Better image quality? PROVE IT. I want details

Xidus

Member
Mar 8, 2002
74
0
0
Every damned video card review ignores this. They always focus on features and framerates, but leave out image quality. Yet you can find endless numbers of people on message boards and newsgroups that claim one video card has better image quality than another. But none of these people give details. They just say, "oh ati looks better than the dozen or so nvidia ones I've seen", but neglect the specifics. Why do people always have trouble with aesthetics? It's like when you ask someone why he thinks one girl is prettier than another. They never say "that ones nose is slimer and gawline is sharper". No, they never know. They always say "idunno, she just is". I hate that, they are all morons. Take 15 seconds and look at her damnit.

Great, what the hell was I talking about now? Oh yeah, video cards. Someone find me that one review out of the thousands written that give details on image quality. I want someone to tell me the specifics, take pictures with a camera two inches way from the monitor with different video cards installed. No one ever says if you look close enough you'll see this one clearly produces a sharper image, or the colors are more vibrant, or whatever else. They never give specifics and it annoys the hell out of me.
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,709
3,002
126
As far as the measurable side goes, there are technical reasons why nVidia's GF3/GF4 cards deliver the highest and most accurate rendering available to consumers in 3D games.

Of course often when people talk about image quality they often talk from the subjective side of things, not the technical side. Personally I like to use both.

Here is a good review that has a good image quality discussion.
 

merlocka

Platinum Member
Nov 24, 1999
2,832
0
0
No one ever says if you look close enough you'll see this one clearly produces a sharper image, or the colors are more vibrant, or whatever else. They never give specifics and it annoys the hell out of me.

Agreed, but the problem is that image quality is difficult to quantify. Everyone can get 3dmark or Quake demo's and run the exact same test. That's solid data which can be reproduced.

Image quality has too many variables (which monitor, resolution, refresh rate, driver revision, monitor cable, gamma settings, 3d configuration, etc) and it's very subjective.

There are things that I won't tolerate which someone else might call me anal about and totally ignore (like my buddy who bought a $450 dollar Viewsonic PF790 which has horrible moire patters at any resolution, but he's happy with the short depth of the monitor so doesn't care).

The last note is, I'm not sure I'd trust anyone's comments about image quality. It's something that you just have to get opinions about, try and make an informed purchase decision, and test at your home/office. If it sucks, send it back.

It's kinda like buying audio speakers. Many of the audiophiles I know have purchased 4-5 sets of $1000's of dollar speakers just so they could test them in their house, with their equipment. I don't know if I'd go that far for a video card, but if I wasn't satisfied with the 2D/3D quality I would (and have) sent cards back.

 

SSXeon5

Senior member
Mar 4, 2002
542
0
0


<< It's obvious that the RADEON 7500/8500 has the best image quality. Everyone know that. >>



and the BEST DVD play back and with the 400Mhz ramdac ..... yummy .... R300-400 is suppose to have 450MHz+ ramdac .... go ati ...

SSXeon
 

merlocka

Platinum Member
Nov 24, 1999
2,832
0
0
It's obvious that the RADEON 7500/8500 has the best image quality. Everyone know that.

Which proves my point exactly. You can't trust people's opinions. You must judge for yourself, but a card, and tell everone else that the card you decided to buy is the only card to buy and anything else is obviously inferior.
 

SFang

Senior member
Apr 4, 2001
655
0
0


<< and the BEST DVD play back and with the 400Mhz ramdac >>



Why my Radeon 8500 (retail) has only 350Mhz RAMDAC ??? Any link said it should be a 400Mhz RAMDAC ? Thanks.
 

Pariah

Elite Member
Apr 16, 2000
7,357
20
81
RAMDAC speeds for the Radeon are reported incorrectly. It is 400Mhz. Not that it really matters for most people. With 400Mhz you can run 2048x1536 at 85Hz instead of 75Hz with a 350Mhz RAMDAC. RAMDAC speed tells you nothing about the quality of the output, all it tells you is what refresh rates you can run at what resolutions.
 

RudeBoie

Platinum Member
Feb 28, 2000
2,017
0
0
Is he talking about 2D? Because in 3D, there are image quality comparisons done with screenshots in games ALL THE TIME.
 

JeremiahTheGreat

Senior member
Oct 19, 2001
552
0
0
The claims are that the Radeon series outputs a better 2D signal to the monitor..

Whats the point of excellent ingame rendering if when it is outputed to your monitor it looks like crap?
Whats the point of excellent monitor signal output when your ingame rendering is crap?

See.. it goes both ways. Note i'm not saying Radeon 8500 ingame rendering is horrid, it isn't. And i'm not saying the the Geforce series monitor output is crap as well.. (actually, a lot of the cheapo-mid end ones certainly are!)
 

UncleWai

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2001
5,701
68
91
it's useless to take picture with a camera and put it on the net. People with crappy video card and/or crappy monitor looks at the picture (assuming it can do a 100% accuracy), it will still look like crap. That's why image quality is something you have to try yourself. If you still have doubt about ati looks better than gf, you should test it yourself. Go to compusa and buy a gf3/4 and a radeon 8500, then judge it with your own eyes.
 

HendrixFan

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2001
4,646
0
71
It is subjective, and therefore really cant be included in a review too well. Anand did an article on the video quality that showed that the 8500 beat out the GF3, especially with AA. The GF3 had to run 4XAA to match the Radeon 8500 with 2XAA Quality.

Even then, if you have a poorer quality output, then looking at the two jpg's side by side my diminish the impact.

Some people (like my little brother) cant tell the difference between the two side by side. The choice then is clear for him. For me, I can tell a visual difference, and the choice is clear for me.

 

Mingon

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2000
3,012
0
0
The problem with web review is that to be accurate jpg should not be used as they will add slight aliasing to a picture