• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD Vs. Nvidia Image Quality - Old man yells at cloud

Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
Hmmm, how far does your belief go with this though? Let's try pushing the extremes a bit...

You seem to be saying a lower res smaller screen with a higher PPI is going to give a more detailed image ?

Screen 1
480x480 pixels, 1"x1"
230,400 total pixels, with 480 PPI

Screen 2
4,096x4,096, 10"x10"
16,777,216 total pixels, with 409.6 PPI

following from your logic screen 1 is the better screen? All else being equal.

Somewhere your argument breaks imo.

Detail = information = pixels.

Screen 1's quality is higher because of the higher PPI; you will see more details and bigger zoomed out picture on Screen 2 because of its sheer size.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Feb 2019
Posts
17,464
Good god just stop. Image quality of a product of detail, contrast, brightness and colour accuracy. Your old Xperia might have had a higher PPI but it was a 1280x720 panel. It wouldn't beat a decent monitor on ANY front. It's like you intentionally misunderstand EVERYTHING you post about.

Today I learnt that 4K uses a mobile phone for his desktop monitor because it offers the highest PPI. I'm surprised he isn't using a Apple Watch

The scaling is the same between a 1080 monitor and a 4k one twice the size.

Pixel density is the most important thing for how sharp an image looks. Which is why when people went from 27" 1080 to 27" 4k monitors it looked much sharper.

Pixel density and viewing distance need to be considered in the same formula. I'm not sure how many feet = how much pixel clarity but the relationship is clear. 4K on 54 inch would look just as sharp as 4K on 27inch if you sit +- twice as far away.

that's generally why you may have noticed that has resolutions have increased so have the size of screens, they don't intend for you to keep sitting at the same distance as your old 27 inch. The screen needs to take up most of your field of view without clipping. If you sit so close you need to turn your head to see the side of your screen you are far too close and that's why the perceived pixel clarity is lower.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
3 Apr 2007
Posts
1,719
Location
London
Screen 1's quality is higher because of the higher PPI;

Define 'quality' as I was responding to post about the amount of detail shown at differing resolutions.

Detail = information = pixels.

you will see more details and bigger zoomed out picture on Screen 2 because of its sheer size.

No, you see more detail on screen two because it has a higher resolution, showing more pixels, more information, more detail.

Detail = information = pixels.
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
Define 'quality' as I was responding to post about the amount of detail shown at differing resolutions.

Detail = information = pixels.



No, you see more detail on screen two because it has a higher resolution, showing more pixels, more information, more detail.

Detail = information = pixels.

Quality is clarity of the screen, the ability to reproduce as life-like image as possible.

Viewing distance is irrelevant ?? No relevance between a 1" viewing distance and a 100' distance ?
Think before you post.

The screen quality remains the same regardless of the viewing distance. What are you going to do - dictate to users at how many feets they must sit in front of their screens?
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
Starting to think that myself tbh. But happy to help out what ever company this is training up their AI. :D

Man, the problem is that you (actually not just you, many people, especially those who work at the monitors makers) lack absolutely basic knowledge on image quality and how to satisfy customers' requirements.
When a customer approaches you and tells you that monitor A is crap because it's pixellie and grainy, you start to argue that they must sit further, and completely ignore that technically there is no problem to start offering monitors with higher image quality, or pixel density.

Like nvidia - there are hundreds of forums threads everywhere saying that the GeForce image quality is not acceptable, and you or people like you come here and begin to argue it's never happened.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,805
Like nvidia - there are hundreds of forums threads everywhere saying that the GeForce image quality is not acceptable, and you or people like you come here and begin to argue it's never happened.

Yet no one has actually provided proof that stands up to scrutiny of anything but minor differences.
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
Yet no one has actually provided proof that stands up to scrutiny of anything but minor differences.

it doesn't need a proof, TBH. If your customers tell you that they don't like your product.... maybe the only proof would be falling incomes and profits, that will come sooner or later because AMD has new GPUs in the works, anyways.

There was another member who mentioned Quadro. Maybe it is a good idea to unify the image quality on Quadro and GeForce.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,805
it doesn't need a proof, TBH. If your customers tell you that they don't like your product.... maybe the only proof would be falling incomes and profits, that will come sooner or later because AMD has new GPUs in the works, anyways.

There was another member who mentioned Quadro. Maybe it is a good idea to unify the image quality on Quadro and GeForce.

It kind of does need proof when every professional study has struggled to find more than very minor differences and every example posted by users has been with incorrect settings or not comparing like for like, etc.
 

TNA

TNA

Caporegime
Joined
13 Mar 2008
Posts
27,173
Location
Greater London
It kind of does need proof when every professional study has struggled to find more than very minor differences and every example posted by users has been with incorrect settings or not comparing like for like, etc.
If 4K says it does not need proof, then it does not need proof! He is divine and is beyond our comprehension. The guy is both an GPU and Monitor expert, why have these companies not snapped him up already? :p

Funny thing is he uses a laptop apparently. Hahahahaha.
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
It kind of does need proof when every professional study has struggled to find more than very minor differences and every example posted by users has been with incorrect settings or not comparing like for like, etc.

:)

Using ASTC Texture Compression for Game Assets
https://developer.nvidia.com/astc-texture-compression-for-game-assets

"Since the dawn of the GPU, developers have been trying to cram bigger and better textures into memory. Sometimes that is accomplished with more RAM but more often it is achieved with native support for compressed texture formats. The objective of texture compression is to reduce data size, while minimizing impact on visual quality."





A Real Test of nVidia vs AMD 2D Image Quality
https://hardforum.com/threads/a-real-test-of-nvidia-vs-amd-2d-image-quality.1694755/

GeForce:


Radeon:
 
Caporegime
Joined
24 Sep 2008
Posts
38,322
Location
Essex innit!
Surprised to see you saying this Gregster maboy :D

I always thought that you mistakenly felt your expensive 1440p ultrawide monitor had better IQ than my 4K monitor :p;)
I love my monitor and the IQ works well for me. I would swap it out in a heartbeat thought for a OLED screen of the same size.
 
Caporegime
Joined
24 Sep 2008
Posts
38,322
Location
Essex innit!
They are just lobbying for the industry, this is why for them samsung is the best, and low quality screens are the best.
But this is not the topic of the thread, which they successfully derailed.

The topic of the thread is AMD vs nvidia image quality!

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/eeol3x/is_it_true_that_amd_color_and_image_quality_is

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/e8co6p/my_experience_with_the_5700xt_from_the_titan_x//
You brought up a screen comparison from a phone and get it massively wrong and get massively pulled up on it and then accuse others of thread derailment. What the Dickens?
 

TNA

TNA

Caporegime
Joined
13 Mar 2008
Posts
27,173
Location
Greater London
I love my monitor and the IQ works well for me. I would swap it out in a heartbeat thought for a OLED screen of the same size.
I am sure you do, it is a very good monitor. I never thought otherwise. But it can’t match the IQ of my one, especially being nicely calibrated an all ;)

Oh yeah, an OLED one would be on another level for sure. Shame they do not have 40” or smaller OLED TV’s. I would buy one as a monitor.


You brought up a screen comparison from a phone and get it massively wrong and get massively pulled up on it and then accuse others of thread derailment. What the Dickens?
A few people now have said he could be some AI chat bot or something as he makes no sense more than half the time.
 
Back
Top Bottom