1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Does Radeon still have better colors than Geforce?

Discussion in 'Nvidia' started by asdfg, Jul 7, 2003.

  1. asdfg

    asdfg Guest

    I've read posts saying the ATI Radeon had better color quality
    than the Geforce 2 and 3. Is this still true with the Geforce 4?
     
    asdfg, Jul 7, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. asdfg

    aep Guest

    I am not sure about the Radeon, but the GF4 is comparable in image
    quality to the previous GF's in my experience.

    Andrew.
     
    aep, Jul 7, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. You're joking right? All nVidia cards up to and including the GeForce3 had
    inferior 2D image quality. The GeForce 2/3 cards were notorious for their
    blurry 2D image quality. Only cards from a few vendors such as Conopus and
    Gainward were on par with ATI. The GeForce4 leveled things out a bit, but
    the Radeon 9700/9800 cards offer better image quality. There's no indication
    that the GFX 5900 offers features improved 2D image quality..
    Matrox is still the king of 2D image quality. ATI is second.
    For 4x FSAA and 8 tap AF true. However ATI's multisampling looks better than
    nVidia's. In other words, performance may be equal but image quality isn't.
    At maximum qiuality settings, that is 6x FSAA/16 tap AF for ATI versus 8x
    FSAA/8 tap AF for nVidia the Radeon 9700/9800 outperforms the GFX 5900 Ultra
    by a significant margin. In many games the difference is between playable
    and non-playable frame rates.
     
    Anders Albrechtsen, Jul 8, 2003
    #3
  4. asdfg

    Chimera Guest

    Ill second that. Knowing the owner of a computer shop, I make sure I try
    out any new graphics cards, and am especially interested in the 2D & TV out
    quality.
    The best card Ive tested on both counts is a Matrox G550, which decisively
    beats both ATI & nVidia.
    For desktop clarity, I still back the Radeons despite nVidia being extremely
    good. Also ATI have integrated DVI output, which is lacking on the entry
    GFFX cards.
    TV out is more difficult to judge, as the GF4 & GFFX cards both have good
    clarity and stability, but seem to lack in colour department, while ATI the
    picture is not as clear, but seems more realistic & vibrant. About the only
    thing I havent really tested is the high end Radeon cards with the Rage
    Theatre chipset.

    On that note, Ill just finish by saying the worst 2D picture Ive ever had
    the pleasure to laugh at is a draw between an Intel i810 onboard and a SiS
    AGP card. Yuck!
     
    Chimera, Jul 8, 2003
    #4
  5. asdfg

    John Lewis Guest

    You speak out of the incorrect aperture............or else you
    urgently need a change of spectacles. The GF3 Ti series and later
    cards all have excellent 2D image quality.

    John Lewis
     
    John Lewis, Jul 8, 2003
    #5
  6. I use spectacles already, thanks :) I've owned every nVidia cards since the
    TNT2 and only quality brands such as Asus and Leadtek. Generally speaking I
    find the 2D image quality inferior to what ATI has to offer up to and
    including the GeForce 3. None og them mathced my Radeon (the first one) in
    terms of 2D image quality. The GeForce 4 improved image quality a lot
    because the RAMDAC filters where moved closer to the monitor connector thus
    reducing possible signal noise. However I just upgraded from an MSI GeForce
    4 to a Sapphire Atlantis Radeon 9800 Pro and the latter clearly has a
    sharper picture especially at the higher resolutions (1600x1200 and above).
     
    Anders Albrechtsen, Jul 8, 2003
    #6
  7. asdfg

    neopolaris Guest

    I did a mod on a Leadtek GF2 GTS. The 2D was great. I can't find the page
    now though. Personally I though ATI has better text but Nvidia has always
    had the better colors. My $.02 nothing more.

    neopolaris
     
    neopolaris, Jul 8, 2003
    #7
  8. asdfg

    Bronney Hui Guest

    It's in the driver's tabs. I had it since my GF2 mx400 days. I think it
    was 21.83. or even earlier. But I've always kept that DV crap off cuz I
    hate over shooting colors. Btw, the selling point for them to include DVib
    was to apply to videos, i.e. dvd, vcd, when you're watching videos.

    I don't think turning up DVib for photoshop's a good idea.
     
    Bronney Hui, Jul 11, 2003
    #8
  9. asdfg

    Bronney Hui Guest

    I am not accusing you or anything, but were asus and leadtek considered to
    be the brand in video cards?? Cuz I've always thought it was PNY and
    Hercules. Pity Hercules doesn't make nvidia cards anymore.

    I use a Hercules GF3 Ti200 still and it's 2d is great, much improvement over
    the elsa mx400. My roomate uses an ATi rage fury (all he does is UO).
    Prior to the mx400 I used a Matrox Millenium but was too dumb to notice any
    2d quality then.

    I just wonder, since a lot of mac users are graphic artists, wouldn't it
    make sense if they deal with matrox instead of the ati and nvidia cards they
    bundle?
     
    Bronney Hui, Jul 11, 2003
    #9
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.