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

[Gregster]

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.

I would certainly buy another OLED, as my main TV image is top notch. OLED is certainly the way to go for now at least but I don't have the room for anything bigger than maybe 40" and not sure I want a monitor that big either. I seriously liked gaming on 3 screens when I had the spare room as a gaming room but since the Mrs kicked me out for the Grandkids, I have to make do

I seriously must be missing something with 4K8K, as he does seem to post "words" and in any order.

 

[4K8KW10]

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?

Where, a link to post? You with the others derail the thread, starting from this offtopic:

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.

Page 34, #663, so 6 pages of offtopic and derail!

 

[chaosophy]

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.

Again, with your mumbo-jumbo 'image quality', I've asked you more than once to define what you mean, in measurable, quantifiable terms. Which you can't, or refuse to do so.

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 comvpletely ignore that technically there is no problem to start offering monitors with higher image quality, or pixel density.

I don't work selling monitor's to customers, so none approach me.
I've never argued that they must sit further away.
I've never ignored that there is no problem offering monitors with higher image quality (but again, stop throwing this term around if you are not going to explain what you mean), or pixel density.
I actually agree that pixel density is needed but not that that comes from sticking with an arbitrary res and shrinking the screen size, more that it should come from an increased number of pixels.

An image is made up from information, the more information the better and more detailed it can be, that comes from pixels.

This whole thing seems to be you again ignoring and refusing to respond to points that pull you up on the rubbish you spout by trying to shift the argument.

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.

I know that this is what the thread is about but I have not once entered into that conversation, so no idea why you are mentioning it in a reply to me. The conversation you and I are - at least I though we where - having is about your strange understanding of increased number of pixels leading to increased image detail. Again, stop shifting the argument every time it gets difficult for you to actually back up what you are saying.

 

[TNA]

Again, with your mumbo-jumbo 'image quality', I've asked you more than once to define what you mean, in measurable, quantifiable terms. Which you can't, or refuse to do so.



I don't work selling monitor's to customers, so none approach me.
I've never argued that they must sit further away.
I've never ignored that there is no problem offering monitors with higher image quality (but again, stop throwing this term around if you are not going to explain what you mean), or pixel density.
I actually agree that pixel density is needed but not that that comes from sticking with an arbitrary res and shrinking the screen size, more that it should come from an increased number of pixels.

An image is made up from information, the more information the better and more detailed it can be, that comes from pixels.

This whole thing seems to be you again ignoring and refusing to respond to points that pull you up on the rubbish you spout by trying to shift the argument.



I know that this is what the thread is about but I have not once entered into that conversation, so no idea why you are mentioning it in a reply to me. The conversation you and I are - at least I though we where - having is about your strange understanding of increased number of pixels leading to increased image detail. Again, stop shifting the argument every time it gets difficult for you to actually back up what you are saying.

That is his specialty. When he gets pwned he shifts the argument and carries on. If 4K8K truly is a human user and not a AI chat bot, then how many times does one need to get put in their place before either realising he is wrong or stop posting due to how painful it must be getting pwned on a daily basis on a forum.

Now and then I provide him with useful Wikipedia links to read, this weeks link is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masochism

 

[Ian Evey]

Thank you for that I now have to clean tea off of my keyboard.

 

[chaosophy]

That is his specialty. When he gets pwned he shifts the argument and carries on. If 4K8K truly is a human user and not a AI chat bot, then how many times does one need to get put in their place before either realising he is wrong or stop posting due to how painful it must be getting pwned on a daily basis on a forum.

Now and then I provide him with useful Wikipedia links to read, this weeks link is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masochism

It really is remarkable

 

[4K8KW10]

Again, with your mumbo-jumbo 'image quality',

You are just trolling now. I am not even the OP of the thread. Check first the thread what it is about, check all the provided evidence which you conveniently ignore and then if you have anything meaningful to add as a constructive contribution, please comment.

At least, you admit it:

I know that this is what the thread is about but I have not once entered into that conversation

 

[TNA]

You are just trolling now. I am not even the OP of the thread. Check first the thread what it is about, check all the provided evidence which you conveniently ignore and then if you have anything meaningful to add as a constructive contribution, please comment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pot_calling_the_kettle_black

 

[chaosophy]

You are just trolling now. I am not even the OP of the thread. Check first the thread what it is about, check all the provided evidence which you conveniently ignore and then if you have anything meaningful to add as a constructive contribution, please comment.

At least, you admit it:

ok, whatever. I'm bored of you now.

 

[Rroff]

That is his specialty. When he gets pwned he shifts the argument and carries on. If 4K8K truly is a human user and not a AI chat bot, then how many times does one need to get put in their place before either realising he is wrong or stop posting due to how painful it must be getting pwned on a daily basis on a forum.

Now and then I provide him with useful Wikipedia links to read, this weeks link is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masochism

It is kind of weird how he pulls the first bit from Google that looks like it supports his argument without even bothering the read the rest of it - the last bit he provided as "proof" if you actually read the whole article it is from it conclusively proves the opposite of what he is claiming...

 

[TNA]

Noticed 4K8K took down his sig. Wonder if the mods finally had a chat with him?

 

[b00merang69]

Noticed 4K8K took down his sig. Wonder if the mods finally had a chat with him?

He would be better talking down his pants the way things are going for him.

 

[4K8KW10]

I didn't take down anything. It is censored and removed by a moderator.

It is kind of weird how he pulls the first bit from Google that looks like it supports his argument without even bothering the read the rest of it - the last bit he provided as "proof" if you actually read the whole article it is from it conclusively proves the opposite of what he is claiming...

nvidia uses very bad texture compression which results in poor image quality. The texture compression is called ASTC and you can see what it does here:

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:

 

[TNA]

How many are you going to post that? Won’t change people’s minds like that. Provide recent examples over say 10 games consistently. But you can’t can you? You lose

 

[Gregster]

I didn't take down anything. It is censored and removed by a moderator.

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:

Conclusion

The results were as we’d expect: There is no difference in image quality based on the brand of card you buy. The days of 2D image quality being a function of particular graphics cards are long gone for most people. When CRTs were popular, it was something that mattered as the quality of the RAMDAC controlled the quality of the analog VGA output. Thus different cards, even with the same chipset, could potentially produce different 2D image quality.

However LCDs and DVI have changed all that. The signal is fully digital from the OS, to the card, to the monitor right up until the individual sub pixels are finally lit up. This removes any quality differences from card outputs, since they are outputting a completely accurate digital signal. The only time they change anything is when instructed to by a change to their LUTs from the user, OS, application, and so on.

What that all means is the conclusion is pretty clear: There are many good reasons to buy team green or team red, but 2D image quality is not one of them. They are precisely the same.

That is from your link, so clearly you are stating that there is no difference in IQ between AMD or NVidia. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Gregster]

It's because of the 643 ppi or Retina panel. No monitor has a "retina" screen, except maybe if you find a 15" 4K notebook screen but even then, it isn't guaranteed, in no way.

Every modern smartphone with PPI over 400 will produce better image quality than the available monitors, the larger they are, the worse.


Even my old Sony Xperia S (2012) with 342 ppi beats every single monitor available on the market.

Where, a link to post? You with the others derail the thread, starting from this offtopic:

You talking about smartphones!

 

[4K8KW10]

You talking about smartphones!

Why are you so desperately dishonest. My post was #714 in response to #707.

And you claim that I was the initial trigger?

Obviously, I am in the trolls' lair trying to fight with the trolls themselves.

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?

 

[Gregster]

Why are you so desperately dishonest. My post was #714 in response to #707.

And you claim that I was the initial trigger?

Obviously, I am in the trolls' lair trying to fight with the trolls themselves.

No, I stated you was bringing up thread derailment and was guilty of it yourself. I am 100% certain you only read what you want to. You have posted links stating that there is no difference between AMD or NVidia but you post it thinking the opposite. I have no issue with anyone who posts something and offers preoof and applaud it but you are posting stuff that is the opposite to what you are claiming and then when shown the facts, you call them trolls. WTF dude, read what you are reading.

 

[4K8KW10]

No, I stated you was bringing up thread derailment and was guilty of it yourself. I am 100% certain you only read what you want to. You have posted links stating that there is no difference between AMD or NVidia but you post it thinking the opposite. I have no issue with anyone who posts something and offers preoof and applaud it but you are posting stuff that is the opposite to what you are claiming and then when shown the facts, you call them trolls. WTF dude, read what you are reading.

Well, I'd try to explain it in another way. RTX 2080 Ti has as many as 272 texture mapping units, and a whooping 420 Gigatexel per second processing capability. And 11 GB of super fast GDDR6 frame buffer.

Despite all these, they are still using filters and compression algorithms which make the images nowhere near their raw or original quality.

Do you agree with me that nvidia should work either on compression-less rendering or on better compression algorithms?

 

[melmac]

Well, I'd try to explain it in another way. RTX 2080 Ti has as many as 272 texture mapping units, and a whooping 420 Gigatexel per second processing capability. And 11 GB of super fast GDDR6 frame buffer.

Despite all these, they are still using filters and compression algorithms which make the images nowhere near their raw or original quality.

Do you agree with me that nvidia should work either on compression-less rendering or on better compression algorithms?

You can't explain anything, because you don't understand anything. You have shown time after time that you lack even basic knowledge of GPUs, CPUs, TVs and Monitors. When someone shows you that you are wrong you change the topic or bring up some article that's years out of date.

Your definition of proof is quoting random posts taken from internet forums. And even at that you get it wrong. For example, just look at the information you posted in post no. 793, you quote this post to show that NVidia's image quality is worse than AMD's but, and this shows how desperate you are, the post you took the information out of is actually proving that there is no difference in image quality.

So, I am asking you again, prove what you are saying. Show this massive difference in image quality across a range of games and applications.

You don't have a clue and I wish you would stop pretending that you do.