Welcome To Australia's No.1 Media Center Community!
You Are Currently Viewing As A Guest - you'll need to register in order to participate in our community and make this annoying message disappear!
By registering you'll be able to post & reply to questions, set up your own image gallery & blog, communicate privately with other members, create & respond to polls, access downloads and other "members only" features.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not join our community today - you'll be glad you did!
For any problems with the registration process or your account, please contact support.
I have put together a few HTPCs to date the item that seems to make the biggest impact is the video card and how its connected to the PC. That said, after reading hundereds of posts on video cards there doesnt seem to be much thats conclusive. I was hoping to make a few statements based on what i've read and experiences myself and see if others agree or not.
true or false..
1) If you have the choice, running DVI or HDMI to an LCD screen at the screens native res will give the best picture quality (ie. as opposed to running VGA and as opposed to running to a plasma - this has been my experience, based on colour accuracy and vibrancy, tho i'm sure plenty may disagree with this)
2) If you are running HD using DVI/HDMI/VGA to a screen, then the Nvidia cards (eg. 8500GT) are more stable, ie. the ATI cards have issues with green screen on HD channels, and have more reports of stutter issues.
3) If you are running SD using S-Video/Component, then the ATI cards (eg. 2400pro) seem to be the better choice due to better drivers for analog output, and have less issues with overscan and running 50Hz. My experience has definately been that ATI cards using standard settings give much better picture quality running S-video especially with regards to giving bright accurate colours. Further, there have been several reports of the nvidia cards having sugnificant stuttering problems running analog (ie. s-video/component) especially (but not limited to) at 50Hz, and i have found this also. My personal experience has actually been that given the option, an xbox360 gives a more problem free and better picture quality connection vis s-video/component by far, but.. its fan is far too noisy for my liking if its sitting out in the open.
__________________
Vista Home Premium 32-bit, Intel Dual Core 2.8GHz(800), 1GB Corsair DDR533, Intel 945GPM, 2 x Samsung 250Gb SATA, Gigabyte Nvidia 7300GT 256MB, Zalmann 9500LED CPU Cooler, Antec Fusion Case - with Xbox360 connected in HD component to TV
The following Member(s) said "Thank You!" to mich for this information:
1) If you have the choice, running DVI or HDMI to an LCD screen at the screens native res will give the best picture quality (ie. as opposed to running VGA and as opposed to running to a plasma - this has been my experience, based on colour accuracy and vibrancy, tho i'm sure plenty may disagree with this)
I think this depends largely on resolution. Its preferable but in my experience with good quality cables at 720p-ish res it doesn't make a difference. Above that you need to be looking for DVI/HDMI though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mich
2) If you are running HD using DVI/HDMI/VGA to a screen, then the Nvidia cards (eg. 8500GT) are more stable, ie. the ATI cards have issues with green screen on HD channels, and have more reports of stutter issues.
Very subjective, but this is my experience too, Nvidia are more solid in my opinion and work very well, plus the special "HDTV" modes are very accessable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mich
3) If you are running SD using S-Video/Component, then the ATI cards (eg. 2400pro) seem to be the better choice due to better drivers for analog output, and have less issues with overscan and running 50Hz.an xbox360 gives a more problem free and better picture quality connection vis s-video/component by far, but.. its fan is far too noisy for my liking if its sitting out in the open.
I don't really think SD outputs from ANY display card are working well enough in PAL. Component inputs are so bad I can't believe they put them on there. You tend to get the lame drop-frame NTSC/PAL conversion and I can't stand it. So yes in my opinion something like an XBOX360 with dedicated PAL output is going to give a much better picture if it can be used in the same way.
__________________
Some say he makes love to BD-R media and has a plasma for a head, all we know is he's called The Brad
I am happy with 1080P via VGA to my Samsung LCD. Probably because I haven't tried DVI to HDMI.
As it requires a firmware update to do 1080P with 1 to 1 pixel mapping using HDMI I haven't tried it (all the Samsung technicians in Camberra insist on taking the TV away).
I am using a 8600GT, upgraded from a flaky 6600GT, and the picture is very good. I will upgrade the firmware one day, perhaps when the 3 year warranty is over :-)
2) If you are running HD using DVI/HDMI/VGA to a screen, then the Nvidia cards (eg. 8500GT) are more stable, ie. the ATI cards have issues with green screen on HD channels, and have more reports of stutter issues.
No longer the case with new cards, just the old ones...at or below 1600XT in my experience. The new ATI's rule!! NVidia haven't got the whole TV res thing sorted as well IMHO.
I have put together a few HTPCs to date the item that seems to make the biggest impact is the video card and how its connected to the PC. That said, after reading hundereds of posts on video cards there doesnt seem to be much thats conclusive. I was hoping to make a few statements based on what i've read and experiences myself and see if others agree or not.
true or false..
1) If you have the choice, running DVI or HDMI to an LCD screen at the screens native res will give the best picture quality (ie. as opposed to running VGA and as opposed to running to a plasma - this has been my experience, based on colour accuracy and vibrancy, tho i'm sure plenty may disagree with this)
2) If you are running HD using DVI/HDMI/VGA to a screen, then the Nvidia cards (eg. 8500GT) are more stable, ie. the ATI cards have issues with green screen on HD channels, and have more reports of stutter issues.
3) If you are running SD using S-Video/Component, then the ATI cards (eg. 2400pro) seem to be the better choice due to better drivers for analog output, and have less issues with overscan and running 50Hz. My experience has definately been that ATI cards using standard settings give much better picture quality running S-video especially with regards to giving bright accurate colours. Further, there have been several reports of the nvidia cards having sugnificant stuttering problems running analog (ie. s-video/component) especially (but not limited to) at 50Hz, and i have found this also. My personal experience has actually been that given the option, an xbox360 gives a more problem free and better picture quality connection vis s-video/component by far, but.. its fan is far too noisy for my liking if its sitting out in the open.
In my experience:
1.True - DVI/HDMI gives yo better PQ. I was playing for ages with VGA and could produce very good PQ, but not as good as with DVI/HDMI. Don't trust people who say different - they are lazy.
2. Wrong - ATI drivers are much better than NVidia - I have tried it all. People who will say different are protecting their investment, nothing else. I have sold my NVidia card.
3. Have no opinion about dying technologies
__________________ Linux World Domination... One Joke at a Time :)
1. True. VGA is nice but I've found HDMI produces better colour. Thats the only difference as far as I can see.
2. Nvidia and ATI are pretty much the same. Although I would say that ATI are slightly behind purely because of the green screen on HD issue. I've had to use the Cyberlink decoder until they fix it. With Nvidia I had absolutely no issues either via VGA or HDMI.
Re: Nvidia vs ATI.. in summary
