PDA

View Full Version : Color quality of the GeForce4 Ti 4600 and Radeon 8500


Turnbolt
08-25-02, 06:01 AM
I've seen tech charts comparing visual quality of the two cards. I'm too lazy to figure out the technical jargon of their chart explanations, but it looks like the Ti4600 has sharper textures and images than the Radeon 8500 for 3D games. But what about color? I can't really tell by reading the results, or I didn't read carefully enough.

Can you really quantitatively test for gaming color quality or image quality in video cards? Anyway the color difference may too small to matter and I heard even experts struggle to tell the difference while playing games on side by side monitors on both cards or from screenshots.

I realize you can use color tweakers and gamma adjustments for the Ti4600 for games.

And sorry if you've gone over the Nvidia vs ATI color comparison issue already a few hundred times in past.

Turnbolt

thcdru2k
08-25-02, 10:08 AM
that really depends on your monitor. your contrast + brightness settings also have an effect.

travbrad
08-25-02, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by thcdru2k
that really depends on your monitor. your contrast + brightness settings also have an effect.

Yep, pretty much the same quality. Now I ask, what was the reason for starting this thread?? Do I start threads saying R9700 is faster from the comparisons Ive seen? I think not.

Turnbolt
08-25-02, 12:06 PM
Ok, I'll fess up, I tried to get people to say the 8500 has better colors than the GF4s. It didn't work. But I can sure agree with the part about the monitor and its settings. I have at the top or near the top in monitors for accuracy in color rendering:

19" Iiyama Vision Master 450 #S901GT shadow mask monitor

Not that it's the best monitor, its colors are not as bright as the Trinitron types but it still rocks.

Turnbolt
-----------------
and the rest:

1.6 ghz p4 on an Intel d845wn motherboard
Radeon 64 mb 8500 retail - no overclock
Maxtor 40 gb - 5400 rpm, Toshiba 16x40 dvd rom
Creative 12x10x32 cd-rw, 512 mb pc133 sdram
On board sound, 3Com nic/cable, Win XP Home

PCarr78
08-25-02, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Turnbolt
Ok, I'll fess up, I tried to get people to say the 8500 has better colors than the GF4s.


Troll!


Are you also a valued member of the Rage3d forums, too? :rolleyes:

Besides, lemme just mention two words for you:

ati drivers.

The main reason why I'd pick nvidia over ati any day, I've been screwed by ati too many times in the past.

ATI Rage 128!!! Whoa!!!

Crashes! ****ty 16 bit! Bad Performance! $572 CDN


Ati Radeon (original!)

SLOW! Drivers! Crashes, Visual anomalies! Incompatibilities! $456 CDN


Nvidia GeForce2 Gts

Fast, Stable, compatible, ****ty 16 bit, but who cares when 32 bit is just as fast. $319

Let's just say I won't be getting an ATI card anytime soon.

oh yes, and i hate trolls. Ok?

Turnbolt
08-25-02, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by [Corporal Dan]


Troll!


Are you also a valued member of the Rage3d forums, too? :rolleyes:

Besides, lemme just mention two words for you:

ati drivers.

The main reason why I'd pick nvidia over ati any day, I've been screwed by ati too many times in the past.

ATI Rage 128!!! Whoa!!!

Crashes! ****ty 16 bit! Bad Performance! $572 CDN


Ati Radeon (original!)

SLOW! Drivers! Crashes, Visual anomalies! Incompatibilities! $456 CDN


Nvidia GeForce2 Gts

Fast, Stable, compatible, ****ty 16 bit, but who cares when 32 bit is just as fast. $319

Let's just say I won't be getting an ATI card anytime soon.

oh yes, and i hate trolls. Ok?

True about the ATI drivers in general. I won't get any of the new ATI Catalyst drivers for awhile because of complaints about graphics problems in games like Morrowind. If the Radeon 9700 uses a new Catalyst driver and if some games STILL have those problems, ATI fans will really be ticked off. And ATI was gaining a little in driver quality in the spring of this year.

Rage 128, yeah, poor performance, it stuttered too much in the latest games back then for me.

Yes, original Radeon still too slow.

I remember my only Nvdia, the Creative TNT 1 wiping out ATI for speed, and I know the trend continued on with the GF2, 3 and 4.

But about the color tweakers for GF4s. I noticed another recent thread in a forum here about the Riva Tuner making the colors more vibrant for the GF4s. Does the Ti4600 need a color boost out of the box? If the Riva Tuner works then fine.

Well, as for the 8500 it has great DVD playback.

Turnbolt

1.6 ghz p4 on an Intel d845wn motherboard
Radeon 64 mb 8500 retail - no overclock
Maxtor 40 gb - 5400 rpm, Toshiba 16x40 dvd rom
Creative 12x10x32 cd-rw, 512 mb pc133 sdram
On board sound, 3Com nic/cable, Win XP Home

Bigus Dickus
08-25-02, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by [Corporal Dan]


Troll!


Are you also a valued member of the Rage3d forums, too? :rolleyes:

Besides, lemme just mention two words for you:

ati drivers.

The main reason why I'd pick nvidia over ati any day, I've been screwed by ati too many times in the past.

ATI Rage 128!!! Whoa!!!

Crashes! ****ty 16 bit! Bad Performance! $572 CDN


Ati Radeon (original!)

SLOW! Drivers! Crashes, Visual anomalies! Incompatibilities! $456 CDN


Nvidia GeForce2 Gts

Fast, Stable, compatible, ****ty 16 bit, but who cares when 32 bit is just as fast. $319

Let's just say I won't be getting an ATI card anytime soon.

oh yes, and i hate trolls. Ok? So that's release prices for the ATI cards and pricewatch prices four months after the GTS came out?

From my memory, the GTS and Radeon 64 ViVo were very similar in price... nothing like the difference you are stating.

travbrad
08-26-02, 01:52 AM
Some people still refuse to buy AMD processors to because of issues they had with the K6 line. Their loss I guess.

JohnsonLKD
08-26-02, 02:46 AM
Honestly, GF4's colour saturation/quality is WAY better than any Radeon serieses (xcept R9700)

After nVIDIA announced they'll upgrade their 2D quality and overall image quality, that ACTAULLY happened.

I'm using Digital Vibration at medium and the colour quality is WAY more BETTER than RADEON serieses. Should I say VIVIDER?

I also had radeon 64 vivo/radeon 8500 LE. Game performance was FUC*ing stupid with that videocards, I have to say. I guess you don't want me to talk about the ****ty driver suport too.

You rage3d people say after Catalyst it's been better, sometimes better than nVIDIA driver. I agree little bit.

But, do you wanna know what I'm gonna say to that?

DUH! There are still heck alot of artifact with RADEON series (I don't even think they'll be fixed)

Example? AvP 2/Aquanox/etc...

You wanna know one simply good thing about GF4? I can run any ****ty old game that requires old 3d accerlation feature without any problem. I still playing the shadows of the empire at 1024*768*16 with 4Xs AA without any artifacts. Pertty impressive huh?

Yes, I agree about the sharpness of the textures, but who cares? Everything looks normal to me even with bilinear filtering and Quincnuxx Anti Aliasing.

After Digital Vibration is enabled, there's no videocard that can make that VIVID colour setting. (again, xcept R9700)

So you littlte TROLL, LEAVE THE EARTH!!!

Atidiot...:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

P.S. #2

You never tried the nVDVD... Radeon DVD = nVDVD = Anyother DVD program. (If you don't believe me, check any nVDVD review website):eek: :eek: :eek:

P.S. #3

The 2D sharpness between GF 4 and R9700?

check any Ati refresh rato issues. Hope you know the differences between higher/lower refresh rate...
P.S. #4

That was my revenge time. I got wasted by telling "GF4 is good" at the RAGE3D heheh!!!:mad:

Lezmaka
08-26-02, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by Bigus Dickus
So that's release prices for the ATI cards and pricewatch prices four months after the GTS came out?

From my memory, the GTS and Radeon 64 ViVo were very similar in price... nothing like the difference you are stating.

To me, it seems like he's stating what he paid for them, and not saying those were msrp :rolleyes:

saturnotaku
08-26-02, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by Turnbolt
Well, as for the 8500 it has great DVD playback.



Only when coupled with ATI's software. Use any other program (WinDVD, PowerDVD, etc) and it looks no better, and in several cases worse, than what NVIDIA offers. Trust me, I had an 8500 and when coupled with PowerDVD I couldn't even use ATI's famous hardware acceleration because it wouldn't display subtitles at all. And for watching anime, that's totally unacceptable. Turning off hardware acceleration fixed the problem but I was stuck with quality that was no better than my GeForce3 so what's the point?

Now that ATI has partnered with Cyberlink, I would hope future PowerDVD support with those cards will be improved.

PCarr78
08-26-02, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Bigus Dickus
So that's release prices for the ATI cards and pricewatch prices four months after the GTS came out?

From my memory, the GTS and Radeon 64 ViVo were very similar in price... nothing like the difference you are stating.

Those were retail prices here when i was building my box

PCarr78
08-26-02, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Lezmaka


To me, it seems like he's stating what he paid for them, and not saying those were msrp :rolleyes:

Yes, that's what I paid for the cards.

ATI LoVeR 9700
08-26-02, 02:00 PM
With the latest drivers, the Radeon 64MB VIVO IS faster than the Geforce2 GTS. I have both cards, and it's true. Not to mention the Radeon has 100 times better IQ in everything and free OpenGL Aniso!

Most ATi users are happy with their cards and drivers. I don't have any problems with my Radeons, or Rage 128 for that matter. I still use my Rage 128 and it's still going. It has beautiful IQ in games, alot better than the Radeon series or Geforce series.

IMO the Radeon has alot better color quality than the 4600, and I'm not going to use a vibrance option, as it just looks weird.

That just my $20. :D

Turnbolt
08-26-02, 02:01 PM
As if I wouldn't get a Ti4600 if I had the chance. If I had the money I'd buy one and a second PC for it. And true I could play Aquanox without the messed up textures like on some of the turrets I see using the 8500. So I spent all my money on the Radeon. Give a guy a break while he's saving up for Nvidia. I can't be that bad for just one possible mistake in spending.

For DVD, gaming color and so on the Ti4600 sounds better, ok. But isn't evironmental bump mapping the one area the the 8500 is better at? At least there's something. If you shoot that down, chrieeest, what's left?

Turnbolt

saturnotaku
08-26-02, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Turnbolt
Give a guy a break while he's saving up for Nvidia. I can't be that bad for just one possible mistake in spending.


As long as you're admitting you've made a mistake, that's the first step on the road to recovery. ;) Do yourself a favor while you're saving and wait for the inevitable price drop of the GF4 Ti series. Naturally with the introduction of the Radeon 9700 the price will be coming down more and more.

Also while you're at it don't bother with the Ti4600. Get a Ti4400 for $50-$100 less and overclock it to Ti4600 levels. Any Ti4400 you buy (with the exception of the eVGA w/ACS2) should be more than able to accomplish this. That way you'll have yourself a card that performs like a Ti4600 only you'll be several dollars richer. :D

Turnbolt
08-26-02, 02:15 PM
Forgot to ask about color settings for each game, guys. On the color controls the come with the Ti4600 or with Riva Tuner do you have to setup a profile for each game? If so is that a hassle and do the settings slip and need readjustment too much? Or pick a setting that works for colors for most games.

Turnbolt

saturnotaku
08-26-02, 02:17 PM
I personally have my digital vibrance set to low all the time, for desktop work and gaming. You can set up individual profiles for games with RivaTuner if you want, but I personally don't feel it's necessary. Low digital vibrance works just about perfectly for all my needs, from desktop work, to gaming and watching DVD's.

Once you have your card you'll have to experiment on a game by game basis to find what you like the best.

ZenOps
08-26-02, 11:56 PM
I hate to break it to you guys but there is nothing special about digital vibrance.

Its just a simple hack to get more colour changes with less detail. In other words instead of gradients of colour 1/256th, they bump the black level by maybe 20/256ths, and then multiply all the other values by 1.25

So by gaining more colour intensity you actually lose colour accuracy. Its sort of like ripping the filters off of a card, it will overall be brighter, but the accuracy just gets shot to hell, thats whey they are there in the first place.

It works ok at getting more signal to cheap monitors that are dark to start with, but on any higher end 19"+ monitor, many images will have many colour inaccuracies.

ATi could easily put a software colour vibrance hack in its drivers too, but I think they would rather have it done properly in hardware instead of requiring a software hack.

Nvidia peeps call it a feature, Ati peeps call it a software hack for poor hardware implementation, take your pick.

And a Radeon 8500 Anisotropic image is quite a bit clearer than any setting on a GF4. The GF4 does have better AA than the 8500.

JohnsonLKD
08-27-02, 04:36 AM
Originally posted by ZenOps
I hate to break it to you guys but there is nothing special about digital vibrance.

Its just a simple hack to get more colour changes with less detail. In other words instead of gradients of colour 1/256th, they bump the black level by maybe 20/256ths, and then multiply all the other values by 1.25

So by gaining more colour intensity you actually lose colour accuracy. Its sort of like ripping the filters off of a card, it will overall be brighter, but the accuracy just gets shot to hell, thats whey they are there in the first place.

It works ok at getting more signal to cheap monitors that are dark to start with, but on any higher end 19"+ monitor, many images will have many colour inaccuracies.

ATi could easily put a software colour vibrance hack in its drivers too, but I think they would rather have it done properly in hardware instead of requiring a software hack.

Nvidia peeps call it a feature, Ati peeps call it a software hack for poor hardware implementation, take your pick.

And a Radeon 8500 Anisotropic image is quite a bit clearer than any setting on a GF4. The GF4 does have better AA than the 8500.

Hey, if you DO know, nobody thinks R8500'a ani filter is REAL. unless you kill half of your ani setting thru the highest quality or something...

No. Digital Vibrance is a Feature. some monotir can't do a **** so it helps! You wanna talk about the Radeon series colour? okay, has clear setting. but what? nobody cares about the default setting with darkish view. they change their monitor colour temprature or use the slide. And who cares about the slight difrerences using GF series cards? Do you think a photo designers are using GF to do that? NO, I DON'T THINK SO.

So normal useres like me just want more clearer colour/better looking colour than another crappy darkish colour.

Well, guess I have to say sorry if you're an 2D designer using a GF series card and using 2000 or higher res... sorry again! :D

Turnbolt
08-27-02, 10:27 AM
I'm going back to the NOLF 2 demo thread in Games, jeesh.

Turnbolt

Nv40
08-27-02, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by thcdru2k
that really depends on your monitor. your contrast + brightness settings also have an effect.

indeed ..

Monitors are as important as the video card ,
When i upgraded my monitor to a trinitron flat dysplay
i noticed a HUGE!!! diference in the vivid colors in all games ,
i have 2 computers with two geforce's card and the Geforce2 games
in my 17inch sony trinitron monitor looks a lot better the colors than
my Geforce4 in my cheap 19inch monitor ...

however video cards can make a diference too , MAtrox video cards
seems to have a better 2d quality ,and Ati and Nvidia quality
are near the same in most games ,without using AA+AF settings ,
the best place to see the diferences in games quality is in a Lan party ,there you will see old voodoo5 cards looking better than
Geforces and Radeons in some games , thanks to monitors ..

thcdru2k
08-27-02, 05:47 PM
yes exactly with a good monitor, you willl see voodoo5 looking more vibrant than geforce's with a ****ty monitor.

and btw, all that digital vibrance is just presets , you would probably be better off tweaking your own monitor settings and video rgb settings.

StealthHawk
08-27-02, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by Turnbolt
As if I wouldn't get a Ti4600 if I had the chance. If I had the money I'd buy one and a second PC for it. And true I could play Aquanox without the messed up textures like on some of the turrets I see using the 8500. So I spent all my money on the Radeon. Give a guy a break while he's saving up for Nvidia. I can't be that bad for just one possible mistake in spending.

For DVD, gaming color and so on the Ti4600 sounds better, ok. But isn't evironmental bump mapping the one area the the 8500 is better at? At least there's something. If you shoot that down, chrieeest, what's left?

Turnbolt

what recent or upcoming games actually use EMBM? most newer ones like Giants used Dot3, and upcoming DX8 games use pixel shaders