Originally posted by: SniperDaws
my 7600GT has much better image quality in games and video quality compared to this horrible 1800XL AIW, watching Digital TV on this card is like watching a youtube clip, im just glad i only paid £35 for it.
The only reason i use it is because its slightly faster in games.
Originally posted by: Therk
According to reviews the 5xxx through to 7xxx series ATI was ahead, then the 8800s came and they seem to be about even now.
Even though most reviews seem to point out that they look similar, in my opinion ATI cards still produce MUCH better image quality. I've got a 9600XT in my secondary PC and a 6800GS in my daily. The 9600XT produces MUCH more vibrant colors and they just seem to 'pop' and really look great. I've also noticed that the AF on the 9600XT is of much higher quality than the 6800GS. The colors that the 6800GS produces seem very plain and uninteresting. Digital vibrance does make it a little better but its still nowhere near to the 9600XT. I also noticed the same difference between PS3 and Xbox360 graphics. The colors that the 360 displayed seemed leaps and bounds better than the murky **** from the PS3.
Originally posted by: deizel
Well according to this ATI's newer cards have better IQ than nVidia's newest offering:
http://www.vr-zone.com/article...vation%3F/5392-14.html
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: deizel
Well according to this ATI's newer cards have better IQ than nVidia's newest offering:
http://www.vr-zone.com/article...vation%3F/5392-14.html
And the slideshow you'll get in Crysis will really let you appreciate the IQ
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: firewolfsm
I always thought nVidia should up the default digital vibrance, most people are too retarded to find it and fix it themselves. I like it at 20%
I always thought digital vibrance made the colors look so unnatural. 7 series colors are fine. It's the AF that is seriously lacking compared to x1000 series or 8 series.