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

[4K8KW10]

I feel like if this was an issue or as big of a difference as some here suggest, the internet would have been all over it. Gamers Nexus would have been the first to **** on Nvidia if it were true.

The problem is that too many people work either directly at nvidia or indirectly for nvidia, shills, fanboys, trolls, anything you name and not a single one of them has an interest to reveal the truth.
Actually, they argue with something like this:

The fact is that when you play the game you would not notice any difference as long as you have nothing to compare with. Game looks pretty fine with both cards.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/58ytqa/amd_has_way_better_image_quality_than_nvidia/

 

[Rofflay]

The problem is that too many people work either directly at nvidia or indirectly for nvidia, shills, fanboys, trolls, anything you name and not a single one of them has an interest to reveal the truth.
Actually, they argue with something like this:


https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/58ytqa/amd_has_way_better_image_quality_than_nvidia/

No mention of settings used, Some dude fires up global profile, Sliders up and does a comparison. Even without the video you see low res textures. No games look like that on Nvidia i have ever seen. So it is a meaningless video.

Get the damm guy to set up Nvidia to its highest quality mode,Optimizations off and 16x af forced in the game profile. Try the same on AMD last i tried AMD they had way less options than Nvidia. And people do not understand you need to force 16x AF and clamp mode. If there was that much of a difference i would seriously consider AMD but i know it is simply imcompetance on the part of these testers.

 

[Donnie Fisher]

Roff,

But that's a tweak (of a sort) to get it to the higher quality to work which many won't do, meaning that out of the box it's not as good as it could be.

It's also a different issue from what I'm seeing and have illustrated. I don't see a 16x AF setting in my Windows desktop environment. ???

 

[Rroff]

But as I said earlier, if you increase vibrance you get colour banding which doesnt appear on AMD cards. So its more than just that.

I really need to get a chance to sit down and do a proper comparison myself sometime - I don't own any AMD GPUs myself though so where I have been in a position to do comparisons I've not been in a position to properly test it and get pictures, etc.

I'm not a fan of digital vibrance due to the loss of colour accuracy even if slight but I'm not convinced it is as straightforward as AMD not having any compromise in those situations either.

 

[AWPC]

If it is a "much" different I pretty much guarantee it is end user configuration error or misunderstanding and not comparing like for like settings. I've compared AMD and nVidia systems in the past side by side on the same model of monitor and any differences are close to imperceptible - usually just nudge digital vibrance on nVidia by like 2-3% and you can't tell which is which.

There has been the odd driver bug and IIRC a couple of browser issues recently where fonts weren't being rendered properly on nVidia but AFAIK those are currently fixed in the latest versions.

With respect there are differences in AMD's favour. The colour looks more natural & the compression banding is minimal. If you look on a big screen the differences are very noticeable in AMD's favour. Its been like this for many years as well I remember when the AMD 4850-70 came out how much better the AMD GPU image looked vs the Nvidia. Its no different nowadays except more connection types & larger more accurate displays.

I am pretty certain most of the difference is down to how Nvidia reduce raw image data (to gain FPS) in their texture & rendering compression algorithm's before sending this to the display output.

 

[TonyTurbo78]

I've said it previously, months and years ago, its definitely a better image with an AMD GPU. I'm able to directly compare same game on either of my rigs using the same monitor. A vega64 in my main rig and 1080ti in my second rig. Vega64 is definitely a nicer, cleaner image than the 1080ti same game with same settings. It's not just a colour or saturation thing, on the Vega64 it's a clean sharp image, 1080ti not so much.

 

[Nasher]

I really need to get a chance to sit down and do a proper comparison myself sometime - I don't own any AMD GPUs myself though so where I have been in a position to do comparisons I've not been in a position to properly test it and get pictures, etc.

I'm not a fan of digital vibrance due to the loss of colour accuracy even if slight but I'm not convinced it is as straightforward as AMD not having any compromise in those situations either.

Less FPS is likely to be the compromise.

But it's not just AMD. Nvidia is the odd one out here, Intel (and back in the day Matrox) have the better image quality. It's reduced rather than improved.

 

[Vince]

I really need to get a chance to sit down and do a proper comparison myself sometime - I don't own any AMD GPUs myself though so where I have been in a position to do comparisons I've not been in a position to properly test it and get pictures, etc.

I'm not a fan of digital vibrance due to the loss of colour accuracy even if slight but I'm not convinced it is as straightforward as AMD not having any compromise in those situations either.

If you want to borrow an AMD gpu you can always hit me up. Personal preference for me image quality wise AMD looks better every time in the out of the box config, I find NVs settings to feel a little washed out. I don't dislike NVidias image quality it just doesn't look as pin sharp or vibrant and I find myself trying to tune it more towards AMD stock. If it's a performance thing or not I don't know and don't really care tbh. I generally know what kind of performance and IQ I will get from either team so you make a decision based on what is important to you or the situation.

 

[arc@css]

Aside from the improved out of the box colour, I find that I tend to get more of a sense of perspective or depth when using AMD (or ATi back in the day).

Been a while since I've used a red team card though ~ 2015.

 

[Rroff]

If you want to borrow an AMD gpu you can always hit me up. Personal preference for me image quality wise AMD looks better every time in the out of the box config, I find NVs settings to feel a little washed out. I don't dislike NVidias image quality it just doesn't look as pin sharp or vibrant and I find myself trying to tune it more towards AMD stock. If it's a performance thing or not I don't know and don't really care tbh. I generally know what kind of performance and IQ I will get from either team so you make a decision based on what is important to you or the situation.

Appreciate the offer - got too much else to deal with/not organised enough to sort anything out at the moment though.

 

[loftie]

Saw this video the other day which made me think of this. Now he does say he's not tweaked the nvidia settings - it's not really relevant to the video - but it's not just the colours that seem off. To me the AMD image is sharper. Now, whether that's because shadowing is better and so it looks like it's is sharper I don't know, but the AMD image IMO is better and not just WRT colour.

Watch from 7min20.

 

[Grim5]

Saw this video the other day which made me think of this. Now he does say he's not tweaked the nvidia settings - it's not really relevant to the video - but it's not just the colours that seem off. To me the AMD image is sharper. Now, whether that's because shadowing is better and so it looks like it's is sharper I don't know, but the AMD image IMO is better and not just WRT colour.

Watch from 7min20.

Definitely interesting - though the difference is very minor, I noticed a much bigger difference than that just changing my panel from QLED to OLED.
Be interesting to see the settings used on each to see if they match, as well as what monitor was used since that also has an impact on what the GPU outputs - the colours on the AMD card do seem to have slightly more colour saturation.

 

[Rofflay]

Roff,

But that's a tweak (of a sort) to get it to the higher quality to work which many won't do, meaning that out of the box it's not as good as it could be.

It's also a different issue from what I'm seeing and have illustrated. I don't see a 16x AF setting in my Windows desktop environment. ???

Did you mean me? Out of the box is meaningless. You need to tweak pc thats a fact. And what do you mean you do not know how to set AF 16x on Nvidia or AMD? Of course thats the issue you see 16x AF makes textures sharper.


Again Let me see AMD versus Nvidia in the highest modes with tweaks though how does it matter that untweaked AMD offer better IQ than Nvidia? I thought everyone used driver level max IQ first. If you made that video and cannot find the Nvidia AF setting that says it all. Find it and re run the tests where YOU think you have the highest IQ mode on. And see who wins an easy test and more relevant than crippling the test by using defaults. The AF setting is at the top of the ingame profiles also. Just set to 16x on.


Getting the best out of Nvidia requires learning, And using per game profiles where 16x AF is ON, High Quality is set over just quality. Both optimizations are disabled and the color settings also for gamma etc are for opencl as well not DX or Vulkan. They should never be touched the same with game profile triplebuffering.

 

[Rroff]

Watch from 7min20.

That is some kind of video processing/capture problem - possibly from when inserting the frames side by side that isn't an nVidia IQ thing - you can clearly see here for instance:

Spoiler

The black levels are shot on the 2080ti side - I guarantee it won't look like that in-game unless someone has the wrong colour format/dynamic range selected.

 

[Rofflay]

That is some kind of video processing/capture problem - possibly from when inserting the frames side by side that isn't an nVidia IQ thing - you can clearly see here for instance:

Spoiler

The black levels are shot on the 2080ti side - I guarantee it won't look like that in-game unless someone has the wrong colour format/dynamic range selected.

Yeh ask anyone on OLED or with a 5k true contrast VA panel if Nvidia look like that. Not at all the blacks are the same on every vendor and they are superb.

 

[Rroff]

Quick and dirty analysis of the colour range used by each side of the video:

So yeah given how close the values are from a rough pull the nVidia capture has been done with limited range RGB - I pretty much guarantee the same kind of errors in any situation people see much of a difference between the two.

 

[Orange Nexus]

Saw this video the other day which made me think of this. Now he does say he's not tweaked the nvidia settings - it's not really relevant to the video - but it's not just the colours that seem off. To me the AMD image is sharper. Now, whether that's because shadowing is better and so it looks like it's is sharper I don't know, but the AMD image IMO is better and not just WRT colour.

Watch from 7min20.

I think what nVidia has done is pretty smart. Get higher fps with a bit of sacrifice in IQ. In games, esp fast paced ones, it won't matter much. However, desktop, viewing images, and such are when you'll really see the difference. Unless you have no clue. Knowledge is sometimes detrimental. lol

 

[Donnie Fisher]

Rofflay...

Yes, I'm talking to you. And to be clear, my comments are based on the Windows desktop experience, and not in games. The bulk of my time is spent there and not in game.

I see consistently there is a difference that AMD is a better imho picture.

I understand that I can tweak the 3d settings such as 16x AF in games , but not in a desktop environment.

I don't really buy the idea of digital vibrance either. I understand that you calibrate monitors etc, but once set, they shouldn't need to change between GPUs. Because 0-255 for a colour should be 0-255 between each GPU on that monitor. It's digital so shouldn't change . Digital vibrance is going to change away from that and affect colour.

What I don't understand then is that if the windows desktop is displaying something like text, you would think that 2 different GPUs would display it exactly the same. It's black and white text, generated by the same program calls. It should look the same.... But it's not.

Which to me says that different cards calculate it differently and that AMD do what a number of people consider to be a better quality of it.

 

[4K8KW10]

Saw this video the other day which made me think of this. Now he does say he's not tweaked the nvidia settings - it's not really relevant to the video - but it's not just the colours that seem off. To me the AMD image is sharper. Now, whether that's because shadowing is better and so it looks like it's is sharper I don't know, but the AMD image IMO is better and not just WRT colour.

Watch from 7min20.

It's so painfully obvious. The right hand side has some thin layer of fog over the image, as if the brightness level is up, making the colours so washed out.
When will nvidia fix their image quality?

 

[Rofflay]

Rofflay...

Yes, I'm talking to you. And to be clear, my comments are based on the Windows desktop experience, and not in games. The bulk of my time is spent there and not in game.

I see consistently there is a difference that AMD is a better imho picture.

I understand that I can tweak the 3d settings such as 16x AF in games , but not in a desktop environment.

I don't really buy the idea of digital vibrance either. I understand that you calibrate monitors etc, but once set, they shouldn't need to change between GPUs. Because 0-255 for a colour should be 0-255 between each GPU on that monitor. It's digital so shouldn't change . Digital vibrance is going to change away from that and affect colour.

What I don't understand then is that if the windows desktop is displaying something like text, you would think that 2 different GPUs would display it exactly the same. It's black and white text, generated by the same program calls. It should look the same.... But it's not.

Which to me says that different cards calculate it differently and that AMD do what a number of people consider to be a better quality of it.

You would set af to 16x and still try it might work on desktop i do not know. But i think it is very deceptive that you are talking about desktop image quality and not ingame. Yet you made a video based off gaming using not even the highest gaming IQ modes and then said AMD have better IQ. This is deceptive and confusing because if you mean gaming prove it like i asked. If you mean desktop well then stop using games to show desktop differences. I mean look at the post above me lmao you have this guy thinking AMD offer better image quality in games over Nvidia when you are even unaware of the settings that need changed? This whole topic should be retitled AMD might possibly offer better desktop IQ than Nvidia.

It's so painfully obvious. The right hand side has some thin layer of fog over the image, as if the brightness level is up, making the colours so washed out.
When will nvidia fix their image quality?

My god read the thread he does not know how to setup Nvidia properly the whole test is null and void until someome with a 2080ti and a 5700xt runs side by side with the proper settings used on each vendor. His image there is laughably blurry and seems to lack Clamp and AF16. You do not need to watch the video look at the wall on the thumbnail. It looks like default Nvidia settings which they may alter for better default 3d mark scores. But who cares when you should be using the highest driver settings and turning down ingame settings. Honestly i think sometimes you guys dream of this being reality that finally AMD better Nvidia and you seem to completely jump facts when doing it?