[Namlemez]

Its all in Chinese, but interesting posting on a lot of large sites.


Yanked from the Reg:
Quote:

Over first to gzeasy.com, which compares the DVD playback image quality between the Radeon 8500 LE and Nvidia's GF3 TI 500. The former comes out not very well compared to the latter, the site concludes and you can compare the pictures here and here.

Radeon

GF3

 

[MKANET]

I have 4 more days before if I sell my GF3 for a Radeon 2 8500 and have some extra cash left over.


I hope this post isn't true since the ONLY reason I would make the switch is to gain better DVD quality. I don't care about 3D games on my HTPC since I plan on only using the xBOX for that.

 

[PVR]

From those pix it almost looks like they were

comparing VCD playback not DVD.

 

[Namlemez]

PVR: If you're making this assumptiong due to the bad quality of the picture, I believe they're zoomed in to highlight the difference.

 

[Accooe]

My two cents...


If the DVD was poorly encoded, than the radeon wins, in my opinion.


Here what I noticed in the shots:


The radeon clear and sharp but banding appears


The gf3 blurred and soft no banding.


The question is, is the banding encoded in the dvd and radeon is showing so much detail that the dvd flaws standout or is the radeon creating its own visual defects?


Since no reference point was given, no other examples shown, and blurring and softness are traits of lower quality players (standalone players), I'd have to go with former.


In fact (to me) this just reinforces the superior PQ of the radeon.


Remember DVDs are create for the majority, those with consumer grade players connect to S-Video equipt TVs. DVD houses have been known to create DVD with the such visual anomalies because it cost less, and the disc will mostly likely be played on a consumer grade player that may soften and blur the PQ over an NTSC S-Video signal THAT WILL soften and blur the PQ to a consumer grade TV that may further soften and blur the PQ and thereby hiding any flaws.


Reference DVDs on the other hand cost more and are created for A/Vphiles with equipment that extracts the purest signal possible off a disc but still plays well in a standard player.





That's how to making a dollar out of 2 cent

 

[Phat Phreddy]

Although I do agree with you Re mastering faults and also think that 2 pics blown up of unknown source is no basis for judgement I do disagree with your position that the GeForce picture is blurring the artifacts out... I think that if looking closely the detail is more correctly represented, look at the aerial breakup on the Radeon shot or the detail on the side of the building / structure on the left...

 

[Brett]

Man, are those way unprofessional screenshots!


Looks like they were scanned with their fax machine and fed into a gameboy.


The color balance of the GF3 is crap: green buildings, give me a break.

The frame is totally different too.


Eeeek!

 

[JKohn]

I wouldn't place too much weight on this. If they're coming to a conclusion different from pretty much everybody else there's probably a reason why.


What version of PDVD was used, and was hardware acceleration used for one or both cards? To me, the Radeon shot shows one of the flaws that Bjoern pointed out as being present in the software-decoding of all versions of PowerDVD.


Unless these shots were taken with PowerDVD 4 under XP with hardware acceleration enabled for both cards the results are worthless IMHO.