Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 107

Thread: Image Quality Comparison: Radeon Gallium3D vs. Catalyst

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,371

    Default Image Quality Comparison: Radeon Gallium3D vs. Catalyst

    Phoronix: Image Quality Comparison: Radeon Gallium3D vs. Catalyst

    Coming up in the next few days will be benchmarks of Mesa 8.0 with Morphological Anti-Aliasing (a.k.a. MLAA) plus some other imaging-oriented work/announcements to come in the near future. With that said, this weekend prior to leaving for Munich I ran some tests of the Radeon Gallium3D and Catalyst drivers when comparing the image quality...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTA1NzI

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Russe, Bulgaria
    Posts
    500

    Default

    I like the FOSS enemy more.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    248

    Default

    on the purple bot (the second image) there is a redish cloud around the belly and the feet on the radeon driver, which doesnt appear on the catalyst. what is that? a bug, a feature?
    and why is the crack on the floor on the first picture different when using the r300g driver?

    a propos image quality
    is there any news about S3TC and its alternative S2TC? would it be useful to have a performance comparison between them? IIRC S2TC was faster, but of lower quality.
    -S3TC
    -S2TC
    -no compression
    how about the legal side? maybe a short statement on ACTA?

    will there be a quality difference with finished HiZ support?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    353

    Default

    I'm afraid there's also some apparent differences caused by using JPG images - the images in the article are all JPG.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertP View Post
    I'm afraid there's also some apparent differences caused by using JPG images - the images in the article are all JPG.
    Indeed -- normally you are only showing some glaring visual issues, and jpg is enough, but please consider using png when you are comparing different renders.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    in my point of view the catalyst is just broken!

    they only get more fps speed by hurting the image quality.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Its hard to say which one looks better because they both have good and bad aspects to my eyes at least

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by acrazyplayer View Post
    Its hard to say which one looks better because they both have good and bad aspects to my eyes at least
    are you kidding? the catalyst only do have wrong colors on the "warrior" picture.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    are you kidding? the catalyst only do have wrong colors on the "warrior" picture.
    How do you know which one is "correct"? I use the open-source driver, but the Catalyst one looks better to me.. (not that you would ever admit that).

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Creve Coeur, Missouri
    Posts
    394

    Default

    I personally tend to agree with Q on this one. Catalyst tends to be faster because it uses shortcuts, lots of shortcuts. It used to be even worse. I mean, back in the day, you could see glaring graphical differences between say ATI and Nvidia cards.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •