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

Orange Nexus · 17 Oct 2019 at 07:24

Donnie Fisher said:
Sorry Rofflay, we may be at cross wires here. I didnt make any video. My illustration which I referred to, and my points in general was from a couple of pages back where I had shown photos taken of the desktop as rendered by nVidia and AMD cards in my machine where there were differences.

It has got me looking at more of the settigns on the nVidia control panel though to see if there any any differences I can make. In particular, I would say that there is a difference within nVidia itself between RGB (full) and YCbCr444 with 444 being a little clearer for the desktop environment. (imho)

Yah, YCbCr444 is your best bet. I have a GTX 1060 and spent time adjusting comparing it to my HD 7770 but at the end - 444 is closest. Same with my GTX 1050s.

Raelgun · 17 Oct 2019 at 23:28

Rroff said:
For an objective test you'd set them to the same equivalent, optimal, settings. Anything else is silly and doesn't prove anything.

Sure, no issues with doing that either, and that would not mean the images will look the same either and one will still be better then the other.

Perhaps all performance reviews are null in this case then since settings weren't punched in properly then either.

V F · 17 Oct 2019 at 23:45

Grim5 said:
The settings you need to use depends on the screen that you plug in, it's that simple. The driver can't adjust itself perfectly for the million different panel models out there, don't be silly.

Even the screens themselves need tweaking - TV's can cost $5000 but you still need to change settings - doesn't mater how much they charge you for the panel.

What I found with the expensive monitors or TV's, they require less adjustments where cheaper TV's/monitors can require huge adjustments for the colour balance/gamma and can even break the quality of the picture since it can be off greatly.

D.P. · 18 Oct 2019 at 07:22

Raelgun said:
Sure, no issues with doing that either, and that would not mean the images will look the same either and one will still be better then the other.

Perhaps all performance reviews are null in this case then since settings weren't punched in properly then either.

Changing gamma, saturation, vibrance, temperature doesn't effect performance.

bru · 18 Oct 2019 at 09:33

Raelgun said:
If you are spending a ton of money on getting the 'best' surely the vendor should present your purchase at its best light out of the box?

Yes AMD take note......

Nasher · 18 Oct 2019 at 10:18

D.P. said:
Changing gamma, saturation, vibrance, temperature doesn't effect performance.

They wont actually improve image quality though.

Martini1991 · 18 Oct 2019 at 11:27

Nasher said:
They wont actually improve image quality though.

It will depending on what one considers to be better IQ.

Raelgun · 18 Oct 2019 at 15:44

D.P. said:
Changing gamma, saturation, vibrance, temperature doesn't effect performance.

There's more to image processing then these, colour depth, filtering, compression are all part of this.

4K8KW10 · 18 Oct 2019 at 15:55

Martini1991 said:
It will depending on what one considers to be better IQ.

The industry leading IQ is produced with Radeons with the following Radeon Settings adjustments:

Texture Filtering Quality - High
Surface Format Optimisation - Off
Anti-aliasing Method - Adaptive multisampling
Pixel Format - YCbCr 4:4:4 Pixel Format
Colour Temperature - Automatic

Rroff · 18 Oct 2019 at 16:03

Raelgun said:
There's more to image processing then these, colour depth, filtering, compression are all part of this.

There are programs to check anisotropic and anti-aliasing filtering quality, compression is a more difficult one because GPUs use a mixture of techniques internally which for the most part are lossless but would require analysis of the final output.

I guarantee though in cases where people are seeing much of a difference using equivalent settings it is almost always down to the user either not understanding the settings or not having things setup as they thought.

V F · 18 Oct 2019 at 16:04

Nasher said:
They wont actually improve image quality though.

It definitely does. The wrong gamma can screw with shadow detail or crush it, wash it out or hurt midtones. Especially if there are big spikes.

Saturation/Vibrance can destroy a lot of things. Colour temperature is the worst. You could have tinted blacks, screwed up midrange or even the high end of the greyscale looking magenta, green or blue and you've overall got a pretty messed up picture. Or even a sunburnt looking picture throwing off all skin tones. There are so many scenarios.

Nasher · 18 Oct 2019 at 16:16

That's just the brightness. The differences between Geforce and AMD pictue quality is more than just that.

V F · 18 Oct 2019 at 16:21

There's no face palm emote.

Grim5 · 19 Oct 2019 at 10:41

bru said:
Yes AMD take note......

AMD gonna stop overvolting their gpus?

james.miller · 19 Oct 2019 at 11:15

Panos said:
Not actually. To boot there is a different in colour spectrum because by default Nvidia has all their cards with culled RGB to improve bandwidth and performance.
Has to be manually activated.

Man this argument is still going on.

OK, citation please. You say it's to improve performance, so presumably you've seen benchmarks. Link please?

V F · 19 Oct 2019 at 12:40

james.miller said:
Man this argument is still going on.

OK, citation please. You say it's to improve performance, so presumably you've seen benchmarks. Link please?

It's funny this conversation died on February 25, then kicked off again on October 12.

4K8KW10 · 19 Oct 2019 at 14:48

Grim5 said:
AMD gonna stop overvolting their gpus?

They should stop by implementing some smart AI utility which detects the particular chip's characteristics and automatically adjusts it to the lowest possible stable values.
This is much less irritating problem than the image quality because the first thing you actually notice in front of your screen is exactly the image quality.

V F said:
It's funny this conversation died on February 25, then kicked off again on October 12.

Err.... Sounds like a special desire for censorship? The topic is not convenient for someone?

V F · 19 Oct 2019 at 15:30

4K8KW10 said:
Err.... Sounds like a special desire for censorship? The topic is not convenient for someone?

What's wrong with you? Why you taking it so personal...

Rroff · 19 Oct 2019 at 15:50

4K8KW10 said:
They should stop by implementing some smart AI utility which detects the particular chip's characteristics and automatically adjusts it to the lowest possible stable values.

There are metrics for ASIC quality but without exhaustive tests on every single chip individually (which just isn't worth it) it isn't really possible to implement that - it is much cheaper to just assess a range that chips will work within and set the minimum voltage for that.

Nasher · 19 Oct 2019 at 15:54

4K8KW10 said:
They should stop by implementing some smart AI utility which detects the particular chip's characteristics and automatically adjusts it to the lowest possible stable values.
This is much less irritating problem than the image quality because the first thing you actually notice in front of your screen is exactly the image quality.

Err.... Sounds like a special desire for censorship? The topic is not convenient for someone?

Those kind of things never work properly though. Intel do it with their CPUs and it's the first thing most people turn off because it's all over the place.