows a tunnel consistent of 200 segments of circle (causing the "fan out" effect at the margins of the picture). Each of the colors represents a new MIP-level. The farther inlying the new colors begin, the more detailed
(with higher AF-levels) the texture is being filtered. At several angles like e.g. 22,5° the MIPs on Geforce 6/7 commence very early, because there only 2xAF is provided. The Geforce 3/4/FX has an angle-weakness at 45° but shows a far more detailed image already at 8xAF - due to the fact that the colored MIPs appear later, more in centre.

Essentially, the GeForce 3/4/FX offers the appointed 8xAF for the most part of the image, with just slight parts being treated with 4xAF. Then again, the GeForce 6/7 offers the appointed 16xAF during minor parts of the image, only the (needless to say, important) 45° angles contain 16xAF. Most of the other angles are being filtered far less detailed than the appointed 16xAF, though. Ample sections of the image are just being filtered with 2x and 4xAF, the overall quality improvement is even inferior than the 8xAF of the GeForce 3/4/FX.

In addition, the fitfulness of the filtering of the GeForce 6/7 adds an extra "fidgetiness" ("dithering", "disquietude"?) to the image: given the extrem case, according to the angle, very good filtered textures (with 16xAF) are adjoin to just easy filtered ones (with 2xAF), which catches even the untrained eye unpleasingly. the graphical representation of World of Warcraft for one thing (plenty of high-frequency content).

Admittedly, this AF-tunnel allows no conclusion concerning "sub-filtering" (hypo-?, under-? -> filter less than required) yet, it solely shows which MIP-level is used when. The outcome of this should be the derivation of a particular AF-level, but in the case of filtering less than required, fewer samples as actually needed are calculated. For instance, under-filtered (sub-?, hypo-?) 8xAF is no true 8xAF. Indeed, the right MIP-map is chosen, but the wrong sample-rate (number?). As already stated, this tunnel only shows which MIP-level is used when, not if the AF is implemented correctly.

-----------------

mh einige technische ausdrücke und formulierungen haben sich als schwieriger als gedacht herausgestellt, habe klammern mit fragezeichen eingefügt, ansonsten sind hinweise auf grammatikalische oder orthographische oder sematische verbesserungen/korrekturen ausdrücklich erwünscht, schliesslich bin ich weit entfernt vom natural speaker..

[aths]

Bitte: Nicht versuchen, die Eleganz eines native speakers zu erreichen. Die englische Version ist als internationale Version gedacht und sollte bewusst einfach gehalten werden. Sprachliche Eleganz ist nicht nötig.

Zur Gewährleistung einfacher englischen Sprache dürfen auch Sätze zerteilt, notfalls sogar umgestellt werden. Am besten etwas andersfarbig schreiben, wenn ihr eine Stelle besonders frei übersetzt. Jedenfalls müsst ihr nicht am Wort kleben. Wichtig ist der Inhalt.

[huha]

Ich mach' kurz noch den Rest.

-huha

[Nicky]

Hab mir mal erlaubt die beiden ersten Abschnitte etwas umzuformulieren:
With the launch of the GeForce 7800 GTX, Nvidia showed that the strong performance of its former SM3 Flagship, GeForce 6800 Ultra, may still be topped. Beneath more and improved pipelines, G70 offers higher clock speeds. Usefull new Antialiasing modes were added as well.
In terms of the level of texture quality, however Nvidia seems to evaluate the claims of its HighEnd customers as fairly low. The new HighEnd chip G70 seems to produce texture shimmering with activated anisotropic filter. Just as a reminder: the situation with NV40 (GF 6800 series) is the same in standard driver settings, but this can be remedied by activating the "HighQuality Mode".

[huha]

So, der Rest:

---

Videos to demonstrate the effect of undersampling on GeForce 6/7 series graphic cards

Note: If you experience stuttering during video playback, it is advisable to lower playback speed by pressing Ctrl+Cursor down in Media Player Classic. The required codec can be obtained by installing the latest version of Fraps. Media Player Classic should be configured to automatically repeat the video. During the first run, the video is supposedly going to stutter, but the next time it should run fluidly.

The videos are made by Damien Triolet, we have his permission to publish them here. We'd like to thank him for his efforts. The videos were captured in Unreal Tournament 2003, which undergoes a special "optimization" through the Forceware driver without the user being able to switch off this "optimization." The videos, however, were not captured using the standard LOD bias of UT2003, but rather using a (correct) LOD bias of 0. This means: If the texture filter works correctly, there shouldn’t be any flickering effects. 8xAF was used in all videos.

We advise you to first download just one single video to check if your machine can play it appropriately. The high video resulution and lossless codec both contribute to a high system load. Thus, we offer a short description of what can be seen in each video.


"Quality" on a GeForce 6800 already leads to flickering. Furthermore, one can see the only partially applied trilinear filter: "Flicker bands" are followed by "Mud bands" (i.e. areas where the texture is enormously blurred). In our opinion, this mode shouldn’t be named "Quality."


"High Quality" on the GeForce 6800 is a borderline case: Textures tend to flicker, but flickering is not always prevalent. Like all cards of the NV40 and G70 series, the 6800 also shows angle-dependant differences in sharpness, induced by the by far worse AF pattern when compared to GeForce FX series graphic cards.


Nvidia's new card features a by far greater raw texture power than the GeForce 6800, but shows remarkably worse textures as well: Flickering definitely is obvious. According to Nvidia’s Reviewer's Guide this mode should deliver "the highest image quality while still delivering exceptional performance." In our opinon, this quality is too bad to be offered to anyone.


When using the GeForce 7800's "High Quality" mode, flickering is reduced and it now does look better than GeForce 6800‘s standard mode (which does, as is known, deliver a bad image quality). Yet, the GeForce 6800's just flicker-free HQ mode can not be achieved: The GeForce 7800 can not be persuaded to use AF without flickering textures.


ATI's Radeon X800, even when using standard settings, seems to be far superior to any GeForce 6800 or 7800 already. There are areas which tend to flicker faintly, but altogether, only the angle-dependant AF reduction in the tunnel is a bit distracting. Even GeForce 7800's "High Quality" quality is surpassed.


When turning off A.I. on the X800, no remarkable differences to activated A.I. can be seen.


Our reference card, a GeForce FX in "High Quality" mode. This shows us two things: Not all GeForce cards show flickering, see ground an wall textures: They are absolutely "stable." Furthermore, the whole tunnel is textured as sharply as it should be when using 8xAF.



Conclusion:

ATI's Radeon X800 shows us that, even with activated "optimizations" (i.e. quality reductions), there is no need for flickering textures. Also, there is no full trilinear filtering, but this can not be noticed so quickly. ATI's texture filtering hardware does not compute as exactly as a GeForces', the overall image quality is better, for there are not as many questionable "optimizations." Angle dependency when using AF, however, should not be considered as a feature of modern graphic cards any more, ATI's advertising using "High Definition" gaming can thus be seen as an unfulfilled promise straight from the marketing department.

Nvidia, with i ts current 7800 series, delivers graphic cards that can not be recommended to lovers of decent texture quality-- even though texel performance was increased by a factor of 2.5 compared to the GeForce FX 5800 Ultra! Added to the (taken over from ATI) angle dependency, there is now the susceptibility to texture flickering. The GeForce 6800 (or GeForce 6600) has to be configured to use "High Quality" to circumvent texture flickering as much as possible. With the 7800, this seems to be useless, even when using "High Quality", the new chip tends to texture flickering.


The quoted passages from Nvidia's Reviewer's Guide can easily disproved. Nvidia makes claims which are clearly disproved by the upper videos. This means: All benchmarks using standard settings, no matter if GeForce 7800 or 6800, or even one of these cards against a Radeon, are wrong: Nvidia offers, at this time, the by far worse AF quality, Radeon standard settings are better (speaking in terms of image quality) than 6800 standard settings, whilst the 7800's standard settings are even worse. Thus, performance can not be compared precisely and accurately.

If there should be any changes with new driver versions, we will try to keep our readers up-to-date.


---

Ich hoffe mal, daß es halbwegs hilfreich ist.

-huha

[Nicky]

3
With the G70-Chip the activation of "HighQuality", via the driver's control panel, does not produce the desired effect. Has Nvidia managed, with the NV40-Standard, to accustom the user to AF texture flares in such a way, that with G70 there is no option left to get flicker-free textures with AF?

[aths]

Ich reviewe gerade den Text.

Gotteshand,

"Es spielt keine Rolle" mit "it doesn't play a role" zu übersetzen ist ziemlich merkwürdig. "it does not matter" müsste man nehmen. Ich weiß auch nicht wie du auf "flares" gekommen bist. "Texturfackeln"?

[Mike]

beim Titel würde glaube ich graphics besser passen.

"Did it create Nvidia with the NV40-Standard to accustom the user at AF textur flares - so that their are no more options for the G70-Chip to get flicker-free AF textures?"

Das hört sich auch komisch an, bzw sind Fehler drin wie "their", wo "there" hin muss.

Wäre ein Wiki nicht gut für die Artikelübersetzung geeignet? So kann jeder, der Fehler findet, diese korrigieren bzw Textstellen evtl. verbessern, wenn er ne besse Idee zur Formulierung hat.

[moeb1us]

ax entspricht der absatzzahl im ersten post des threads

a1 - "end of the flag pole" - ich bezweifle, dass die redewendung im englischen existiert, wäre interessant zu wissen ob es verständlich ist für englisch-sprachige
edit: huhas alternative scheint mir sehr geeignet

a2 - "As a reminder" statt "just to memorize"

a3 - "with the G70-Chip" - kA wie das genau ist, für mich klingt das richtiger (tolle begründung eh ^^)
- "yield" statt "bring" iirc steht das bring eher für physisches bringen, tragen
- "the card is inclined to texture flickering further on."
- "has nvidia accomplished to accustom the user to AF-texture-flickering with the nv40-standard - so that there is no optional flicker-free AF-texturing anymore?"

a4 - "if the textures produced by 500-euro-hardware flicker in the end, you can talk hardly about a "quality improvement"
- "Good quality naturally costs speed."
- "power" statt "achievement" - technische leistung ist hier gemeint
- "The "optimized" AF costs less work - thus, the performed power is not increased." - rise ist auch mehr physisch

a5 - "Anyone willing to spend several 100-euros"
- "probably"
- "It is remarkable that the G70-Chip (as well as the nv40) with activated 16xAF treats some areas as 2xAF at most."
- "today, however, it is no longer up-to-date (the R420-chip suffers under this restriction, too)."
- "Given a SM3 product like the nv40 or G70, such compromises regarding the AF are difficult to understand (if at all).

a6 - "Concerning the G70-flickering, this was solely described by a single site by the time of the 78GTX launch" - zeit am ende iirc
- "in the article by Tridam on hardware.fr"
- "We at 3dc as well offered just descriptions of the improved shader-technology besides benchmarks in quality-mode (we relied on nvidia's reviewer's guide by carelessness)"
- "however, as long as ..."
- "we see no reason to offer full particulars of the shader-technology: as a start, the multitexturing has to function satisfactorily, then you can delve into continuative things."

a7 - "In prior news, we simply mentioned underfiltering (? s.o.) the cause for the G70-AF-flickering."
- "Due to Demirug's investigations we have the insight that the cause may originate elsewhere:"

a8 - "Ultimately, this is irrelevant: given that the G70-Chip, which [...], uses partly only 2xAF dependent of the angle (with appointed 16xAF), and tends towards texture-flickering in addition, is simply an evidence of
incapacity."

edit2: muss schnell los, morgen weiter wenn ich zeit finde,

mfg moe

[eXodia]

Ich reviewe gerade den Text.

Gotteshand,

"Es spielt keine Rolle" mit "it doesn't play a role" zu übersetzen ist ziemlich merkwürdig. "it does not matter" müsste man nehmen. Ich weiß auch nicht wie du auf "flares" gekommen bist. "Texturfackeln"?

damn right:
doesn´t matter
sollte flicker = flimmern heißen

GrUß

[aths]

Wäre ein Wiki nicht gut für die Artikelübersetzung geeignet? So kann jeder, der Fehler findet, diese korrigieren bzw Textstellen evtl. verbessern, wenn er ne besse Idee zur Formulierung hat.Für mein Review gibts einen eigenen Thread: http://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=242631

[tEd]

Ich glaube nicht das flickering der richtige ausdruck zum thema ist. Flickering wird oft benutzt um z.b z-fighting zu beschreiben also wenn ein objekt oder texture schnell komplett verschwindet und wieder auftaucht oder wenn eine lampe schnell an und aus geht.

[aths]

Ich glaube nicht das flickering der richtige ausdruck zum thema ist. Flickering wird oft benutzt um z.b z-fighting zu beschreiben also wenn ein objekt oder texture schnell komplett verschwindet und wieder auftaucht oder wenn eine lampe schnell an und aus geht.Welches Wort wäre denn besser?

[tEd]

Welches Wort wäre denn besser?

Ich benutze oft shimmering um texture aliasing zum ausdruck zu bringen. Flickering ist sicherlich nicht wirklich falsch aber in diesem zusammenhang vielleicht fast ein bisschen extrem.

[aths]

Ich benutze oft shimmering um texture aliasing zum ausdruck zu bringen.Für mich ist texture shimmering nur leichtes flimmern.

Flickering ist sicherlich nicht wirklich falsch aber in diesem zusammenhang vielleicht fast ein bisschen extrem.Nicht wirklich falsch – ist es denn unwirklich falsch?

"fast ein bisschen" – starke Abschwächung – und extrem – "extremer" gehts ja bekanntlich nicht.

Ich will hier keine Deutschstunden erteilen, erst recht nicht mit einem Bier in der Krone, und werde im finalen Review wohl einige male "flickering" mit "shimmering" ersetzen, und dabei ergänzen, dass das Flickering hauptsächlich in Bändern zu sehen ist.

[Nicky]

"flickering" beschreibt eher das 50/60 hz flimmern, "shimmering" ist IMO der passendere Ausdruck.

[Leonidas]

Auf Beyond3D verwendet man in der Diskussion "shimmering"