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

[arc@css]

Cheers for the comprehensive post, JasonM.

 

[4K8KW10]

"The FireGL line is designed for multimedia content creation programs, such as 3DS Max, mechanical engineering design software such as Solidworks, and civil engineering architectural software such as Chief Architect, whereas Radeon counterparts are suited towards video games. FireGL drivers were built with maximum image quality and pixel precision, with CAD specific functionalities such as the recently introduced AutoDetection Technology to tune the parameters inside the driver to achieve maximum performance for predefined list of software. However, because the drivers are also based on the Catalyst drivers made for the Radeon line, it makes them suitable for gaming, at the expense of probable compatibility issues with the very latest games due to the age of the drivers, with FireGL cards in theory pushing more data than their Radeon gaming counterparts
The ATI FireGL range of video cards, renamed to FirePro 3D in late 2008, is the series specifically for CAD (Computer Aided Design) and DCC (Digital Content Creation) software, usually found in workstations."

https://www.game-debate.com/gpu/index.php?gid=627&gid2=242&compare=quadro-4000-vs-firepro-v8700

 

[Nexus18]

Always makes me laugh PC gamers that argue about graphics, image quality, which one is better etc. yet most are still using crappy LCD displays with horrendous bleed, poor blacks + contrast ratio, glow etc.

 

[4K8KW10]

Always makes me laugh PC gamers that argue about graphics, image quality, which one is better etc. yet most are still using crappy LCD displays with horrendous bleed, poor blacks + contrast ratio, glow etc.

The screens are not good, except my LG 24UD58-B that is gorgeous, but graphics cards don't help for the experience, either. You can have the best screen and with the current graphics cards output, your quality is still not good.

 

[Marine-RX179]

Always makes me laugh PC gamers that argue about graphics, image quality, which one is better etc. yet most are still using crappy LCD displays with horrendous bleed, poor blacks + contrast ratio, glow etc.

Except the fact even on the "crappy LCD display", it is very easy to tell the game image between AMD and Nvidia apart...

I use to play Guild Wars 2 and used HD5850 and GTX560Ti, and on the the colour on the 560Ti look more washed out, and the imagine itself was just not as sharp with objects such as tree branches all mooshed together and looked flat blending in with the background, where as the 5850 not only look more vibrant in colour, the tree branches have noticeably better separation between each branches and the background didn't look like as if it was at the same distance as the tree thus providing between sense of depth.

I gonna get sticks for this, but I believe the compression technique that Nvidia use favour performance over quality, as when it comes to graphic card reviews head to head comparison it is always about the numbers and figure the frame rate, and most reviewers won't go out of their way to compare qualitative stuffs such as game imagine quality between different cards that cannot really be measured by numbers.

I think if you were to put a same game scene on two of the same monitor, I'd bet 95%+ of the users who have used both Nvidia and AMD over the years would be able to tell which is which in a blind test, simply because of that's just how great the imagine quality difference is.

 

[chaparral]

I think if you were to put a same game scene on two of the same monitor, I'd bet 95%+ of the users who have used both Nvidia and AMD over the years would be able to tell which is which in a blind test, simply because of that's just how great the imagine quality difference is.

I didn't realise that Nvidia image quality was so much better then AMD..

Thanks for pointing this out..

 

[Marine-RX179]

I didn't realise that Nvidia image quality was so much better then AMD..

Thanks for pointing this out..

Yea, just like Beats headphones sound so much better than Sennheiser, AKG and Beyer headphones

 

[chaparral]

Yea, just like Beats headphones sound so much better than Sennheiser, AKG and Beyer headphones

What she not heard she don't know

 

[bru]

I think if you were to put a same game scene on two of the same monitor, I'd bet 95%+ of the users who have used both Nvidia and AMD over the years would be able to tell which is which in a blind test, simply because of that's just how great the imagine quality difference is.

Well that would be easy, the one with the much higher FPS counter numbers in the corner of the screen would obviously be NVidia.

 

[Marine-RX179]

Well that would be easy, the one with the much higher FPS counter numbers in the corner of the screen would obviously be NVidia.

Yes the side with 50% higher frame rate must be the 1050Ti and the slower side must be the RX570

 

[fizzelopeguss]

First thing I noticed when I swapped to AMD from a 1060 was the image was a little more vibrant. But I could't say if that's more accurate or not.

 

[b00merang69]

Because you need to bump Digital Vibrance up a notch or two for Nvidia but I am sure this is for Desktop Colour only.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

Because you need to bump Digital Vibrance up a notch or two for Nvidia but I am sure this is for Desktop Colour only.

That's what I assumed. It certainly wasn't anything major.

 

[V F]

I used to way prefer CCFL backlights for a long time to modern LEDs - for awhile it was like staring into first generation ultra-bright LEDs with a slightly icy blue hue to it that was horrid but the latest monitors on most the backlight hue is fairly neutral.

CCFL were great but the warm up time was a pain in the ass. It took maybe 15 - 30 minutes to fully warm up.

 

[Rroff]

CCFL were great but the warm up time was a pain in the ass. It took maybe 15 - 30 minutes to fully warm up.

At least on the models I use I only had any problems like that after they'd been through well over 10 thousand hours of use by which time I'd normally moved on anyhow - at 100% brightness they might take a couple of minutes but I usually used around upper 30-50% somewhere and they'd be warmed up from a cold start by the time Windows had finished loading.

 

[Martini1991]

I do find it odd how much we have to compromise on monitors these days.

 

[Nasher]

Because you need to bump Digital Vibrance up a notch or two for Nvidia but I am sure this is for Desktop Colour only.

That will cause colour banding though.

 

[b00merang69]

Not 1 or 2 notches.

 

[V F]

At least on the models I use I only had any problems like that after they'd been through well over 10 thousand hours of use by which time I'd normally moved on anyhow - at 100% brightness they might take a couple of minutes but I usually used around upper 30-50% somewhere and they'd be warmed up from a cold start by the time Windows had finished loading.

That might have been it. The Dell 2405fpw and the two Apple displays were used more than 10 years for crazy hours each day. The brightness was still great on them though but you could see over time measuring them the blue got weaker and weaker.

 

[JasonM]

Cheers for the comprehensive post, JasonM.

I have an extra reducing eye strain tip, it's keep the screen clean! It makes a huge difference to coding, if I code on dirty screen's it effects how well you work.

These are the products I use.

1) Antec Natural Spray, these gets any dirt off.

2) Then secondly apply Antec Deep Cleaning gel, you apply this very fine so it's at a micron level over the screen (your moving the supplied cloth as you would wax a car) you only need to spread evenly a tiny amount, and it helps repel dust.

All the above is on glass fronted monitors, if your using regular monitors go easy with the amounts at first to ensure any cleaning products won't harm the display.

The products are on this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRXak6GSLug