Who has better picture quality AMD or NVIDIA?

[Arkadrel]

Here are Gothic 4 screens from computerbase.de's GTX590 review:

Look at the sheep. Can you guess which is the 6990 and which is the 590?

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/...force-gtx-590/15/#abschnitt_arcania__gothic_4

Uhm? There are sheep on both images.
The upper one is the GTX590 according to computerbase.

Nice so the sunny weather one with the nice shadows is the 6990 one (buttom pic)

I think the "white" er sheep look better, but I suspect its because of the weather not a imagie quality issue on either card.

 

[jimbo75]

If I saw weather changing white sheep to black I'd stay indoors tbh.

 

[dust]

If I saw weather changing white sheep to black I'd stay indoors tbh.

Well put!

 

[Zanovar]

Poor 590, it really is the black sheep of the graphics card market.

Lmao

 

[Lonbjerg]

@Lonbjerg

I like my LCD more than I did any CRT I ever had.

I googled "LCD advantages" and found this:






1,4 and 5 are really nice, theres no way Id go back to the CRT I had before I changed to LCDs... I do "feel" like my eyes are more relaxed than back then when I had a CRT.

So name me a LCD with better I.Q.

Your babble is useless.

(Hint: a CRT @ 100Hz makes #4 seem liken drunken ramblings)

 

[SlowSpyder]

So name me a LCD with better I.Q.

Your babble is useless.

(Hint: a CRT @ 100Hz makes #4 seem liken drunken ramblings)

Everytime someone doesn't agree with you, that doesn't mean you should speak to them in such a derogatory manner... especially about something that is so subjective. Someone preferrs an LCD's picture to a CRT's picture, that hardly means he is uselessly babbling, or that information is useless babble.

I feel that LCD"s have crisper colors than CRT's. I also like the perfect geometry of an LCD. At the same time I can appreciate how colors are uniform on a CRT from every angle and they have great black levels. When everything is considered I will take an LCD over a CRT.

 

[BFG10K]

But your resolution can also affect how many pixel samples are already being taken, and hence how smooth your graphics appear. So in other words if you run at a high resolution you don't need much AA.

This is completely irrelevant to the fact that the two cards don’t always produce identical output like you claimed. The AF (and sometimes AA) is not the same regardless of what resolution you’re using.

Besides, I run 2560x1600 and the difference between 2xMSAA and 4xSSAA is as plain as day, especially in titles with shader/alpha aliasing. A higher resolution can make AA even more necessary because the stray pixels stand out more against the perfect ones.

And no its not hardwired into the gpu. Its in the drivers. A gpu can follow instructions like a cpu.

Uh, no. Hardware AA methods are tied to what the ROPs implement at the hardware level. That’s why older hardware can’t AA FP render targets (as an example). You can’t implement something like CSAA in software and integrate it into a hardware pipeline; the ROPs have to support such a sampling type.

If you want another method of a AA effect drop your native one down. Your LCD upscaling the image also creates a sort of AA. Not as good as the real thing but its not bad give it a test

Seriously, what a load of nonsense. Also if you want to discuss a topic then actually discuss it instead of arguing irrelevant rhetoric. The fact is that the two vendors don’t always have the same output and no amount of your nonsense about resolutions will change that.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Everytime someone doesn't agree with you, that doesn't mean you should speak to them in such a derogatory manner... especially about something that is so subjective. Someone preferrs an LCD's picture to a CRT's picture, that hardly means he is uselessly babbling, or that information is useless babble.

I feel that LCD"s have crisper colors than CRT's. I also like the perfect geometry of an LCD. At the same time I can appreciate how colors are uniform on a CRT from every angle and they have great black levels. When everything is considered I will take an LCD over a CRT.

It's funny how people always talk and talk about everything else...than the relevant.

I say again:
Name me a LCD with better I.Q than a my CRT's.

Everything else is just empty fluff.

 

[insurgent]

It's funny how people always talk and talk about everything else...than the relevant.

I say again:
Name me a LCD with better I.Q than a my CRT's.

Everything else is just empty fluff.

The consumer market would say your reasons are irrelevant too, since most people today will pick an LCD over CRT any day. Sure CRT has better color reproduction, no viewing angle issues, all-around better IQ. People couldn't care less though, and buy LCDs.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

This is completely irrelevant to the fact that the two cards don¡¯t always produce identical output like you claimed. The AF (and sometimes AA) is not the same regardless of what resolution you¡¯re using.

Besides, I run 2560x1600 and the difference between 2xMSAA and 4xSSAA is as plain as day, especially in titles with shader/alpha aliasing. A higher resolution can make AA even more necessary because the stray pixels stand out more against the perfect ones.


Uh, no. Hardware AA methods are tied to what the ROPs implement at the hardware level. That¡¯s why older hardware can¡¯t AA FP render targets (as an example). You can¡¯t implement something like CSAA in software and integrate it into a hardware pipeline; the ROPs have to support such a sampling type.


Seriously, what a load of nonsense. Also if you want to discuss a topic then actually discuss it instead of arguing irrelevant rhetoric. The fact is that the two vendors don¡¯t always have the same output and no amount of your nonsense about resolutions will change that.

The reason aliasing occurs is because the image on your screen is only a pixellated sample of the original 3D information your graphics card has calculated. At increasingly higher resolutions, as more pixels are used, that sample comes closer to the original source and hence the image is clearer and displays less aliasing. However aside from the fact that higher resolutions can degrade performance, many monitors simply cannot display the very high resolutions needed to effectively remove the problem.
This is where Full Scene Anti-Aliasing (FSAA), and now simply Antialiasing (AA), can be used by your graphics card to make the jagged lines in appear smoother without having to increase your resolution.It essentially resamples and blends jagged lines with their surroundings, and can be applied to either 2D or 3D graphics. 8x AA is typically sufficient at 1280x720, while you may only need 2x AA to achieve the same effect at 1920x1200.

Modern graphics cards, antialiasing can be done with a reasonable performance cost because they have been designed to incorporate these techniques into their hardware. The older the graphics card, and or the less VRAM it has, the more likely that it will suffer a larger performance loss from enabling AA I never said its being done via software. I said they do the same thing but call it differently. .AA will not resolve blurry surfaces on more distant objects. That's where texture filtering comes in.
http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_11.html

Run 2 x AA on 1080p and then run it without any AA on 1600p. You tell me which one looks clearer. Think your confused what AA does or you got the wrong impression. The higher the resolution the less the GPU have to add fake effects to it.
AT HIGHER RESOLUTIONS THE PICTURE LOOK CLOSER TO THE ORIGINAL. AA is techniques used by the GPU to emulate that. Run a game on a 720p and you will see a lot more jagged lines than on 1080p. Saying your seeing more jagged lines on a higher resolution is nonsense. Buy a better LCD or get a plasma a gpu can only do so much it cant fix junks LCDs

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

Everytime someone doesn't agree with you, that doesn't mean you should speak to them in such a derogatory manner... especially about something that is so subjective. Someone preferrs an LCD's picture to a CRT's picture, that hardly means he is uselessly babbling, or that information is useless babble.

I feel that LCD"s have crisper colors than CRT's. I also like the perfect geometry of an LCD. At the same time I can appreciate how colors are uniform on a CRT from every angle and they have great black levels. When everything is considered I will take an LCD over a CRT.

dunno what he means but according to him digital->ramdac->analog is better than digital->digital
And normally the ones saying that are the ones with weekly spec savers appointments

 

[Lonbjerg]

The consumer market would say your reasons are irrelevant too, since most people today will pick an LCD over CRT any day. Sure CRT has better color reproduction, no viewing angle issues, all-around better IQ. People couldn't care less though, and buy LCDs.

That is not the point.
The point is that the I.Q. of CRT's > LCD's

That people chosse an inferior product is not somethung unusual.

dunno what he means but according to him digital->ramdac->analog is better than digital->digital
And normally the ones saying that are the ones with weekly spec savers appointments

So could you name a LCD with better I.Q. than my CRT's?

Or is all you have simply a lot of beating around the bush?

 

[monkeh624]

The reason aliasing occurs is because the image on your screen is only a pixellated sample of the original 3D information your graphics card has calculated. At increasingly higher resolutions, as more pixels are used, that sample comes closer to the original source and hence the image is clearer and displays less aliasing. However aside from the fact that higher resolutions can degrade performance, many monitors simply cannot display the very high resolutions needed to effectively remove the problem.
This is where Full Scene Anti-Aliasing (FSAA), and now simply Antialiasing (AA), can be used by your graphics card to make the jagged lines in appear smoother without having to increase your resolution.It essentially resamples and blends jagged lines with their surroundings, and can be applied to either 2D or 3D graphics. 8x AA is typically sufficient at 1280x720, while you may only need 2x AA to achieve the same effect at 1920x1200.

Modern graphics cards, antialiasing can be done with a reasonable performance cost because they have been designed to incorporate these techniques into their hardware. The older the graphics card, and or the less VRAM it has, the more likely that it will suffer a larger performance loss from enabling AA I never said its being done via software. I said they do the same thing but call it differently. .AA will not resolve blurry surfaces on more distant objects. That's where texture filtering comes in.
http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_11.html

Run 2 x AA on 1080p and then run it without any AA on 1600p. You tell me which one looks clearer. Think your confused what AA does or you got the wrong impression. The higher the resolution the less the GPU have to add fake effects to it.
AT HIGHER RESOLUTIONS THE PICTURE LOOK CLOSER TO THE ORIGINAL. AA is techniques used by the GPU to emulate that. Run a game on a 720p and you will see a lot more jagged lines than on 1080p. Saying your seeing more jagged lines on a higher resolution is nonsense. Buy a better LCD or get a plasma a gpu can only do so much it cant fix junks LCDs

I find it amusing that you post incorrect information earlier in the thread, then when called on it, post these little essays which don't actually back up your position at all. All you have done is explain why we apply AA and why it makes more difference at lower resolutions.
Guess what, we already know this.

You've done it twice now in this one thread. You write a lot of text without actually saying anything useful.
Oh, and the bolded part of the text also seems untrue to me, I've not seen BFG10K make this claim in this thread, perhaps you can point it out to us?

And just a quick FYI, BFG10K has a lot of experience on the subject of image quality, including how AA/AF works and the different variations of each. To suggest he does not know what AA is is downright insulting IMO.

Take a look at this: http://alienbabeltech.com/main/amd-radeon-6000-series-image-quality-analysis

Note the author of that article.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

^Just read his sig.

 

[SlowSpyder]

That is not the point.
The point is that the I.Q. of CRT's > LCD's

That people chosse an inferior product is not somethung unusual.




So could you name a LCD with better I.Q. than my CRT's?

Or is all you have simply a lot of beating around the bush?

IQ isn't a single spec, but a collection of specs and how they come together. You can't say your CRT gets a 94 in IQ and an LCD only gets a 91. Depending on the person, what an LCD does better than a CRT may hold more value to them then what the CRT does better. There are some hard numbers that can be measured and compared, but much of it is subjective.

 

[BFG10K]

The reason aliasing occurs is because the image on your screen is only a pixellated sample of the original 3D information your graphics card has calculated. [snip]

That's great, but it's actually not relevant to anything.

 

[timma]

AMD +1
i am from NV GF 4 Ti 4200/FX 5600/6600GT/7600GS to ATi 2600/3870/4870/5770

2D and in game,AMD-ATi looks better~

 

[Bearach]

I have black sheep! The game has quite good environmental lighting and effects, and is ever changing. I think the black sheep is due to that, as I'm using a AMD 6850 with this image. As for image quality? I think it comes down to what people prefer, or the minute details that some can see.

My first Radeon, and thus far I myself prefer the AMD image quality but I really can't fault nVIDIA's either. It is a toss of a coin really, you probably won't even notice a difference in most things. This image is with the new 11.3's.

EDIT: Loaded the game again, and now my sheep are white!

 

[Cerb]

AMD +1
i am from NV GF 4 Ti 4200/FX 5600/6600GT/7600GS to ATi 2600/3870/4870/5770

2D and in game,AMD-ATi looks better~

Unless you calibrate with software help, 2D will be identical.

 

[WelshBloke]

Unless you calibrate with software help, 2D will be identical.

Dont you mean AFTER you calibrate?

The desktop colours are different OOTB for both vendors.

 

[Skurge]

That is not the point.
The point is that the I.Q. of CRT's > LCD's

That people chosse an inferior product is not somethung unusual.




So could you name a LCD with better I.Q. than my CRT's?

Or is all you have simply a lot of beating around the bush?

Ok. I'll play along. My LCD has better IQ than your CRT, I'm not using ANYTHING CRT based, I'm not staring at a fish bowl, I'm not using a VGA cable, Im not using a display with an aspect ratio of 4:3/5:4 (Feel claustrophobic and I would last 5secs in a game of CSS or SC2) So there. LCD>CRT to me and millions of other people some of which demand the best IQ from their displays.

 

[WelshBloke]

Ok. I'll play along. My LCD has better IQ than your CRT, I'm not using ANYTHING CRT based, I'm not staring at a fish bowl, I'm not using a VGA cable, Im not using a display with an aspect ratio of 4:3/5:4 (Feel claustrophobic and I would last 5secs in a game of CSS or SC2) So there. LCD>CRT to me and millions of other people some of which demand the best IQ from their displays.

Plus you get a laptop that wont give you a hernia :sneaky:

 

[Artista]

So far the comments and comparison has been interesting and refreshing. It is refreshing to me because we are talking image quality, game play experience, and physics. FPS equal to or >60 the discussion should be on environment, quality, physics, game play, etc.

Keep them coming.

Aside from the general conversation does anyone play games made for NVIDIA on a AMD/ATI GPU? If so how are the effects vs paying it on a NVIDIA GPU?

Thanks

 

[TerabyteX]

It's funny how people always talk and talk about everything else...than the relevant.

I say again:
Name me a LCD with better I.Q than a my CRT's.

Everything else is just empty fluff.

If you move from a CRT to a cheap TN LCD, obviously you will see quite a decrease in image quality, but what about a P-MVA or IPS monitor? I moved from my CRT to a P-MVA monitor and the colors are as vibrant as it was on the CRT, it is sharper and the whites are quite similar, oh and the blacks are evenly matched as MVA LCD panels has no backlight bleeding when doing black. So I think that the LCD image quality is subjective to LCD panel quality and the technology used.

Read what I wrote and check the source yourself.


The black ones look like boars, indeed. AMD's sheep look way better as far as I am concerned.


Haha, didn't see them at first either.

I think that AMD colors are more vibrant, I played Blackops on a Geforce 9800GTX and a Radeon HD 4870 and the latter had more vibrant colors and realistic skin shades, and I played them on the same LCD that I have. I also used the default color profile just in case and made no difference.

Anti Aliasing quality are quite similar on both, with the edge going to AMD thanks to its flexibility and lots of AA options like MLAA, but it can't do super sampling on DX10/DX11 and instead uses some sort of edge blurrying on the alpha texture that looks great at close distances, but may shimmer a bit on long distances, but looks much better than having no AA at all, plus I think that isn't feasible to run Supersampling on DX10+ with the current cards.

AF quality is quite subjective, AMD's approach makes the textures sharper, which some may prefer and some not, but also means that they tend to shimmer a bit during movement, while nVidia's AF is blurrier and will not shimmer at all, but you may also loose some detail at long distances. I think that both are too close to make a difference.

 

[Cerb]

Dont you mean AFTER you calibrate?

The desktop colours are different OOTB for both vendors.

No, before. The color ffb699, FI, is going to look identical from a Geforce, Radeon, Intel HD, SGX, etc.. After, too, if you only adjust settings in your monitor's OSD (monitors likely to be calibrated may have more features in the area of color adjustments).

I have yet to see a single difference from any vendor, except on PCs where users have been screwing around with the color settings in the drivers (usually for the worst). Unless you try to extend the cable length, bits is bits for DVI, HDMI, and DP.