2D Image Quality

[HGC]

For years I've favored ATI over nVidia. I just upgraded from a Sapphire Radeon 9600XT to a Gigabyte 7600GT. I was surprised to find a very noticeable improvement in 2D image quality with my Samsung 19" LCD, digitally connected. I stare at this monitor all day, and the difference is obvious, not subtle. Colors are richer and subtler and brightness is superior. Text definition is way better.

I don't have a current generation ATI card to compare. Perhaps all cards are better than a few years ago. I thought I'd pass on this finding, though, for those who might be interested.

 

[Bob Anderson]

Originally posted by: HGC
For years I've favored ATI over nVidia. I just upgraded from a Sapphire Radeon 9600XT to a Gigabyte 7600GT. I was surprised to find a very noticeable improvement in 2D image quality with my Samsung 19" LCD, digitally connected. I stare at this monitor all day, and the difference is obvious, not subtle. Colors are richer and subtler and brightness is superior. Text definition is way better.

I don't have a current generation ATI card to compare. Perhaps all cards are better than a few years ago. I thought I'd pass on this finding, though, for those who might be interested.

---------------------------------

I'm using an eVGA 7600GT (580/1500) for a 19" Samsung 930MP (combined LCD PC monitor and TV), in analogue. I can't be bothered to buy a digital cable because the image is so good.

Yes, the colors are excellent, text is perfect, as a PC monitor. The card has no bearing on the TV image, of course.

In regards to the 7600GT, it is about the best card available for 2D. In more expensive cards, 2D performance is either sacrificed for 3D performance, or the card manufacturers have made no 2D improvements to the reference nvidia GPU BIOS. And as you know, it doesn't require a separate power connector. The most I have ever seen mine draw is 35 watts. The PCI Express 16 bus is capable of supplying 75. (Oh, is yours PCI or AGP?).

Something you might want to test, HGC. Go to PCpitstop.com and run their complete test. Check your 7600GT's 2D video score against all 7600GT's. You might find it scores slightly lower than average, because many 7600GT owners have OC'ed theirs, and the test cannot control for that.

-Bob

 

[1Dark1Sharigan1]

Eh, I used to have a 7900GT. Now I have an X1900XT. I saw no noticeable difference in 2D image quality between the two.

 

[TheRyuu]

In 2d there should be no difference.

 

[GundamSonicZeroX]

Originally posted by: wizboy11
In 2d there should be no difference.

 

[postmortemIA]

In DVI case, there shouldn't be any difference. Otherwise, cable itself can play greater role than a modern GFX.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Bob Anderson
...In regards to the 7600GT, it is about the best card available for 2D. In more expensive cards, 2D performance is either sacrificed for 3D performance, or the card manufacturers have made no 2D improvements to the reference nvidia GPU BIOS....

Do you have any evidence to back this up? What sacrifices did they make on say the 7900GTX, and what improvements did they do on the 7600GT BIOS to give it superior 2D?

 

[Nightmare225]

One has better 2D quality than the other? Please, we moved past that after the Geforce 2 series... :disgust:

 

[aka1nas]

Yeah, 2d quality isn't what people are generally talking about when they are comparing IQ nowadays. They are usually referring to AF or AA differences while running games.

 

[Dr J]

2d image quality is important to individuals, like myself, who are both aging and experiencing deteriorating eyesight and especially for those of us who spend significant amounts of time reading text.

Having said all this, I've generally been told that there no longer is a measurable difference in 2d performance, between ATI and Nvidia.

Is this, however, true, that 2d performance has, in some cases, been sacrificed for the sake of 3d? And, if so, what cards, how would you know and how could you distinguish?

I'm still in AGP, but my system satisfies me. I've recently picked up a 20.1" LG L203WT and I'd like to upgrade from my 9600Pro, but have been waiting for the 1650XT and/or 1950Pro.

However, if there's no discernable difference in 2d performance, is there any point in my purchasing a 1950Pro, should they appear in AGP? Would a 1650XT or 7600GT suffice?

Thanks,

John

P.s. ? one thing I?ve noticed is that if I over-clock my 9600 pro, the web pages load faster, snap in (I like that)

 

[postmortemIA]

There cannot be sacrifice in 2D quality for 3D quality. This is such nonsense. I think the person who said this got his idea from dropped cycles (for some cards) when they run 2D mode.

The only sacrifice is possible at low-cost models that have cheap filters, and it applies only for analog output. Take a look at VGA port on GFX card: it has electronic components that make that digital to analog filter. No such thing on DVI, as there's no conversion or loss. This is reason why onboard graphics (ahem, intel) has the worse 2D image quality, as they are cheapo leaders.

Also, the 2D performance is also more CPU that graphic card dependent, as CPU does the calculation.