- Oct 9, 1999
- 72,636
- 47
- 91
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
If it was as simple as adjusting gamma correction (as many are claiming), don't you think these review sites would say so???
Instead, they say things like,
the overall image on both Halo pictures is that NVIDIA produces far less vivid imagery
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Even with the (ahem) shady new optimizations the nV perofrmance is still second rate.
d'oh! I don't want an ATI (I've liked all my nV cards up to now) but my next card is looking more and more like a 9800 pro.
Originally posted by: Adul
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Even with the (ahem) shady new optimizations the nV perofrmance is still second rate.
d'oh! I don't want an ATI (I've liked all my nV cards up to now) but my next card is looking more and more like a 9800 pro.
or 9800xt![]()
The first thing you'll notice in these shots, is how much more vivid the ATi based shots are. Frankly, we have no idea why this is. Gamma settings in the benchmark or driver control panels, couldn't compensate for the darker and more washed out NVIDIA images. If we turned up the gamma, versus leaving it set to the identical position as we had for the Radeon 9800 Pro, the images would get brighter but even more washed out looking. Beyond that, we'll let these images speak for themselves. You can decide which you like better. However, our humble opinion is that the ATi AF shots are more detailed than the NVIDIA shots, regardless of color saturation. Would you notice this in fast action game play? Maybe, Maybe not but when you consider that image quality should be taken into consideration when viewing benchmark scores, the differences in the output results of these two cards, should also be taken into account as well.
Originally posted by: Adul
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Even with the (ahem) shady new optimizations the nV perofrmance is still second rate.
d'oh! I don't want an ATI (I've liked all my nV cards up to now) but my next card is looking more and more like a 9800 pro.
or 9800xt![]()
NVIDIA's Det50's don't quite grab the high-needed performance boost we had hoped for - granted they still have some time to improve upon them. However, we can now conclude as to why NVIDIA wanted Valve to use these in the recent testing we did in Half-Life 2 - they make the image quality look like crap as a way to boost performance.
Actually it's been a very slow CONVERSION ever since the 9700 Pro was released (as I predicted when the 8500 came out).Originally posted by: ndee
Wow, Nvidia is getting raped on all sites huh? I think that is enough that most of the enthusiasts have made their decision to go the ATI way hm? And that all happend in the last 48hrs approx..... wow.
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
If it was as simple as adjusting gamma correction (as many are claiming), don't you think these review sites would say so???
Instead, they say things like,
the overall image on both Halo pictures is that NVIDIA produces far less vivid imagery
nVidia's image looks totally and simply washed out by comparison!
(Look at Laura's shadow too.)
Actually if you look closely, Lara is perfectly sharp, only the textures on the walls and stuff are blurry....well, her arm is...that's weird.this is the first screen i've looked at... the nvidia picture doesn't look sharp at all. its like they've just turned off filtering
You wouldn't know it by their "comprehension" skills.Originally posted by: OzzieGT
You know after that huge thread a few days ago I was really expecting some nVidia fanboys to chime in...
Oh wait, they must still be in school.![]()
Originally posted by: OzzieGT
Actually if you look closely, Lara is perfectly sharp, only the textures on the walls and stuff are blurry....well, her arm is...that's weird.this is the first screen i've looked at... the nvidia picture doesn't look sharp at all. its like they've just turned off filtering