• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Is it true AMD GPUs have better or more saturated colors compared to NVIDIA GPUs?

Quiz

Quiz

[H]ard|Gawd
2FA
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
1,047
I've had NVIDIA GPUs in my desktop PC the since 2012. I got a new PC in December of last year and it has an RX 9070 XT. Even though I have also changed my display/screen, I've noticed that the colors seem better or more punchier compared to what I was used to with NVIDIA GPUs (even on the Windows desktop). I am imagining things or is this a real phenomenon?

There are also others saying the same thing on Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/o29eay/image_quality_amd_vs_nvidia/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/eeol3x/is_it_true_that_amd_color_and_image_quality_is/
 
Quiz said:
I've had NVIDIA GPUs in my desktop PC the since 2012. I got a new PC in December of last year and it has an RX 9070 XT. Even though I have also changed my display/screen, I've noticed that the colors seem better or more punchier compared to what I was used to with NVIDIA GPUs (even on the Windows desktop). I am imagining things or is this a real phenomenon?

There are also others saying the same thing on Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/o29eay/image_quality_amd_vs_nvidia/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/eeol3x/is_it_true_that_amd_color_and_image_quality_is/
Click to expand...
Over the past few weeks, I had a chance to get an update impression of this, for myself. Comparing a 9070 XT, 4070 TI Super, and 5080. In the same system, with the same monitor and video cable.

Desktop icons and Windows UI elements somehow have more "glow" to them, on the 9070 XT. Otherwise, overall color and contrast was essentially the same.

In games: Nvidia actually had more nuance in colors. Particularly noticeable in red shades. However, DLSS often ruins that color nuance. DLSS 4.5 in particular, is a regression on this aspect. Whereas FSR 3 and 4 didn't affect color quality.
 
In my experience it has been the opposite. When nvidia introduced something called digital vibrance over two decades ago that pushed the saturation much further than was required. Even shitty LCDs of the time looked good. (as long as nothing moved!). I could only imagine how oversaturated things would look with OLEDs today!
 
As someone who has both, they look the same. My work and work from home setup is identical apart from the hardware. Even my main work monitor is the same so.
 
No. They will be the same unless you set them to be purposely innacurate. This has been a thing for forever. I remember turning on vibrancy with my voodoo 3 and thinkking it looked cool. Then turned it off because it's not really how things are supposed to look.

1773866620683.png
 
I don't see why they would be any different. I've used both over the years. Then again I've never built two identical systems next to each with the video card being the only difference. Maybe I'd see it then.
 
I noticed zero change going from my 1070Ti to my 7900XTX, outside of "driver timeouts" that keep me on my toes when Adrenalin randomly decides to redline my card past where it could possibly hope to be stable. Colours are the same though.
 
Quiz, you're not crazy. I see the same thing. AMD has better colors and pixel clarity. Then FSR and DLSS came along and fucked with image clarity to the point I can't tell them apart anymore.
 
Astral Abyss said:
Quiz, you're not crazy. I see the same thing. AMD has better colors and pixel clarity. Then FSR and DLSS came along and fucked with image clarity to the point I can't tell them apart anymore.
Click to expand...
I think you misplaced you tank of copium. I found it in the dumpster out back, try not to lose it again.

1774132836846.png


All jokes aside, there is absolutely 0 difference in colors between Radeon and GTX/RTX ever since videos cards started using digital video signals over analog signals. This isn't even up for debate anymore.

1774133127771.png
 
5900, 9700XT, 32” ROG Swift OLED. I see no significant difference. Adjustments would make any differences mute anyways.
 
AMD cards did look better but that was back when it was ATi and 3dfx used 16-bit colour lol. These days unless you mess with the settings in the control panel on either they're both fine at defaults.
 
Quiz said:
Found an earlier thread on the same topic: https://hardforum.com/threads/amd-vs-nvidia-colors-concrete-proof-of-differences.2023939/
Click to expand...
That thread contained a post with actual data that make some of the claims in posts in this thread be either lies or ignorance:

https://hardforum.com/threads/a-real-test-of-nvidia-vs-amd-2d-image-quality.1694755/

Conclusion

The results were as wed expect: There is no difference in image quality based on the brand of card you buy. The days of 2D image quality being a function of particular graphics cards are long gone for most people. When CRTs were popular, it was something that mattered as the quality of the RAMDAC controlled the quality of the analog VGA output. Thus different cards, even with the same chipset, could potentially produce different 2D image quality.

However LCDs and DVI have changed all that. The signal is fully digital from the OS, to the card, to the monitor right up until the individual sub pixels are finally lit up. This removes any quality differences from card outputs, since they are outputting a completely accurate digital signal. The only time they change anything is when instructed to by a change to their LUTs from the user, OS, application, and so on.

What that all means is the conclusion is pretty clear: There are many good reasons to buy team green or team red, but 2D image quality is not one of them. They are precisely the same.
Click to expand...

This is a "urban legend" that refuses to die, so the interesting thing to do would be to look onto why some people make false claims is that cognetive bias did someone screw up their settings or are some people just lying?
 
I mean, they could have different levels of saturation based on whatever the driver sets as default. They're not inherently going to have different digital signals, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Niner
like this
Recent Windows updates for color control, have also caused a dithering issue for some people on Blackwell GPUs. And its only partially fixed.
 
Astral Abyss said:
Quiz, you're not crazy. I see the same thing. AMD has better colors and pixel clarity. Then FSR and DLSS came along and fucked with image clarity to the point I can't tell them apart anymore.
Click to expand...
Data says you are wrong, there is a reason why things get tested, because a source of "trust me bro" is not a valid soruce:
https://hardforum.com/threads/a-real-test-of-nvidia-vs-amd-2d-image-quality.1694755/

So either you messed up some settings, you suffer form some sort of confirmation bias or you are not beng honest, becase data states you are incorrect.
 
Hey look, it's my thread from like a decade and a half ago!

This is an issue I just gave up on and quit arguing. I'm like "yep, believe whatever you want, I don't care." People just aren't going to let it go for whatever reason and I'm tired of trying to change minds. It's even funnier to me in this day and age of system level color calibration, wide gamut monitors, and Reshade. Like the amount of adjustment you can do to the grpahics to suit your tastes is so much more than any tiny difference in defaults (which you can 100% remove) that who would even care?

I mean sure, cards can have different default curves. On my laptop it looks like, though I've not tested, that the Intel iGPU and the nVidia dGPU have different curves for the monitor. I perceive a slight change in gamma when I change which one is driving the monitor. However it doesn't matter I'm not going to track down what the difference is, or make them the same, I tend to play games with the dGPU in control of the monitor so I just calibrate everything to look how I want with that and don't worry about it.
 
littlegreenmenfromhome said:
Data says you are wrong, there is a reason why things get tested, because a source of "trust me bro" is not a valid soruce:
https://hardforum.com/threads/a-real-test-of-nvidia-vs-amd-2d-image-quality.1694755/

So either you messed up some settings, you suffer form some sort of confirmation bias or you are not beng honest, becase data states you are incorrect.
Click to expand...
I should have been more clear. I was talking about in games that I'm very familiar with. 2D desktop stuff is identical. I mistakenly assumed he meant for gaming.

And before anyone responds that I'm still wrong. I honestly don't give a fuck.
 
Astral Abyss said:
I should have been more clear. I was talking about in games that I'm very familiar with. 2D desktop stuff is identical. I mistakenly assumed he meant for gaming.

And before anyone responds that I'm still wrong. I honestly don't give a fuck.
Click to expand...
So double wrong and still no data.
 
the person whos data youre hinging on just said they can see a difference...
 
The last time I made this comparo was when half of my GTX-295 stopped working.. so while it was out for RMA I got a top of the line Asus 4890.. that one with the big cap on it.

It made my games look a little more cartoony and had a weird white outline over my character. Even after windows installs. That kinda stuck with me..

I would try them again though, enough time has gone by.
 
Back in the day when this stuff really mattered for vid cards... Matrox FTW!

Now it's more about your monitor. OLED is generally good. Someone at Samsung needs to be defenestrated over the Neo G7 43" VA screen I had for about a week. Not great to begin with, then flip on HDR and you get OMGWTFBBQ oversaturation. Also have a cheap ass Acer Nitro IPS screen where HDR just doesn't do anything.
 
Sycraft said:
Hey look, it's my thread from like a decade and a half ago!

This is an issue I just gave up on and quit arguing. I'm like "yep, believe whatever you want, I don't care." People just aren't going to let it go for whatever reason and I'm tired of trying to change minds. It's even funnier to me in this day and age of system level color calibration, wide gamut monitors, and Reshade. Like the amount of adjustment you can do to the grpahics to suit your tastes is so much more than any tiny difference in defaults (which you can 100% remove) that who would even care?

I mean sure, cards can have different default curves. On my laptop it looks like, though I've not tested, that the Intel iGPU and the nVidia dGPU have different curves for the monitor. I perceive a slight change in gamma when I change which one is driving the monitor. However it doesn't matter I'm not going to track down what the difference is, or make them the same, I tend to play games with the dGPU in control of the monitor so I just calibrate everything to look how I want with that and don't worry about it.
Click to expand...
Well to be "fair" AMD is having nothing interesting going on other that chasing NVIDIA and their sales are down to 5% of the market, so what have the hardcore fans left to do than "urbans legends"?
(Or raging about A.I. until AMD comes uo with their own A.I. solution and "foot in mouth" syndrome occurs.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top