Best 2D card?

[azkiwi]

I see lots of discussion about the latest greatest 3D cards - and how they fail at 2D. I have a 19" LCD with a Voodoo 3, and want something with DVI (I think). I game a little, but not much, so I'm looking for the best card for business apps and web graphics that will give me the very best out of my monitor. Running an XP1700, Soyo Dragon yada yada if it makes any difference.

Any suggestions appreciated.

 

[eplebnista]

IMO, I'd recommend either a Radeon 7500 or 8500(more expensive).

My $.02,
eplebnista

 

[Menacer]

A lot of people will tell you Matrox cards (do those have DVI? I've never had one..)

But my Radeon 8500 runs my LCD at top notch quality. A 7500 would too, would be cheaper, and would still run your games nicely (unlike a Matrox..)

 

[Rand]

If you don't game at all- then I'd go with a Matrox G400/450/550 definitely. Otherwise I'd probably lean towards an ATi Radeon 7500/8500.

There are some GF2/3's with good 2D quality but it tends to vary considerably between manufacturers, so if 2D is important and you still need gaming it's safer to go with ATi where you've got a guarantee of excellent 2D.

 

[conlan]

DVI is optional on the G-450 and standard on the G-550. Matrox has the best 2D i've seen IMHO, the Voodoo3 you already have has good 2D as well, but for DVI and Dual Head, Matrox G-550.

 

[azkiwi]

Thanks all for your input. The only gaming I spend any time at is Civ3 - not very demanding I know. As much RTCW as I play it isn't worth a gaming card. Nor do I use more than one monitor. Does anyone know if you can even play Civ3 at 1280 X 1024?

Next question; will a Matrox G450 be a noticeable improvement over the Voodoo?

 

[PCHPlayer]

Depending on your eye, you may see a 2D image improvement. The voodoo 3 cards actually have pretty good 2D quality. You probably won't notice any performance improvement in day to day use. You may see a decrease in game performance. Since you don't seem to be a gamer this may not be a concern. I think upgrading to a Matrox 550 for the extra features you want is the way to go.

 

[azkiwi]

I found a good review. Didn't realize the 450 had no DVI. It sounds like the Matrox has better 2D image quality than the MX400, but blows chunks if you game with it.
Given that I don't need the dual head, I'm starting to wonder if I will actually get an upgraded image from the Voodoo3...

 

[SCSIfreek]

V3 only supported 16bit color which is a little out of date perhaps? I have found Matrox cards to have the best 2D quality of all those 3d rendering cards but the voodoo5 cards was extremely close in regards to 2D quality with the matrox G450 card. All Geforce cards had crappy 2D except a few . Radeon's are ok but not the best if you're looking for the best 2D quality.

2D quality(no 3d )
Best: Matrox or Voodoo 5
Good: Radeons or ELSA Geforce cards
Fair: Geforces

JMOICBW = just my opinion, I could be wrong

 

[azkiwi]

The V3 supports 32bit at least to 1280X1024...am I missing something?

 

[Rand]

<< The V3 supports 32bit at least to 1280X1024...am I missing something? >>



The Voodoo3 supports 32bit color at resolutions up to 2048x1536 in 2D. I believe he is referring to the fact that the Voodoo3 cannot do 32bit color in 3D.

 

[Basie]

I had a Matrox G400 Max and a ATI Radeon 64mb Vivo and they are very close in 2D Quality. I now have
a Gainward GF3 Ti 200 and it is also very good. I think Matrox is still the Best but not by much.

 

[BFG20K]

From what i've heard the 2d quality of voodoo cards is very good. If you don't plan on doing any 3d gaming you should save your money and either go with a matrox that has a dvi or just keep your voodoo card. you might be able to find a cheap matrox card with dvi on ebay.

 

[ddragon]

Yes, I quite agree, but if you DO game AND don't want to say goodbye to your Voodoo? I frankly don't know what to get when the time comes (and that is probably going to be soon, I fear). Look at my specs below and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Dimitri]

I should get my 17" LCD next week to match to my Radeon8500 DVI port. Unfortunately, I can't offer any advice yet but this card has much better IQ than the Geforce I had, but I am only comparing on a Viewsonic PF790.

 

[azkiwi]

Thanks all for your comments. No clear path presents itself - a Matrox seems sensible (and less expensive) but may be a step backwards during my minimal gaming timeouts. Guess I'll sit tight for a couple of weeks and grumble.

Dimitri; let us know what happens. I switched to LCD from a G790 too.

 

[RolyL]

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1577

 

[Rand]

<< I had a Matrox G400 Max and a ATI Radeon 64mb Vivo and they are very close in 2D Quality. I now have
a Gainward GF3 Ti 200 and it is also very good. I think Matrox is still the Best but not by much. >>



You stated in a previous thread that you generally run at 800x600 or 1024x768 though, at such resolutions 2D is hardly being stressed overly much. Only the very worst cards arent acceptable at 1024x768, and it's been a long time since I've seen a card that wasnt acceptable at 800x600.
If you run in resolutions such as those I wouldnt be terribly concerned about good 2D, as near anything is acceptable.

 

[Basie]

Thanks for that info Rand. I wondered why on all three of my cards the 2D was very close in quality. I
very rarely run anything higher than 1024x768. I need the large print for my aging eyes and most of the
games I play work great in those resolutions.

 

[Spike]

What about 2D at 1600x1200? Does the Gainward Ti200 compare to the Radeon 8500 in 2d quality at that res?

 

[Rand]

<< What about 2D at 1600x1200? Does the Gainward Ti200 compare to the Radeon 8500 in 2d quality at that res? >>



IMHO I'd say it's reasonably close. ATi still has the definite edge, but Gainward is still decent and their definitely useable at 1600x1200 which is more then I can say for many nVida based boards.
I definitely wouldnt consider the Gainward at anything above 1600x1200 though, but then even ATi starts faltering badly as resolutions get beyond that.

 

[bassoprofundo]

Let me say Matrox, Matrox, and Matrox if you want the best 2d and business app features. The Voodoo series and Radeons run a close second, but they can't come close to matching the Matrox cards on features. NVIDIA-based cards make me ill looking at the 2d, although the image quality has increased markedly in the latest generation of GF3s. If you just game occasionally, a G400/450/550 will be fine. I still use one in my main home office machine (Athlon 1.4, 512mb DDR, AMD 761 mobo), and it's plenty adequate for all but the latest FPS's. I play a lot of RPGs, so 3d speed generally isn't as important to me, but I just got through playing RTCW (800X600x32), Deus Ex (1024X768X16), and Hitman (1024X768X16), and framerates were plenty acceptable. Obviously, it can't touch the framerates and visual beauty of the latest 3d cards, but it's an acceptable tradeoff for me. I spend a heck of a lot more time looking at business apps, web browsing, etc. than I do gaming, and there's nothing like rich, vibrant color and razor sharp text at 1600x1200 and beyond to do a geek's eyes good. Anyway... Go with the Matrox. You won't be disappointed.

 

[azkiwi]

thanks basso,

sounds like you use a computer about the same as me. I'm running at 1280x1024 and mostly apps, so the 550 is at the top of my list. I'm encouraged that it won't make me all misty-eyed for the Voodoo on the odd occasion when I descend into the Castle.

 

[doubleJ]

I'm kind of in the same boat. I do a lot of graphics work in 1280x1024x32 on a Trinitron 17" monitor. I currently use an ATi card at both work and home and I'm fully considering getting a Radeon DDR 64 VIVO. I'm wanting to get into video capture and DVD out (also a Trinitron 27" TV). At $150 this seems like the best mixture of 2D quality and 3D gaming. It can still break 30fps at 1280x1024x32 with everything turned on (well, maybe not FSAA) and break 60fps at 1024x768x32, which is what I'd probably game at. It would be worth a look at for the price.
JJ