[CtrlAltDel]

Originally Posted by Soulburner

Then explain to me my Aquamark score? It tests all the latest DX9 shaders...if you ask me that's pretty good for a baseline run....

What detonators were you using when you got that score? If you were using the 51.xx dets, it has already been discovered that the IQ with these drivers is actually lowered a lot, read NaRyan's post in this thread, first he got 24526 with the older drivers and then he suddenly got 41671 using the newer drivers. You seriously can't believe that that kind of improvement is done just by "optimizing without changing IQ". Besides, it has already been proved in numerous sites, that the 51.xx detonators do lower IQ, and I'm sure you've read it too and seen the numerous screenshots and captures etc, and I'm not talking about any biased fanboysites either, like for example rage3d.com or nvplanet.com.

I respect your choice of Nvidia hardware over ATI hardware, you might gain some compatibility that way. What I'm really trying to say is just that the DX9 features of FX cards are not on par with ATIs 9600-9800 cards, namely the pixel shader 2.0. And the fact is, that if PS 2.0 comes to a crawl, you need to apply a PS 1.4 codepath to attain reasonable speed, and this results in loss of image quality. This is why I chose ATI hardware this time around even though I've favored Nvidia cards in the past. I'm not saying the FX is a ****ty card, it most certainly isn't, it's just somewhat flawed and I'm not trying to put down people who chose differently than I did.

And I respect that you didn't get all medieval on me, as has happened many times when this subject has popped up, I prefer debating and discussion over "OMG taht card si teh suxx0rs" ranting.

CtrlAltDel