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.
-
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
- Thread starter shankly1985
- Start date
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.
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
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:
Viewing distance should not be considered for anything because it is subjective and irrelevant - every person has different eyesight, needs, surroundings.
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.
Viewing distance is irrelevant ?? No relevance between a 1" viewing distance and a 100' distance ?
Think before you post.
Quality is clarity of the screen, the ability to reproduce as life-like image as possible.
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?
So reproduction with information? i.e. more detail, more pixels ?
Not possible. It’s a malfunctioning chat bot
Starting to think that myself tbh. But happy to help out what ever company this is training up their AI.
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.
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.
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?
Funny thing is he uses a laptop apparently. Hahahahaha.
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:
You can have any screen size you like and the 1080P image will still be lacking detail compared to any size 4K screen. That is a fact!
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.Surprised to see you saying this Gregster maboy
I always thought that you mistakenly felt your expensive 1440p ultrawide monitor had better IQ than my 4K 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?
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.
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.