Go Back   nV News Forums > Graphics Card Forums > NVIDIA GeForce 7, 8, And 9 Series

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-25-02, 06:01 AM   #1
Turnbolt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 11
Default Color quality of Ti4600 and the 8500

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
Turnbolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-02, 10:08 AM   #2
thcdru2k
Registered User
 
thcdru2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Milpitas, CA
Posts: 1,142
Send a message via ICQ to thcdru2k Send a message via AIM to thcdru2k
Default

that really depends on your monitor. your contrast + brightness settings also have an effect.
__________________
Athlon XP 1.58GHz | MSI KT3 Ultra2 | 256MB DDR PC-3000 | GeForce 4 ti4200 64mb @ 310/533 | IBM 120GXP 40.0GB | Det. 41.09 | DX 9 RC2 | Win XP SP1

11118 3DMarks
thcdru2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-02, 10:43 AM   #3
travbrad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 30
Default

Quote:
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.
travbrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-02, 12:06 PM   #4
Turnbolt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 11
Default

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
Turnbolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-02, 01:18 PM   #5
PCarr78
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 505
Default

Quote:
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?

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?
PCarr78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-02, 11:28 PM   #6
Turnbolt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 11
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by [Corporal Dan]


Troll!


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

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
Turnbolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-02, 11:39 PM   #7
Bigus Dickus
GF7 FX Ti 12800 SE Ultra
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 651
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by [Corporal Dan]


Troll!


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

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.
Bigus Dickus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-02, 01:52 AM   #8
travbrad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 30
Default

Some people still refuse to buy AMD processors to because of issues they had with the K6 line. Their loss I guess.
travbrad is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 08-26-02, 02:46 AM   #9
JohnsonLKD
Henry stauf
 
JohnsonLKD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: BC
Posts: 88
Default

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...

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)

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!!!
__________________
Toshiba M40 - PM1.8Ghz Centrino set / 2GB RAM - DDR1 (pirate) / 80GB Toshiba 2.5" HDD / GF go 6600 128MB PCI-E x16 / Intel 915 / Toshiba DVD+-RW / SB Audigy 2 NX / Samaung SM715v

Toshiba PPC e830 - 2x 1GB SD / 2.2GB Magicstor CF2 MHDD / BT / WiFi

Last edited by saturnotaku; 08-26-02 at 12:24 PM.
JohnsonLKD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-02, 05:11 AM   #10
Lezmaka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Indy
Posts: 614
Default

Quote:
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

Last edited by Lezmaka; 08-26-02 at 05:13 AM.
Lezmaka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-02, 08:54 AM   #11
saturnotaku
Apple user. Deal with it.
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The 'burbs, IL USA
Posts: 12,502
Default

Quote:
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.
saturnotaku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-02, 12:01 PM   #12
PCarr78
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 505
Default

Quote:
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Radeon 9700 not all that? sancheuz Other Desktop Graphics Cards 200 10-12-02 09:31 PM
GeForce4 Ti 4600 performance in UT2003? Turnbolt NVIDIA GeForce 7, 8, And 9 Series 9 08-17-02 08:50 PM
Are there any comparisons of the GeForce4 Ti 4600 to the Radeon 9700 yet? john19055 NVIDIA GeForce 7, 8, And 9 Series 8 07-28-02 02:07 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.