Does Radeon still have better colors than Geforce?

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?

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:20:33 -0400, asdfg wrote:

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?

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

Andrew.

"i'm_tired" wrote in message
news:64mOa.735$GL4.163@rwcrnsc53...

snip

ATI has never produced a superior 2D image than nVidia.

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, I think probably does. Everyone I've ever seen post comments
comparing Matrox
to any other card claimed the better 2D was produced by Matrox.

Matrox is still the king of 2D image quality. ATI is second.

3D, though. Well, the ATI 9700 pro and 9800 pro cards can produce 3D with
4X AA on without taking much of a performance hit (in comparison to the
geForce 4). The new GeForce FX cards are on par with that. They can
produce 3D with FSAA and AF better than the the ATI 9700pro and on par
with
9800pro.

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

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!

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 03:03:04 +0200, "Anders Albrechtsen"
wrote:


"i'm_tired" wrote in message
news:64mOa.735$GL4.163@rwcrnsc53...

snip

ATI has never produced a superior 2D image than nVidia.

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.

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" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 03:03:04 +0200, "Anders Albrechtsen"
wrote:


"i'm_tired" wrote in message
news:64mOa.735$GL4.163@rwcrnsc53...

snip

ATI has never produced a superior 2D image than nVidia.

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.

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.

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

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
"Anders Albrechtsen" wrote in message
...

"John Lewis" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 03:03:04 +0200, "Anders Albrechtsen"
wrote:


"i'm_tired" wrote in message
news:64mOa.735$GL4.163@rwcrnsc53...

snip

ATI has never produced a superior 2D image than nVidia.

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.

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.

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

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.

"asdfg" ...
i'm_tired wrote:
asdfg wrote:

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?


It isn't the device. It is the drivers. ATI says they turn up the
default
value of digital vibrance and for a couple of gamma channels. Matrox
and
ATI have the same idea about D-Vibrance and gamma. nVidia hasn't ever
accepted those ideas and they say the user can tweek those settings to
suit
them.

Very interesting. I don't recall seeing a digital vibrance control
in the settings of a Geforce 2. Is this something that was introduced
with the Geforce 4?


ATI has never produced a superior 2D image than nVidia. Matrox, I
think probably does. Everyone I've ever seen post comments comparing
Matrox
to any other card claimed the better 2D was produced by Matrox.

3D, though. Well, the ATI 9700 pro and 9800 pro cards can produce 3D
with
4X AA on without taking much of a performance hit (in comparison to the
geForce 4). The new GeForce FX cards are on par with that. They can
produce 3D with FSAA and AF better than the the ATI 9700pro and on par
with
9800pro.

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?

"Anders Albrechtsen" ¼¶¼g©ó¶l¥ó·s»D
...

"John Lewis" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 03:03:04 +0200, "Anders Albrechtsen"
wrote:


"i'm_tired" wrote in message
news:64mOa.735$GL4.163@rwcrnsc53...

snip

ATI has never produced a superior 2D image than nVidia.

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.

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.

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