Best 2d Image Quality: 6800 U/E or x800

[fLoOdY]

Sure I want S.O.T.A. gaming performance (August 3) , but like most everybody the main PC gets used for other 2d Windows applications... most of the time.

Does anyone have an informed opinion on which affords the best 2d image quality for the more mundane usage?

I have an ATI branded x800 XT PE preordered at CDW.

 

[Keysplayr]

Why are you asking this if you already bought it?
Anyway, all the cards you mentioned offer equal 2D quality this go round.

 

[SickBeast]

With the nVidia cards 2D quality is basically hit-and-miss. Some manufacturers can come close to or match ATi's 2D quality, but others fall well short. You can't go wrong if you buy a built-by ATi card or even a Sapphire one; Sapphire actually used to produce ATi's OEM cards.

I'm not sure that this is what you're looking for, but I've personally owned and used a number of ATi and nVidia cards, and in every case the ATi card produced a noticeably better 2D image. In the case of the Creative GeForce2 GTS that I owned, the 2D image was so terrible that my monitor would give me headaches within an hour of looking at it. The other card that comes to mind was an MSI GeForce4 ti4400. The 2D wasn't *terrible* on it, but it certainly did not match the quality of my ATi R8500. The funny thing was that everyone at that time was saying that the GeForce4 cards were equal to or better than the 8500. In my experience, this was not the case at all.

 

[Rage187]

2d quality hasnt been a factor since the 4XXX series.

 

[Bar81]

Stick with the ATI. At least you know you're getting top shelf 2d quality.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Rage187
2d quality hasnt been a factor since the 4XXX series.

Not according to this thread.

Unless you have owned and used a plethora of GeForce FX cards I would suggest that there continue to be problems with nVidia cards in 2D image quality. People were saying things like that back in the GeForce4 days but it was completely untrue. It's like saying that suddenly ATi has better 2D image quality than Matrox; it's simply not true. Until nVidia either starts making cards themselves or sets strict guidelines regarding the filters used by the 3rd parties, their 2D quality will always be questionable IMO.

 

[GeneralGrievous]

PNY 6800 GT 2d quality is acceptable. Not great. Looks bad thru the CRT output but I dont use that anyway.

 

[PowderBB3D]

The 6800 series currently available in the market are based on nVidia's board specs so technically they should all perform the same.

 

[vshah]

if by august 3rd you're referring to Doom 3, then you may want to re-evaluate your choice of the XTPE, if D3 performance is all you care about (which i doubt)

two friends have 6800s, pny and bfg. both have impeccable 2d quality as far as I can tell.

-Vivan

 

[Keysplayr]

Little poll I started to find out exactly what you want to know. Except its directed at eVGA card only.
Link to poll

 

[fLoOdY]

-Welll now. I did not expect this flurry of such good responses.

The ATI is replacing a GeForce4 which has had merely acceptable 2d image quality. That replaced an ELSA Gladiac GeForce2 GTS which was horrendous in this regard and gave me a headache too.. even driving a SONY GDM F500 at 100 Hz at the time. (SONY eventually replaced it with a new GDM F520, which has been and still is wonderful)

I usually recommend Matrox as having the best 2d image quality for folks who absolutely have no interest in gaming at all. I have them in two 2d-only machines here.

With that said, my understanding so far is that the x800 seems to excel with DirectX and the 6800 with OpenGL.

2d image quality is really important to me. If the x800 is better, I'd say I'm making the correct choice; everything considered. I'm looking forward to DOOM III like everybody else, but it will remain a diversion after the work is done.

Thanks for all the thoughtful comments on this.