Do AMD graphics look better?

[papajo]

2 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

Dude your analyzing two different screenshots how do you expect them to look exactly identical the refresh rate is 60hz or more

Can you rephrase yourself? because I dont understand what you mean. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, papajo said:

Can you rephrase yourself? because I dont understand what you mean. 

the screenshots you guys are analysing are not the same...the pictures arent identical...they were not the SAME image for each computer making all that irrelevant. get it now?

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 minutes ago, papajo said:

Can you rephrase yourself? because I dont understand what you mean. 

Depending on the rendering it's normal that some screenshots will look sharper and some part of it may appear blurrier...it has nothing to do with which card you have both cards are pushing the same results at the end...colored pixels.

I had plenty of cards both amd and nvidia and this has nothing to do with it. They both look the same.

[papajo]

7 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

the screenshots you guys are analysing are not the same...the pictures arent identical...they were not the SAME image for each computer making all that irrelevant. get it now?

First I am talking about video footage. 

 

Second most of the footage is either from cutscenes or ingame-benchmarks so the same things happen on both. 

 

Third the screenshots are almost synchronized give or take a second or so depends on the video we are talking about  (and even then you can see -1 or more seconds or +1 or more seconds of each footage if you watch the video to check if something has changed) 

 

For example in my last screenshot (took from a video that I already posted here) you can see a few seconds before or after and the outpost is still not as defined. 

 

also the distance is the same actually a little closer from nvidia I took a static point of reference (the tree I point with a red arrow that starts from the last pixel of the bottom of each footage) 

[i_build_nanosuits]

19 minutes ago, papajo said:

First I am talking about video footage. 

 

Second most of the footage is either from cutscenes or ingame-benchmarks so the same things happen on both. 

 

Third the screenshots are almost synchronized give or take a second or so depends on the video we are talking about  (and even then you can see -1 or more seconds or +1 or more seconds of each footage if you watch the video to check if something has changed) 

 

For example in my last screenshot (took from a video that I already posted here) you can see a few seconds before or after and the outpost is still not as defined. 

 

also the distance is the same actually a little closer from nvidia I took a static point of reference (the tree I point with a red arrow that starts from the last pixel of the bottom of each footage) 

alright...if you say so.still can't judge from a shitty video...sit me in front of 2 computer running high end 4K display and then MAYBE we can start talking about some infinetly small and imperceptible to the naked eye differences.

[papajo]

33 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

still can't judge from a shitty video

Why is a 1440p 60 FPS footage shitty? 

 

Also if it is shitty its BOTHWAYS shitty... it cant be shitty only for one side of the video and crisp clear on the other... 

 

so both footages get the same shitty compression penalty, so they should still look the same! unless one of them was lower quality to begin with (if your assumption is right and that they get shitty compression because I beg to differ obviously youtube videos are not the same as the real deal but that doesnt make them shitty) 

 

 

Or in other words take those two pictures 

They are the same

 

Now if I compress them the output looks worse but the pictures still look the same!!!!!!

 

 

 

Now look at these two, they are not the same one is worse...

 

 

If I compress them at an equal scale of compression(so not compressing A more than B )... yea BOTH are compressed but because one was worse to begin with it is still worse AFTER the compression! 

 

 

 

 

So the youtube footage quality (which is really good imo) shouldnt matter when comparing the same video because both AMD and NVidia get compressed by youtube the same way because both sides are part of the same 1 video so the end result (if both sides were the same) should stay the same but compressed... so you wouldnt see any differences!  

 

If you see differences (and believe that the compression is shitty) it means that one side (here as it seems AMD) has even better quality than what you can see in the youtube footage (and the nvidia too but lesser compared to the AMD) 

 

 

[Mark Kaine]

43 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

alright...if you say so.still can't judge from a shitty video...sit me in front of 2 computer running high end 4K display and then MAYBE we can start talking about some infinetly small and imperceptible to the naked eye differences.

You can't judge it, but OP obviously has superior senses and he said AMD looks MUCH better so you better believe it! 

 

 

[papajo]

Just now, Mark Kaine said:

You can't judge it, but OP obviously has superior senses and he said AMD looks MUCH better so you better believe it! 

 

No you are obviously biased first you dont see the videos and judge, then you think that they all conspire and fake settings then you just roll with youtube has shitty compression ignoring the fact that the AMD side gets the same shitty compression because both sides are part of the same video (I showcase what that means in the post right above which you also seem to ignore) 

[papajo]

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

OP obviously has superior senses

Also to furher prove my point that you are biased 

 

1) even if those are minuscule details (and many of them indeed are) it's still noteworthy especially if you consider the implications that those minuscule details in combination contribute to the grand scheme of things as I mentioned here: 

 

  

4 hours ago, papajo said:

BTW if that happens to be the case (that's one of the reasons I would like ltt to make a video about it ) this is bigger than just "which card has better graphics quality" Its also about misinformation bad competition I mean think about it e.g in this particular scene the 2080 has 9 FPS more... so its faster like if you just see the number... but if the amd GPU would have blurred out that part too maybe the 2080 wouldnt have the same advantage in FPS and who knows maybe it would have been slower.... 

 

Other people mentioned that we are talking about minute details, and they are right but what they dont think of is that minute details can make a bigger difference in the grand scale of things... 

 

I mean if omitting a small thing in 1 frame saves you e.g a 1ms in frame time that means at a 100FPS rate you are getting +10 exrta FPS and can claim you have the faster product. 

 

And that wouldnt surprise me because nvidia has been known to cheat in order to get an advantage via manipulating the graphics load in games e.g they buffed up a totally unnoticeable and useless barrier in a game map with high tessellation just to make AMD GPUs have lower FPS in that part 

 

https://techreport.com/review/21404/crysis-2-tessellation-too-much-of-a-good-thing/

 

2) quite a few of them arent even that minuscule I mean do you need super human senses to see the differences in this outpost (circled )?  The red arrows are there to point to a steady point of reference to showcase that the distance is about the same (actually the nvidia side is a bit closer) so that one can not say that this is a result of blurring out far distant objects which is a common practice in many game engines. 

 

 

 

 

Or cant you see the differences here?  like in the basket or belt or what that thingy is near the bottom of the red square (outside of it because the user who made the square pointed out a different detail difference) 

 

 

and if you indeed cant see the difference let me zoom in a bit (click to enlarge even further) 

 

 

or 

 

 

 

And obviously its clearer if you see the actual video go to that scene pause it (at max video rez) and fullscreen

[papajo]

I found a video from Tech Yes city talking about it and I am really curious why Nvidia doesnt have the wider color range as default does it shave off a few FPS? And he points out that nvidia uses graphics compression.

 

Here an other forum discussion about that video with personal testimonies 

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/forums/threads/amd-vs-nvidia-image-quality-old-man-yells-at-cloud.18837948/

 

 

 

Also atleast from the footage I see some difference in Overwatch where he says he didnt see any but that could be the youtube compression although I had it to 4k and watched on a 1080p monitor which should eliminate some of the noise. 

 

 

The funny thing (and maybe ironic as well) is that he does mention that e.g for dota that nvidia has better framerates (while he mentioned AMD has better graphics) and didnt connect the dots that maybe the better framerate is correlated with the lesser graphics  I really think this needs to be taken into a microscope because it's gonna be a headline story if it turns to be true @LinusTech @GabenJr like test two identical PCs with up to date drivers without tuning either on two identical color accurate chroma 4:4:4  4K screens and have humans to spot any difference and then as a second test do what Tech Yes City did with screenshots

 

I also found this one 

 

 

The water fountain stood out for me the most... 

 

And really think about it if by omitting even tiny details in one frame saves you 1 ms frame time rendering or even more this makes a huge difference at a 100 FPS rate for example you could have a big advantage over the competition while the only thing you did is lower your render quality a tiny bit so that people wouldnt notice atleast not if they weren't nit picking like I did or the guys in the two videos here did  I call that bad competition and deception if that is to be the case hence I call linus for help since he has the equipment already lying around somewhere and the manpower and exposure to do the video while having it being noticed. 

 

 

And if it is true it would also make better sense as to why AMD products while having bigger compute power (in terms of FP performance) are so much behind in FPS which doesnt make so much sense... yes nobody said that raw compute power translates 1:1 with gaming performance since many bottlenecks are at play e.g game engine pipelines etc but on the same hand it doesnt make sense for the stronger (computational wise) card to perform so much worse in games e.g Vega 64 (12.66 Gflops FP32) GTX 1080 ti (11.34 Gflops)  so 11% better raw computing power for AMD 

 

Yet GTX 1080 ti FPS rate on average is about 33% faster than the Vega 64 something feels funny yet if lower rendering quality per frame really exists then it would explain A LOT. 

 

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

30 minutes ago, papajo said:

really think this needs to be taken into a microscope because it's gonna be a headline story if it turns to be true @LinusTech @GabenJr

 

 

 

Mate...how to put it...it's not. It's all in your brainwashed AMD fanboy brain brother...get over it.

[papajo]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

Mate...how to put it...it's not. It's all in your brainwashed AMD fanboy brain brother...get over it.

Well on one side you have me putting out findings, some people agreeing with them, then youtubers (like in the two videos just above you) completely oblivious to this topic and actually made the videos long before this topic  showing similar findings (while still not sure just being overwhelmed by the findings asking from linus to do a more rigorous test to be sure) 

 

 

Then we have you with 0 arguments other than "shitty compression" and "  its not because I said so " and  "you are an AMD funboy " and obviously I bet you didnt even check out the last two videos.... or any video in this topic for that matter... 

 

I think that explains who is a fanboy and who is not. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

4 minutes ago, papajo said:

Well on one side you have me putting out findings, some people agreeing with them, then youtubers (like in the two videos just above you) completely oblivious to this topic and actually made the videos long before this topic  showing similar findings (while still not sure just being overwhelmed by the findings asking from linus to do a more rigorous test to be sure) 

 

 

Then we have you with 0 arguments other than "shitty compression" and "  its not because I said so " and  "you are an AMD funboy " and obviously I bet you didnt even check out the last two videos.... or any video in this topic for that matter... 

 

I think that explains who is a fanboy and who is not. 

I work,built, play and maintain systems weekly with both AMD and Nvidia graphics card and they look absolutely the same I don't need shitty videos to confirm what any normal human being would realize in a matter of seconds.

[papajo]

10 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

I work,built, play and maintain systems weekly with both and and Nvidia graphics card and they look absolutely the same I don't need shitty videos to confirm what any normal human being would realize in a matter of seconds

Well that's your opinion and I will show good will and believe that you indeed have experience with lots of hardware and dont just say that to get some credibility because you want to defend your team. 

 

And I accept it. 

 

So 1 opinion towards no. 

 

I also happened to have a variaty of hardware since the early 90s and I have a different opinion (1 opinion) 

 

And there are two other guys in this forum that agree (3 opinions ) 

 

And there are like a bunch of other guys in the overclockers forum that agree as well (wont count them lets say they are 3 so 6 opinions) 

 

And then we have the evidence from other youtubers (like the last two videos are not FPS comparison videos like the ones I was uploading before but actually about image quality between AMD and NVidia showing and especially the 2nd one shows big differences 

 

so 7.5 opinions (I put the tech yes city 0.5 to aMD and 0.5 to nvidia since he found some better AMD quality and 1 better nvidia and the rest the same) 

 

so we have 7.5 against 1.5 (ok if you want I put the other two people that didnt say exactly that there isnt a difference they just said that the difference is either manipulated in purpose or by accident which I find unlikely and argued with that) 

 

we are at 7.5 vs 3.5 

 

+ all the evidence you can just witness above 

 

So the least you can say out of this is that there is ground for skepticism about the topic and that it needs further investigation. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 minute ago, papajo said:

o there least you can say out of this is that there is ground for skepticism about the topic and that it needs further investigation. 

Fair enough...so then...which looks better? AMD? And if so how would they go about achieving that? Wouldn't it depends a lot on what you have in your control panel for settings and stuff...I mean I can make my card looks worse, or better, just by changing a few settings in the Nvidia panel...how do you this is not what has been done in your junk videos?

[papajo]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

..which looks better? AMD?

 

51 minutes ago, papajo said:

 

 

The water fountain stood out for me the most... 

Just look at this video and tell me what you think 

[papajo]

9 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

how do you this is not what has been done in your junk videos?

a) they are high bitrate high resolution videos not junk (<-- here you make it obvious why you are biased especially after I explained the concept of compression to you a few posts before) 

 

b) they are not my videos (again you try to marginalize this into teams you vs me or nvidia vs amd fanboys) 

 

c) they are benchmark videos totally unrelated with image quality (except the two last ones I mentioned above) they show the system specs and game settings and their purpose is to show the average FPS difference which is on point with what we know , I just happen to use them because for comparing the FPS difference they show the footage synchronized side by side which makes it easier for me (and for others) to compare the footage differences between those cards. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

5 minutes ago, papajo said:

a) they are high bitrate high resolution videos not junk (<-- here you make it obvious why you are biased especially after I explained the concept of compression to you a few posts before) 

 

b) they are not my videos (again you try to marginalize this into teams you vs me or nvidia vs amd fanboys) 

 

c) they are benchmark videos totally unrelated with image quality (except the two last ones I mentioned above) they show the system specs and game settings and their purpose is to show the average FPS difference which is on point with what we know , I just happen to use them because for comparing the FPS difference they show the footage synchronized side by side which make it easier for me (and for others) to compare the footage between those cards. 

I mean I can make my card looks worse, or better, just by changing a few settings in the Nvidia panel...i can make a video similar to this in a few hour and make nvidia look REALLY good and AMD real bad...even tho ATM i only have a nvidia card in hand that wouldn't even be a problem...see what i mean?

[i_build_nanosuits]

12 minutes ago, papajo said:

 

Just look at this video and tell me what you think 

Also, are you for real?! look this here lol AMD looks so bad it's missing half the graphics settings the rear part of the car look like GTA 3 come on

That is OBVIOUSLY fake. NOT the same settings or anything remotely similar here.

 

 

[papajo]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

I mean I can make my card looks worse, or better, just by changing a few settings in the Nvidia panel.

Yes and I just told you that the videos are used are random videos comparing FPS perfomance from youtube channels that are focused on doing that thing they are not fanboy made or homebrew those are professional channels with thusands of followers if not more and lots of benchmark videos. 

 

In other words you say that all or most of the benchmark channels just manipulate the settings and fake the results just for me after a year or months from their creation would use them to claim that AMD has better quality which is tinfoil logic... 

 

+ if the above common sense doesnt appeal to you if they had settings that are better quality for AMD and lesser quality for nvidia that would mean that the FPS rate for AMD would be even lower(since in all those videos it would have the best quality settings and tweaked drivers to increase even more image quality) and the nvidia even higher FPS (since it didnt had in all those videos from all those channels the best graphics settings) yet if you check the FPS differences shown in those videos they are about what you would see in similar FPS measurments taken by various other benchmarkers including ltt gamersnexus hardware unbocxed etc. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 minute ago, papajo said:

Yes and I just told you that the videos are used are random videos comparing FPS perfomance from youtube channels that are focused on doing that thing they are not fanboy made or homebrew those are professional channels with thusands of followers if not more and lots of benchmark videos.

All those channels do it for clicks, and they are a clic of either AMD or NVIDIA supporters and haters and that's why they are there.

I wont trust someone that doesnt show his face or any computers or anything...it's just plain 2 EZ if you don't have a name for yourself, like linus, or Jay, or steeve, or HUB even.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Look im watchin the 9 min Tech yes city video you've linked since this  is the closest you could get...we'll go from there give me some time.

 

EDIT: WELP...there you go 1:10 in the video is your answer:

[MadPistol]

The only way to truly prove this is from a 3rd party capture card. If these items are captured from the built-in encoders on each GPU, the comparison is immediately flawed as the encoders on each card are different.

[papajo]

2 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

Also, are you for real?! look this here lol AMD looks so bad it's missing half the graphics settings the rear part of the car look like GTA 3 come on

That is OBVIOUSLY fake. NOT the same settings or anything remotely similar here.

 

 

Ok just say that you are a fanboy and lets be over that.. lol I was 100% sure you would talk about this part only (ignoring the rest of the video) because shiny looks better... for a couple of seconds I thought the same but that is just lesser render quality because it doesnt use transparency and instead reflects everything (essentially making most of the pixels white) 

 

and to make you better understand why that is worse if you dared to see further you would have found this 

 

 

 

Were you can see that "shiny is not good" and it is the same reason why the car shines like that (reminding me of GTA vice city or earlier itterations ) 

 

 

Or you would have seen this where again the same lesser effect is applied 

 

 

Or this where there is no reason for the car to shine at all yet the GTA vice city effects still kick in..  

 

 

 

And obviously you ignored all the other differences shown in the video and focused on the first frame where the car was shinier hence "better" 

 

So that tells me a lot about your ability to distinguish differences in graphics and hence your opinion about them... 

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 minutes ago, MadPistol said:

The only way to truly prove this is from a 3rd party capture card. If these items are captured from the built-in encoders on each GPU, the comparison is immediately flawed as the encoders on each card are different.

i know this guy he's been doing tech stuff for years and if the difference was as obvious as the OP describe it to be as it could be seen AFTER the horrendous youtube encoding algorithm then everyone would notice and it would be a well known fact but Brian is clear and he says to the end user using the same settings and same monitor there is no difference what so ever even in pixel 4K analysing in photoshop he couldnt tell any meaningful difference, case closed as far as i'm concerned: