How do you figure?  ???

ATI and Nvidia have video cards that are not integrated and they have just as good, if not better quality, considering the technology has been imporoved since the voodoos.

---

Indeed.

The 22bit Post-Filter and also the MipMap Dithering are Features I really miss on modern ATI Cards, for example...

(although these Bandwidth Monsters run in 32bit all the time anyway)

But the MipMap Dithering really is a notably missing item, despite high FSAA and Aniso capability.

Yeah, I admit I have played some games on my Geforce2Pro (one notch higher than the GTS) and then on my Voodoo 5, I do notice 3Dfx has a greater quality factor to them, I thought it was just me, or I was fooling myself.

I also noticed with WinXP and the AmigaMerlin 2.5SE drivers I am able to run 4X Anti-Aliasing with a game like Quake 2 (yeah I know need to get something that pushes to card a little more) and regardless of the settings, like LOD, etc.  (how cranked they are/aren't) I still get around a little over 34FPS +/- 4FPS

---

Quote:

So, that´s the point, it´s a mather of hardware or a driver one, or both ? Everyone who has played any Quake powered game with wickedGL, or NFS with the Glide kit, knows what I mean by IQ.  In spite of this I have never seen such quality in a Gforce, even with the Omega drivers.
Regards!

That's right! It's all about how fast a video card can crunch numbers not quality - at least for the most part.

Heck, there's even a poll that FutureMark took and asked would you rather quality, frames-per-second, blah...blah...blah....and the number one thing people voted for was FPS (how much a card will push rather than what it looks like) voted 2nd was quality.

Looks like quality has taken a back seat ever since 3Dfx kicked the bucket. Sure the new cards can handle speeds in 32Bit color that 3Dfx (Voodoo 5500 -- the last card I got from them to compare) couldn't BUT to me I would sacrifice FPS for quality (though not to the point of the game dragging it butt).

Sure you got 2xFSAA, 4xFSAA (not as good as 3Dfx  ) and AnisoTropic filtering, but those are worth anything if you don't have quality -- you can anti-alias a piece of dog crud and apply an anisotropic plane to it all you want , but it still doesn't look that good - as compared to a nice piece of art (That being 3Dfx  )

I want my quality dangit! Do you know that Nvidia changed the naming in their "Quality and Performance Settings" From "application controlled", "balanced" and "aggressive" to something different that I have only noticed in the 45.23 detonator changed to "high performance", "performance" and "quality", can get confusing if they keep switching around this kind of stuff, and it kinda makes you wonder "why?", until you turn it to quality and 2x FSAA and watch it all slow to a crawl, even on a PIII-1Gig machine! (this is with the GeForce2 Pro 32MB, using DirectX 6,7,8 and OpenGL games.

At least 3Dfx was consistent, and they let you tweak the card to your preference, you could disable v-synch (,etc.) without searching for hours on the 'net for the correct registry key (depending on what detonator version) or having to use 3rd party utilities to force it to do what is should do natively -- provide a quality image w/excellent performance. Now this is just with the Nvidia cards, so I can't say much about ATI - but I get the feeling from what I read/researched, that it isn't any different.

But most everyone is only concerned about FPS more than quality it seems. 

By the way, when I talk about IQ I know, or I think so, what I mean: the almost photorealistick images in RTCW when using WGL. Although I know what it is not, resolution, AA, AF, etc, I don´t know how to expain it exactly, so we can be sure we are talking about the same thing. Is there any objective definition of IQ ?
(I´m afraid the message got a litle complicated, blame it on my "english", he...he...he...)
Regards!

Heeheeheehee!