Is it true that Radeon looks better in 3d than Geforce series?

[lsd]

<< See our screenshots in the Videocard section of Maximumpc.com >>


<sarcasm>Yeah, go head over to PC world, they have lovely screenshots of gf2 rendered games.</sarcasm>

 

[oldfart]

You Nvidiots are really something. The couple of fps difference in 3Dmark is the end all. But none of you believe that it could even be remotely possible that another brand card could best your beloved Geforce cards. All those reviewers and the people who have owned/used both cards are also lying about the 2D and 3D quality. The only ones who are telling the truth are the ones who report FPS scores. BTW, the Radeon is excellent in D3D. You have to see UT on a Radeon in D3D to believe it. I had a couple of friends over last week for a UT lan party. We had my Radeon 64, one GF2 32 meg, one V5500, one Voodoo 3, one TNT2 (not Ultra) and one guy who had a V4 4500 (I told him not to buy it). The Radeon was hands down better looking than the others, and smoother to boot. Looking at web screen shots don't do any good as you all well know. They don't show what any card really looks like. The gamma is always off, and they are in a compressed format. I will say that 16 bit is less than stellar, but we all know that 32 bit is all that matters right? I mean that is what I have been hearing since TNT1 days.

So, to answer the original question:


<< Is it true that Radeon looks better in 3d than Geforce series? >>


The answer is YES!

 

[Taz4158]

OldFart. It's difficult when we're in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents isn't it? Someday they too shall see the truth.

 

[culex]

Not this nvidia vs ati thread again...

Well I've owned both... had a Geforce 2 GTS about 2 months ago, saw a friend who got AIW Radeon and I mostly bought it for it's superior 2d in Winblows and all those video features. As for games, I'd have to say the texture quality is a bit crisper in the Radeon compared to the GTS. And no, this isnt coming from an ATI Zealot... but what I see is what I see. Bottom line, Radeon had better image quality than it did when I had the GF2 GTS.

As for fully supporting nvidia or fully supporting ati, I dont get ye people Not like the company pays you to say their cards are better than the other etc etc... ATi still havent changed their ways of customer service and driver quality (tho I must say Radeon does quite well with the souped up drivers... oh wait ATi didnt make those), and nVIDIA seems to become another Microsoft... (ridiculous high prices which probably 'should' cost less).

 

[lsd]

My point is the GF2 does

<< NOT >>

have washed out colors. Is that too hard to understand? I never said the gf2 had better looking 3D.
Need a new name for up-tight Radeon users... I think someone suggested Rademorons

 

[The Sauce]

Culex, its called cognitive dissonance...there actually is an official name for the psychological phenomenon we see here. People get all hot and gooey over their hardware, that they shelled out buku dineros for, and can not reconcile the fact that it may not be all that. Otherwise they would have to consider upgrading and obviously can't afford to do that.

Let's say, for instance, that you meet this woman and fall in love with her, and then find out that she supports the wholesale slaughter of baby seals and sells their pelts for a living (assuming that you don't find that to be a good quality). You would either have to stop liking this woman (analogous to the nvidiots ditching their GF2 and buying a radeon), or change your opinion about baby seals (analogous to them denying the poor image quality issue). Its just easier to do the latter as, in my example, you still get laid, and in the video card scenario, you dont have to shell out for a new card. Makes sense, eh?

 

[Napalm]

Doomguy:

Your statement that NVidia does not have washed out colours is an idiotic one. Anyone who has had the pleasure to see a 3dfx (RIP), a Radeon, and an NVidia card in action would agree with that unless:

a) they are legally blind
b) they are partially retarded
c) they are NVidiots
d) both b and c (they often go together)


Best wished over the holidays...
Napalm

 

[hydrobum]

Good one Snatchface! LOL

 

[Shockwave]

OldFart. It's difficult when we're in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents isn't it? Someday they too shall see the truth

Oh damn thats funny!!!! LOL!!!

Anyways, I have only owed a ATI Radoen 32 DDR. So i can only speak about it. It is frickin' amazing! Thats why I got it over the GeForce, a couple FPS dont mean jack to me, I want *quality*, not quantity.

 

[The Rock]

I recently purchased a Radeon Vivo(64mb) replacing a Prophet GF DDR that I was quite happy with at the time. I have read several posts such as these debating the visual qualities of the leading video cards and I have to say although I have only had the Radeon a short while I can definitely see it has better visual quality than the Prophet. Assuming that the GeForce line of cards all share the same visual quality I would think the only reason one would choose one over a Radeon or a V5 would be for speed(frame rate)! I think the Radeon is &quot;fast enough&quot; for me and I play mostly FPS games(UT, Q3,Sof,etc.)! I will agreed ATI could learn something from Nvidia and 3DFX in the driver department although I have no complaint with their latest drivers and I'm looking forward to DX8 &quot;improvements&quot;. One more thing I noticed while playing games was an extra sense of involvement that I can only attribute to again the Radeon's superior visual quality! Last Christmas I gave myself the Prophet DDR as a present and it has served me well, but this year's present, the Radeon Vivo,will this year's Christmas really special! Good Luck!

 

[Degenerate]

I got a GeFroce 256 and i think it rocks in any game not to mention that i still would love a Ultra. I really dont think that image quality between the cards have much if any difference at all. It just looks great! both!.

 

[Taz4158]

<< I got a GeFroce 256 and i think it rocks in any game not to mention that i still would love a Ultra. I really dont think that image quality between the cards have much if any difference at all. It just looks great! both!. >>



Haven't seen the Radeon have you?

 

[Yza]

&quot;The Radeon may have better 2d image quality at high resolutions (less blurry). The 3d quality is no better than a GeForce, at least at playable resolutions. &quot;

I bought a Geforce2 when it came out... then got a radeon then went back to a geforce2 for raw power...

You wont notice the difference till you go back to the Geforce.. (boy do i miss my radeon) but in CS all I care about is 800x600 and a constant 75fps +

Rune and quake3 I noticed a big difference in quality.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Better 3D image quality? In high end 3D the nVidia board embarass the Radeon, very, very badly. The Radeon's rendering flaws are extreme, the Z-Buffer extremely inaccurate, it misrenders pixels in the 1% range(absolutely unacceptable) and drops polygons.

In gaming, I guess it depends. If you don't like to calibrate your card then the Radeon will be brighter out of the box, easy pop it in and it looks great, unlike nVidia boards(though even the Radeon benefits a decent amount with proper calibration, not nearly as much as the nV offerings). If you have decent calibration software or are skilled enough to do it yourself you will be very hard pressed to tell the difference in game in terms of brightness/color/saturation.

The Radeon does use a more agressive LOD setting then nVidia, making things look sharper(which also gives it the most aliased image using defaults).

Snatchface-

&quot;nVidia has always had poor image quality, which is why I have stuck with 3dfx as long as I have. When I won a brand new 64mb Quadro before it even came out I sold it cause I couldn't live with the drop in image quality that going from my V3 to that card gave.&quot;

That must be in the running for the strongest example of blindly loyal zealot I have seen to date. If you think the Voodoo3 had good 3D image quality you are blind. SGI is now running Quadro based boards in their 3D workstations, ask them about what constitutes 3D image quality.