Image quality Who is better

[Wall Street]

It would be neat if one of the groups with a capture card captured the image or a picture from the DVI port then compared the color values bit by bit against the original image. It would put this 2D issue to rest. As mentioned though 3D image quality is a different thing as color sampling and filtering can algorithms differ.

 

[bluesquare07]

Use the search and there's like a 100+ page thread about it. That isn't the point even. Whenever someone posts something that is clearly bias against nvidia and people try to break down the argument or argue in favor or nvidia or a neutral stance, it is called being a fanboy or "nvidia defense force". Yet when the same thing happens to AMD it is total opposite.

Some people act as if this never happens. Those same people will hand pick reviews and graphs and post them too. Everyone knows this.

This argument that amd is better with color and text by default is laughable when anyone who cares about this will calibrate their monitor correctly.

100% true. If you don't take time to educate yourself the people on this forum will make you buy amd 100%

 

[ICDP]

Having switched between Tahiti and Kepler a few times this year I found no difference in image quality. Nvidia gives more options for MSAA but AMD aren't that far behind.

 

[UaVaj]

100% true. If you don't take time to educate yourself the people on this forum will make you buy amd 100%

amd is a great value overall. no doubt about that.

except for crossfire (7970) and except for fastest ipc. :whiste:

 

[ICDP]

100% true. If you don't take time to educate yourself the people on this forum will make you buy amd 100%

Ironic for you to generalise this forum as being full of people who don't educate themselves. Then you go and make a generalised statement that isn't true. I have seen many people recommend current Nvidia cards over their AMD conterparts here on this forum so your 100% claim is false.

Go back 8 months and the GTX670 is the price/perf king and the card being recommended. Before that the 6950 unlocked was hailed as the price/perf king with its ability to unlock to 6970 speeds. Go back 2.5 years and it was Nvidia that seemed to be heavily favoured with the excellent GTX460. The GTX 560 and GTX 570s also received plenty of praise here. It is simply swings and roundabouts as they say. HD 7950 is seen as the price/perf champ and as such it is usually the card that is currently recommended.

No conspircay theories required, just the normal too and fro of the GPU niche.

 

[Black Octagon]

I've owned several ATI/AMD and NVIDIA (and Voodoo) cards over the years and never once noticed a substantive difference in image quality. Regarding colour, all graphics cards and monitors warrant some level of calibration out of the box.

Apart from that, this thread is a waste of time IMHO.

 

[SirPauly]

'Upping' digital vibrance does nothing but blow out certain colors.

What it does for me is for different lighting conditions in one's gaming environment, particularly in bright conditions, colors may offer a washed out look -- DV offers a tool to address different environments and subjective tastes and very welcomed.

 

[bystander36]

I know that prior to owning the 5870, 470, 6950 and 680 (I disliked the previous 3 for different reasons and wanted to upgrade), I do remember seeing red fringe colors around text, or blue around text, but I have not seen such a thing in some time. I think the differences in ClearType stopped when I switched to an LCD.

Heck, some people, like geniusloci, probably are best off without ClearType at all.

 

[kasakka]

Videophile bullshit I'd say. This is the exact same shit you see in the audiophile world where someone claims that device X sounds better than device Y because "well I can hear the difference, maybe I've just got better ears". Just remember that our eyes and ears are easy to trick.

On my display I can see differences in color between the two images posted. On one the reds look more like red, on the other blues are more accurate, on the other one greens. But that could be anything from display settings to camera settings to how my display shows them and even then has little to do with image quality itself. Also the reason some would see the right one as clearer is because it has a more blue-dominant tint which we perceive as "clear, icy, clean" etc.

 

[SirPauly]

I'm glad there are tools to increase or decrease vibrancy -- so I can set up for my subjective tastes.

 

[cmdrdredd]

amd is a great value overall. no doubt about that.

except for crossfire (7970) and except for fastest ipc. :whiste:

I can't recommend a GTX 670 at this time unless someone needs multiGPU or titan level performance (2560x1440+). In which case I would say go SLI before x-fire. Or if you are feeling spendy a Titan. For sure it's always AMD for single GPU at this time at reasonable price levels with 7970s being sold for ~$300 used sometimes and 7950s being really good deals lately. However, the reason I would recommend them has absolutely zero to do with anything in this thread.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

I've owned several ATI/AMD and NVIDIA (and Voodoo) cards over the years and never once noticed a substantive difference in image quality. Regarding colour, all graphics cards and monitors warrant some level of calibration out of the box.

Apart from that, this thread is a waste of time IMHO.

+1 Only thing I've noticed from both camps is that they repeatedly foul up the color range for video playback, leading to crushed blacks/whites and a "washed out"/non-vibrant look.

They always fix it, and break it again somewhere down the line.
It's like they're following Valve's model for updating TF2

 

[Keromyaou]

I have a NEC 27inch display (2560x1440) with color calibrator. I have been using this display with both Nvidia and ATI gpu. Even before calibration I don't see much difference between two cards. After calibration, there is no difference at all.

 

[Anarchist420]

Last time I used an AMD GPU (5770) its IQ was lousier than anything from nvidia.

 

[Final8ty]

@Geniusloci

I quoted myself stateing I percived differnces in those 2 pictures.
I noticed it in the blues and red's.

Fisherman lateron posted that there was indeed tiny differnces,
in both the blues and reds.


On the same hand, I wouldnt have notice it (I believe) if I wasnt actively looking for differnces.
AND the picture wasnt blown up (in size) to make it easier to see.


Maybe you actually can see a difference, at regular size between the two....
Im not sure I can, or if I could that it would even bother me.

Sometimes blowing up too far makes difference harder to see.

 

[SirPauly]

In any case, which one is superior, there are tools to increase saturation or sharpness like SweetFX -- an illustration:

http://international.download.nvidi...l-of-duty-black-ops-2-sweetfx-comparison.html


Some may like or dislike the differences but at least there is some flexibility if one chooses. As long as there are tools from the companies and even third party tools - pretty pleased:

 

[amenx]

I used to use digital vibrance until I realized that with a good monitor, you dont need it.

 

[Cloudfire777]

I've owned several ATI/AMD and NVIDIA (and Voodoo) cards over the years and never once noticed a substantive difference in image quality. Regarding colour, all graphics cards and monitors warrant some level of calibration out of the box.

Apart from that, this thread is a waste of time IMHO.

Its reviewers that have way too much time on their hands that find the differences between an AMD and a Nvidia GPU in terms of image quality.

They take screenshots from a game, zoom in on parts, and discover a difference. People would never notice it unless they compare them side by side in slow motion, or in screenshots. So in real gaming situations, it doesn`t matter if you pick AMD or Nvidia GPU. You won`t notice the difference

 

[Leadbox]

Its reviewers that have way too much time on their hands that find the differences between an AMD and a Nvidia GPU in terms of image quality.

They take screenshots from a game, zoom in on parts, and discover a difference. People would never notice it unless they compare them side by side in slow motion, or in screenshots. So in real gaming situations, it doesn`t matter if you pick AMD or Nvidia GPU. You won`t notice the difference

I disagree, if anything we need more IQ testing. Easy fps increases can be had by skimping on IQ
Check this thread over at OCN, some very interesting screenies taken of pcper's linked videos in there

 

[SirPauly]

People would never notice it unless they compare them side by side in slow motion, or in screenshots. So in real gaming situations, it doesn`t matter if you pick AMD or Nvidia GPU. You won`t notice the difference

Wouldn't agree with never.

I would say texture aliasing, mip-map transitions, filtering and over-all aliasing one may indeed notice while playing. Heck, it's the first thing I did investigate over the years.

 

[SirPauly]

I disagree, if anything we need more IQ testing.

Indeed; to go beyond just raw frame-rate.

 

[SirPauly]

I used to use digital vibrance until I realized that with a good monitor, you dont need it.

Digital Vibrance for me is more about lighting conditions in one's environment -- in a bright environment, colors and the display may appear washed out compared to a darkened environment. DV helps a lot here to me.

 

[Phynaz]

There's a reason review sites don't talk about image quality anymore - because there isn't a difference.

 

[Arkadrel]

I disagree, if anything we need more IQ testing. Easy fps increases can be had by skimping on IQ
Check this thread over at OCN, some very interesting screenies taken of pcper's linked videos in there

Some pictures from that thread:

Does it look like nvidia is "missing things" to anyone else?

 

[SirPauly]

There's a reason review sites don't talk about image quality anymore - because there isn't a difference.

Same or similar things were said in the past!