Originally Posted by vladd
And I will give it to you if you can quote me one time where I said that Intel/NVidia were better
Common wisdom here says that they are all the same. Yet, professional reviewers say the opposite. And in my opinion, AMD does present a better option for HTPC users. That's my only point. And when people argue against me saying that there is no proof... despite me presenting multiple reviews that show exactly my "proof"... it raises my heckles a bit.
No but it is in stark contrast to your argument that AMD is better.
Yeah, I found that article interesting. They made it a point to call out AMD, but didn't point out the fact that post-processing was turned on. This wasn't an "out of the box" comparison, considering it's a transcoding comparison. If post-processing was turned off, they would be a little closer.
But when you actually look at the screen shots, even with post-processing turned on, the AMD looks better in my opinion, and several other people that I showed them to. So I'm surprised the author of that article came to that conclusion.
In what way is that an objective comparison other than to compare out of the box settings.
It's not. That's why I was surprised at the authors conclusions. That's why I said that article was interesting and included it.
Either one. Using the sum of their parts, all three major players can easily match each other with the proper settings.
Really? The article we have been talking about above is not a picture quality review, but a transcoding review. The other articles that deal with picture quality in more depth try to do a more thorough objective analysis with HQV and come to the conclusion that AMD provides better quality when all things are equal (post-processing turned off).
This is the point I have been trying to make. And with AMD's superior post-processing, the end-user can tweak the quality even further.
So have I. I've even pointed out that the reviewers which you cite specifically state that their results are subjective yet you call it objective proof. If you want objective results, the closest you will get is if you perform a double blind study with a professionally calibrated system (GPU and display). And don't use subjects that think the high contrast displays that they see in Best Buy and WalMart are what the image should look like.
Until then, we will just have to agree to disagree.
Point taken. While the reviewers step all over themselves to say the results are subjective... when you see a consistent trend where AMD wins the HQV comparisons over and over... that trend
shows that it is no longer subjective.
One review in AMD's favor in a subjective test would be just a subjective result. But multiple reviews in AMD's favor tips the scales away from "subjective" to "objective."
There are many things in nature that are subjective. But when multiple people make the same observances it is not subjective anymore.