Can any GF3 Owners comment on 2D Image Quality?

[sd]

Is it still SUCK like GF2?

 

[oldfart]

Check back on the video forum this evening for my review on this. My card should be here today.

 

[sd]

Thanks I'll keep an eye open for it.

 

[Deskstar]

I also want to know the answer and will check back as you said; with all the emphasis on 3D performance, the 2D quality seems to get lost in the shuffle. Yet, 2D is where most ppl spend most of their time. Everyone raved about the Matrox 2D quality, but honestly I could not tell the difference between a Matrox G400 and a GTS 2, similar RAMDACs. Maybe it is just my bad eyesight. Put aside the hype; does anyone who has both cards tell the difference in 2D between a recent Nvidia, Matrox or ATI (not just reviews, but eyeball opinions)?

 

[oldfart]

I have a Radeon 64 DDR, a Mitsubishi 900U 19" AG tube and BNC cables. I recently borrowed a Herc GF2/Pro for a few days. The 2D frankly sucked. Even at my normal 1152 x 864 desktop it was horrible compared to my Radeon. Before the Radeon, I had a Voodoo 3 3000. It was also very good. The new GF3 card is a Visiontek. So far, I've heard they are pretty good. We shall see in a few hours.

 

[Rand]

From what I've seen... admittedly from only one card,it is still exactly the same as the GF2 2D. Meaning usabile but far from ideal. Matrox, ATi and, 3dfx all have far better 2D quality still IMHO.

 

[sd]

yes, I would have to say that my V3 is way better than my GTS in 2D.