I agree.
What facts are "going to be too low-performing to deliver a playable frame rate in high enough resolutions" based on? The framerates that 3DMark06 produces "in tomorrow’s games"? In that case, why bother testing with 3DMark06 at all? In every test, almost every card performed slower than 30 fps, which is often used as a minimum. And some more objections to that framerate motivation; not all gametypes need as high framerates as 30 fps, but can still benefit from combined HDR and AA; it is up to me as user to decide what resolution and quality settings I want to have - for instance I may be happy with 800x600, but still want to be able to enable HDR and AA. And there would still be the other X1000 cards to compare with.
My opinion is that the two arguments presented above are not real arguments; they're constructed just to save Nvidia the embaressment of a graph where they fail to produce a result, because this is a sensitive subject; first pushing hard for SM 3.0 HDR, then not being able to combine it with AA? Which is not true, btw, because it can be, with supersampling for instance - if the game implements it. And to be fair, I agree that the negative visual impact of such a graph may be exaggerated. But in that case, the test should have been balanced with the Shader Particles Test, where it's Ati that can't produce a result because of their lack of VTF, not avoided.
I like Xbitlabs, but the decision to omit the HDA and AA tests was, in my eyes, a bit cowardly. We, as users, want all information to be able to make our own decisions. And I hope Xbitlabs consider us intelligent enough to actually balance and value the information ourselves, not having it sorted out beforehand... ;-)
Games using HDR and AA are not tomorrows games, they´re out today - it would be very interesting to see the real impact of HDR and AA combined, not just speculation. Maybe the topic of a future artcile? :-)
[
Posted by: steelmartin

|
Date: 02/21/06 06:04:05 AM]