Image Quality *ATi vs Nvidia*

[AznAnarchy99]

Is it me, because i dont see any difference in any IQ with any card of the same "caliber" while so many people complain "Omg nvidia has such horrible image quality compared to Ati" and vice versa. I always see the comparison pics from the Hard video card reviews and i see no difference in pics of the same graphical settings. If there is a difference could someone point them out to me? (shimmering aside since i think of them as driver bugs)

 

[ShuttleLuv]

Same here. It's all petty BS nowadays imho. I have tested new flavors of both Nvidia and Ati cards and really find no discernable differences unless you're a super nerd and look too closely.

 

[TheJackal]

you can take a ss of bf2 with high settings, with a, oh say x300 and a 6600gt.

they will/should/might/most likely look the same

but, it's how fast it can render those settings, they'd look the same, but the 6600gt would process it faster and get more fps ~ better gameplay.

 

[AltTabbins]

Would an x300 even play bf2 on high?
Anyways, I have acutally done tests on this in a computer tech class with an ATi 9800 pro and an Nvidia 5700. We didn't test games on it but tested image quality with special software. There was HARDLY any difference by the numbers and no difference to the naked eye. If you want to improve image quality, get a better monitor

Too bad that ATI and Nvidia dont make monitors.... I could just see the flamewars now

 

[Killdozer]

Well, back in the day there was a much bigger difference.
Going from a TNT2 to a GF2GTS I immediately saw a huge drop in image quality. I took the card back to the store and got an ATi64mbDDR and then saw an image quality increase when compared to my TNT2.
I've been with ATi since.

 

[MellowDude]

These days you get great results from either manufacturer in 3D although I personally find that if I'm doing a large amount of 2D desktop app work then ATI gives me a better visual experience.

ATI and Matrox have always excelled in 2D as that’s where they started and focused resources in the early days while Nvidia offered great 2D/3D cards.

I've always found Nvidia cards a little washed out in 2D but fine in 3D FPS games etc.

Overall however I prefer ATI cards as I find they produce a noticeably cleaner and sharper image in both 2D and 3D.

Other people might not see a difference but then they probably wouldn't notice if a CRT monitor was flickering at 60HZ either while I'd find it hurts my eyes.

The only guarantee is that people will always agree to have differing viewpoints from others.

 

[TheJackal]

Would an x300 even play bf2 on high?

yes, it would. i used to have one and tried playing on all high settings. it did, but i believe it got a constant 14fps and lower.

 

[skudmunky]

Heh, I set America's Army at 1280x1024 with high everything so I could take some nice quality screenshots. Steady 3.06 FPS baby!

 

[BBA]

Is it me, because i dont see any difference in any IQ with any card of the same "caliber" while so many people complain "Omg nvidia has such horrible image quality compared to Ati" and vice versa. I always see the comparison pics from the Hard video card reviews and i see no difference in pics of the same graphical settings. If there is a difference could someone point them out to me? (shimmering aside since i think of them as driver bugs)

The main difference is performance at higher antialiasing level and resolution.
nVidia pretty much owns that realm now, and until crossfire crosses over to reality I don't see that changing.

But for me...I've been playing on ATi for the last few years but I am buying nVidia now...just because they bought the drinks at q'con.

 

[apocalypse]

There is always a difference between the way an nvidia and ati card render a scene , ANY scene.
I've tried making comparative screenshots many times between my 6800 and X800XTPE and comparing them visually and with the compressonator tool and there are always differences.
Then again , I'm mostly talking about 5-10 pixels with mildly different colours in a 1280x1024 pic.

For the most part (make that 99.9% of cases) talking about image quality difference is nitpicking in the extreme.

For me the only tangible differences come from features or bugs.
Like different AA modes (nvidia doesn't have 6xMSAA , ati has no SSAA) or perhaps shader models (playing the AoE3 demo on the XTPE after seeing it on the 6800 was a major letdown).

And I see no problem with either card's 2D output , but maybe it's because I'm using 2* LCD monitors.
Though I do remember being blown away when moving from GF4 to radeon 9800pro.

 

[Praetorius]

I personally can say the nVidia cards produce higher quality graphics than the ATI cards from the ones I've tested.

 

[jimmyboy]

These days you get great results from either manufacturer in 3D although I personally find that if I'm doing a large amount of 2D desktop app work then ATI gives me a better visual experience.

This seems to be the common opinion. I've mostly been using ATI since 2000, since I used a Geforce2 GTS and saw random 2D problems. To be fair, I think it was more a driver issue than a hardware issue.

 

[Phranq]

I switched from an 5700 to a 9800 pro and I saw 0% difference...my monitor blows though. Seriously, the guy above was right, a better monitor will give you better picture than what you guys are saying about nvidia and ati, which i've heard both ways.

 

[PRIME1]

Maybe I'm just too old and my eyes are bad, but even built-in Intel graphics look fine to me. I see little or no difference between ATI or NVIDIA (at least in 2D or similar 3D settings).

 

[Hvatum]

XGI has the best image quality. I went from an ATI 9600 to the Volari Duo and my image quality shot through the roof, there's just no comparison!

Anyone who disagrees is a total n00b omfg harharhar!!