Originally Posted by vladd
By "appears", it means to their eyes. If the NVidia "appears" better to someone else, it does not mean that it is.
So around and around we go. If reviewers consistently say that AMD scores better, then is it "subjective" or "objective"?
I could understand if there weren't a consistent pattern... but when AMD consistently scores higher, then it's no longer subjective.
NVidia was given a lower score on the noise reduction (something that most people disable anyway) because they didn't see a difference with it on or off. Others do see the difference.
Why do people turn off a feature that improves picture quality? I'll tell you why... most folks buy low-powered GPUs that can't handle multiple types of enhancement, so the "prevailing wisdom" has been to just turn it off, because everyone watches 1080p material, that is sourced from 1080p cameras with no compression ever... right?
Skipping the falsidical paradox, what trend? Assassin has repeatedly asked you to point to all these reviews, and yet...
LOL! This is a fairly long running disagreement that Assassin and I have. Assassin says the lowest common denominator is "good enough," and that no one "needs" anything better. I obviously disagree.
But since you asked... Here's a couple more reviews (in addition to the more recent one that you-yourself posted) that show AMD on top versus Nvidia and/or Intel. I'm not going to dig around for more reviews... I'll ask you to prove them wrong.http://www.anandtech.com/show/4380/d...pus-shootout/1http://www.missingremote.com/review/...tx-motherboardhttp://www.tomshardware.co.uk/hqv-2-...-32108-10.html
I ask that if you or Assassin (or anyone really) dismiss these as "subjective" then I ask you to post one... just one review that shows Nvidia or Intel besting AMD in picture quality using HQV scores.
If you can't... then it's not subjective and it's a proven fact.
BTW, there are some very techincal reasons why the Kuro looks better and that is not subjective. But that's a discussion for another thread.
Sure... but to the layperson, they don't know why... it's just better. To the reviewers of videocards... they may or may not know why... but the AMDs come out on top because it's a better quality video device.
The main problem with Assassin's challenge is that he seems to think that for 1080p-only material that Intel or Nvidia is just as good. I'm sure he'll probably relent to the fact that AMD is better for SD and Internet-style video. AMD/ATI has a long history of working with video in the form of tuners and display cards... not just gaming. But what the reviews consistently show is that AMD is better overall, so the giant leap he takes is that this video quality doesn't manifest when comparing 1080p.
He then makes a paradoxical request to "prove" it when there is no way to record what the eye sees as superior. It's the same as when he was arguing against MadVR... yet people would tell him that it was better to their eyes.