-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Does 2D Video Quality still vary between video cards?
- Thread starter jrichrds
- Start date
The_Lurker
Golden Member
Absolutely! GeForce cards are still not as sharp with 2d as ATi and Matrox. Generally the scale is
Matrox (best)
ATi (almost as good)
nVidia cards (depends on brand).
Also, the GeForce cards all depend on the brand u buy and the type of filters they use. So in the end it all depends 😀 But Generally ATI and Matrox card 2d qualities are pretty good. Although Powered By ATI cards aren't quite as clear as Sapphire Tech (the company that manufactures the cc ards for ATI) or ATI Built (basically a sapphire tech card).
Matrox (best)
ATi (almost as good)
nVidia cards (depends on brand).
Also, the GeForce cards all depend on the brand u buy and the type of filters they use. So in the end it all depends 😀 But Generally ATI and Matrox card 2d qualities are pretty good. Although Powered By ATI cards aren't quite as clear as Sapphire Tech (the company that manufactures the cc ards for ATI) or ATI Built (basically a sapphire tech card).
AnAndAustin
Platinum Member
🙂 Absolutely.
🙁 GF2 cards are among the worst, GF3 aren't much better although manus like Gainward and Leadtek make a diff for the better here. GF4MX (suped up GF2) and GF4TI (suped up GF3) offer hugely improved image quality regardless of manu and are up to the ATI Radeon standard although if you plan to work/read text at 1600x1200x32 @ 75Hz or above a Matrox or ATI card are probably slightly better.
🙂 ATI Radeons most particularly the 8500/9000 and 9700 offer great image quality, up there with the earlier Matrox cards. The Matrox Parhelia has to be by far the best for image quality but it carries a BIG price tag and only gives GF3 level perf albeit with triple monitor support. There is some variance between manus of Radeon cards, but nothing that's reportedly significant, it tends to be clock speed, o/c'ability and dual display which vary.
😀 If you simply need the best image quality then Matrox are surely the best, but 3D perf sucks and prices are high. If you need great image quality esp 1600x1200+ but still want great 3D then Parhelia or Rad8500/9000 are the choices, if you want very good IQ and top 3D perf then GF4TI are the cards to go for. Of course if you want the ultimate in 3D and the 2nd best in IQ then the Rad9700 is the card 😉
🙁 GF2 cards are among the worst, GF3 aren't much better although manus like Gainward and Leadtek make a diff for the better here. GF4MX (suped up GF2) and GF4TI (suped up GF3) offer hugely improved image quality regardless of manu and are up to the ATI Radeon standard although if you plan to work/read text at 1600x1200x32 @ 75Hz or above a Matrox or ATI card are probably slightly better.
🙂 ATI Radeons most particularly the 8500/9000 and 9700 offer great image quality, up there with the earlier Matrox cards. The Matrox Parhelia has to be by far the best for image quality but it carries a BIG price tag and only gives GF3 level perf albeit with triple monitor support. There is some variance between manus of Radeon cards, but nothing that's reportedly significant, it tends to be clock speed, o/c'ability and dual display which vary.
😀 If you simply need the best image quality then Matrox are surely the best, but 3D perf sucks and prices are high. If you need great image quality esp 1600x1200+ but still want great 3D then Parhelia or Rad8500/9000 are the choices, if you want very good IQ and top 3D perf then GF4TI are the cards to go for. Of course if you want the ultimate in 3D and the 2nd best in IQ then the Rad9700 is the card 😉
okay, as for ATI, here is my 2 cent.😛
Did try an "original" ATI Redeon(old one; first generation). 2D is not bad...but not as good as my good old G400(helll, this is even a single-head with only 16mb!!😛)...at 1280x1024.
Now, just got an "OEM" ATI Redeon(PowerColor) 9000 Pro. Hell...this one is horrifying...2D from D-sub connector is that bad. Fortunately there is a DVI output so I can still save it for my later upgrade to LCD monitor...
Now since ATI releases its chipset to various manufactorers...the quality is definitely a toss-up.
Did try an "original" ATI Redeon(old one; first generation). 2D is not bad...but not as good as my good old G400(helll, this is even a single-head with only 16mb!!😛)...at 1280x1024.
Now, just got an "OEM" ATI Redeon(PowerColor) 9000 Pro. Hell...this one is horrifying...2D from D-sub connector is that bad. Fortunately there is a DVI output so I can still save it for my later upgrade to LCD monitor...
Now since ATI releases its chipset to various manufactorers...the quality is definitely a toss-up.
AnAndAustin
Platinum Member
😉 Well Rad9000 cards should have if anything better quality IQ than 8500 cards which were famed for being as good as the older Matrox cards but with GF3 3D perf! Rad9000 incorporates everything in to a single chip so things like dual display, TVout and IQ should vary considerably less with manu. Either your Matrox G400 spoilt you, you got a bad Rad9000 or PowerColor are a brand to avoid!
well, probably the g400 stuffed my stomach of 2D a bit way too high...now anything without a Matrox on it, I'm rejecting it.😛 hehehehe...😀
I'll try the MX440 by XFX and see...cause I want a card that can have both D-sub and DVI outputs so later when I upgrade to a LCD I can still use it. 2D quality is always my concern...as for 3D...well, as long as I can sometimes play games, I'll live with it.😀
I'll try the MX440 by XFX and see...cause I want a card that can have both D-sub and DVI outputs so later when I upgrade to a LCD I can still use it. 2D quality is always my concern...as for 3D...well, as long as I can sometimes play games, I'll live with it.😀
The Radeon cards have been steadily improving in their image quality from the earlier 7000 to the present 9700.
The 7000 and older cards had only a single switching power supply, while the 7200, 7500 and 8500 had 2. The new 9000 has 3 and the 9700 has 5, and the 9000+ series all support 10bpp RGB color with dual 400MHz RAMDACs, so image quality is quite a bit better than the older cards(even 8500 series). Of course you need a good monitor to show the differences.
The 7000 and older cards had only a single switching power supply, while the 7200, 7500 and 8500 had 2. The new 9000 has 3 and the 9700 has 5, and the 9000+ series all support 10bpp RGB color with dual 400MHz RAMDACs, so image quality is quite a bit better than the older cards(even 8500 series). Of course you need a good monitor to show the differences.
I'm using a MitsuBishi 900U...that should be plenty for a video card to show off its 2D quality.
Just put on the Radeon 9000 I ordered...and OUCH. Even at 1152x864 I can still FEEL that the text is a bit blurry, when comparing to my Matrox at 1280x960. OUCH OUCH OUCH.
I'll get the XFX card and see if it'll work better...GeFOrce MX440 with dvi, d-sub, and tv-out. hopefully it'll be fine...🙂
Just put on the Radeon 9000 I ordered...and OUCH. Even at 1152x864 I can still FEEL that the text is a bit blurry, when comparing to my Matrox at 1280x960. OUCH OUCH OUCH.
I'll get the XFX card and see if it'll work better...GeFOrce MX440 with dvi, d-sub, and tv-out. hopefully it'll be fine...🙂
The_Lurker
Golden Member
Oops... mis post =D
AnAndAustin
Platinum Member
😱 I'd suggest trying a GF4TI4200 over a GF4MX440, obviously gaming ability an perf is supremely better but the IQ is meant to be better too. Even so if the Rad9000PRO seemed iffy to your high standards I doubt any nVidia card will beat it by any noticable margin ... unless of course the PowerColor brand is bad or the Rad9000PRO you tested was a dud. If you do go MX440 wait to see if you can get a GF4MX440-8X (AGP8x) as this uses higher clcoks and you should quite easily achieve MX460 perf (still below Rad9000PRO 3D though LOL!).
😉 I think you may have to bite the budget and grab a Parhelia512, obviously IQ is supreme and gaming perf is still GF3 level inc DX8 hw which while sub-par considering the price is hugely better than GF4MX440 and Rad9000PRO too (even though to a lesser degree). Of course Matrox are VERY slow with Parhelia drivers and the sub $200 Parhelia256 is nowhere to be found 🙁
😉 I think you may have to bite the budget and grab a Parhelia512, obviously IQ is supreme and gaming perf is still GF3 level inc DX8 hw which while sub-par considering the price is hugely better than GF4MX440 and Rad9000PRO too (even though to a lesser degree). Of course Matrox are VERY slow with Parhelia drivers and the sub $200 Parhelia256 is nowhere to be found 🙁
You might want to contact PowerColor support about this. I had that problem once - with a 7500LE card - and they were very helpful. Turned out I had one from an early batch where some resistor values were wrong. Luckily I have the parts and skills to replace these, otherwise I'd had it exchanged.
IMHO- YES!
VERY much.
For the average person, satisfied with 1024x768, or not overly demanding then almost any modern graphics card is perfectly suitable. In fact many enthusiasts are reasonably happy with almost any modern card as high as 1600x1200 from what I've seen.
If you consider yourself to have reasonably good eyesight or are particularly discerning when it comes to image quality, you'll likely find a noticeable difference between poor and good cards. If your doing any sort of 2D graphics design or working in resolutions above 1600x1200 then you owe it to yourself to get the best you can afford.
My roundup:
nVidia:
TNT1/2: Horrible, 1024x768 max IMHO. A few manufacturers were slightly better then the norm, but by and large the 2D quality was terrible.
GF1/2 A definite improvement but still leaves a lot to be desired, most should be satisfied but the more discerning won't be too pleased. Most brands I wouldnt go above 1280x1024, Elsa, LeadTek, Gainward, VisionTek are borderline for 1600x1200.
GF3: An incremental improvement, but overall the status hasnt changed much.
GF4: Another mild improvement, but 2D still varies between manufacturers. The better manufacturers are finally passable at 1600x1200 but nothing particularly impressive.
LeadTek GF3 Ti500: I put this in a cetegory of it's own b/c for some as yet unknown reason, LeadTek's Ti500 seems to consistently bare remarkably good 2D quality-better then I've seen from any other nVidia based board and pretty decent at 1600x1200, though not above.
ATi:
Rage 128/128Pro/Dual Rage 128Pro: Decent enough, borderline to passable at 1600x1200... maybe a notch below the better GF4's.
Radeon VE/7000: Similar to the Rage 128 boards but more consistent.
Radeon/RadeonLE/Radeon 7200-7500: Pretty good at 1600x1200, no real complaints. Their not great but their solid with no definite weaknesses. As with most anything else, they fall apart very quickly once resolutions reach above 1600x1200. A few of the better R7500's seem a notch above the rest.
Radeon 8500/8500LE: For all intents and purposes my opinion is essentially the same as with the R7200-7500.
Radeon9700: Only seen a few on average 17/19" monitors, so I don't think I've seen a wide enough variety on a selection of quality monitors to make a judgement. I've heard their slightly better then R8500's though, but cannot confirm.
3dfx:
Voodoo Rush: TERRIBLE! They make the TNT1/2 look fantastic. Even 800x600 is only average really... perhaps the worst 2D quality I have viewed in any graphics card manufactured post 1995. Grab a cheap S3/Trident 1MB board and your better off for 2D quality.
Voodoo Banshee: Not much variance between manufacturers and surprisingly good 2D. Average quality at 1600x1200, not viable at all for anything higher.
Voodoo3 2000: Similar to the Banshee, except there is virtually no variance between different boards.
Voodoo3 3000/3500TV: Remarkably good for the time and still quite solid. Excellent quality at 1600x1200, barely passable at anything higher...though even 'barely passable' is still better then virtually anything else.
Voodoo4/5: Actually a slight step back from the V3 3000/3500 IMHO, average to good quality at 1600x1200. Again, not viable at all for any higher,
Matrox:
G200: The king of the day, and still solid. Average quality at 1600x1200, though the max refrsh rate supported is a bit low.
G400/450/550: Fantastic quality. Virtually perfect at 1600x1200, and passable at 1920x1440....I wouldnt use it regularly at 1920x1440, but it's decent enough for short stints. As good as if not better then anything I've seen from 3dfx/ATi/nVidia. Strangely enough, some G550's seems a little inconsistent and their not always quite as good one would expect of Matrox.
Parhelia: The reigning king, and a hefty improvement over what was already extremely good in the G400/450/550. Virtually perfect and 100% crystal clear with stunning color definition even at 1920x1440. 2048x1536 is definitely excellent though not perfect.
Raises the bar for what I previously considered 'perfect', even as low as 1024x768 it manages to somehow look crisper then I've seen from any other graphics card.
The only real card to consider for the Pro2D artist, though hardly anyone else will really benefit from the stellar 2D it offers.
A few quick comments: Most Pro3D rendering cards arent quite as good as one might expect for 2D design, though by no means bad.
Appian consistently manages to get slightly better 2D quality from their boards then do the original chip manufacturers.
The Matrox MMS series seems to offer a bit better quality then do their dirivatives their based off of.
VERY much.
For the average person, satisfied with 1024x768, or not overly demanding then almost any modern graphics card is perfectly suitable. In fact many enthusiasts are reasonably happy with almost any modern card as high as 1600x1200 from what I've seen.
If you consider yourself to have reasonably good eyesight or are particularly discerning when it comes to image quality, you'll likely find a noticeable difference between poor and good cards. If your doing any sort of 2D graphics design or working in resolutions above 1600x1200 then you owe it to yourself to get the best you can afford.
My roundup:
nVidia:
TNT1/2: Horrible, 1024x768 max IMHO. A few manufacturers were slightly better then the norm, but by and large the 2D quality was terrible.
GF1/2 A definite improvement but still leaves a lot to be desired, most should be satisfied but the more discerning won't be too pleased. Most brands I wouldnt go above 1280x1024, Elsa, LeadTek, Gainward, VisionTek are borderline for 1600x1200.
GF3: An incremental improvement, but overall the status hasnt changed much.
GF4: Another mild improvement, but 2D still varies between manufacturers. The better manufacturers are finally passable at 1600x1200 but nothing particularly impressive.
LeadTek GF3 Ti500: I put this in a cetegory of it's own b/c for some as yet unknown reason, LeadTek's Ti500 seems to consistently bare remarkably good 2D quality-better then I've seen from any other nVidia based board and pretty decent at 1600x1200, though not above.
ATi:
Rage 128/128Pro/Dual Rage 128Pro: Decent enough, borderline to passable at 1600x1200... maybe a notch below the better GF4's.
Radeon VE/7000: Similar to the Rage 128 boards but more consistent.
Radeon/RadeonLE/Radeon 7200-7500: Pretty good at 1600x1200, no real complaints. Their not great but their solid with no definite weaknesses. As with most anything else, they fall apart very quickly once resolutions reach above 1600x1200. A few of the better R7500's seem a notch above the rest.
Radeon 8500/8500LE: For all intents and purposes my opinion is essentially the same as with the R7200-7500.
Radeon9700: Only seen a few on average 17/19" monitors, so I don't think I've seen a wide enough variety on a selection of quality monitors to make a judgement. I've heard their slightly better then R8500's though, but cannot confirm.
3dfx:
Voodoo Rush: TERRIBLE! They make the TNT1/2 look fantastic. Even 800x600 is only average really... perhaps the worst 2D quality I have viewed in any graphics card manufactured post 1995. Grab a cheap S3/Trident 1MB board and your better off for 2D quality.
Voodoo Banshee: Not much variance between manufacturers and surprisingly good 2D. Average quality at 1600x1200, not viable at all for anything higher.
Voodoo3 2000: Similar to the Banshee, except there is virtually no variance between different boards.
Voodoo3 3000/3500TV: Remarkably good for the time and still quite solid. Excellent quality at 1600x1200, barely passable at anything higher...though even 'barely passable' is still better then virtually anything else.
Voodoo4/5: Actually a slight step back from the V3 3000/3500 IMHO, average to good quality at 1600x1200. Again, not viable at all for any higher,
Matrox:
G200: The king of the day, and still solid. Average quality at 1600x1200, though the max refrsh rate supported is a bit low.
G400/450/550: Fantastic quality. Virtually perfect at 1600x1200, and passable at 1920x1440....I wouldnt use it regularly at 1920x1440, but it's decent enough for short stints. As good as if not better then anything I've seen from 3dfx/ATi/nVidia. Strangely enough, some G550's seems a little inconsistent and their not always quite as good one would expect of Matrox.
Parhelia: The reigning king, and a hefty improvement over what was already extremely good in the G400/450/550. Virtually perfect and 100% crystal clear with stunning color definition even at 1920x1440. 2048x1536 is definitely excellent though not perfect.
Raises the bar for what I previously considered 'perfect', even as low as 1024x768 it manages to somehow look crisper then I've seen from any other graphics card.
The only real card to consider for the Pro2D artist, though hardly anyone else will really benefit from the stellar 2D it offers.
A few quick comments: Most Pro3D rendering cards arent quite as good as one might expect for 2D design, though by no means bad.
Appian consistently manages to get slightly better 2D quality from their boards then do the original chip manufacturers.
The Matrox MMS series seems to offer a bit better quality then do their dirivatives their based off of.
Yeah, been a loyal matrox user since I ever touched their Millennium I series(and Mystique; anybody still recall that Millennium PLUS V2 SLI were once the KING of 2D and 3D?😀😀😀)...🙂
Okay, grab myself a MSI 440MX with dvi, d-sub, tv-out/in for $129... This is an AGP 8x version, and just available in my friend's store. Okay, at least, at 1280x960 the quality is AS GOOD AS my old single-head G400.
NOW I finally can retire that G400...reserve for a backup card, and sell my "original" backup Millennium II..hehehe..>😀
Been using Millennium I, Mystique, Millennium II, G200, G400, and G450. Didn't touch G550 since I was with my G400 through couple years. Now maybe it's time for Parhelia...when LCD's price is down to a cheap level...😛
Okay, grab myself a MSI 440MX with dvi, d-sub, tv-out/in for $129... This is an AGP 8x version, and just available in my friend's store. Okay, at least, at 1280x960 the quality is AS GOOD AS my old single-head G400.
NOW I finally can retire that G400...reserve for a backup card, and sell my "original" backup Millennium II..hehehe..>😀
Been using Millennium I, Mystique, Millennium II, G200, G400, and G450. Didn't touch G550 since I was with my G400 through couple years. Now maybe it's time for Parhelia...when LCD's price is down to a cheap level...😛
Assuming only 2D and a resolution of 1152x864@100hz and below, is the Matrox G200 still fast enough not to slow down a modern P4/Athlon system?
My friend was going to pick up one of those cheap Nvidia-based cards, but it seems like he'd be better off just sticking with his G200 since 2D image quality is all he cares about. As long as it can keep up 2D-wise with his new processor.
My friend was going to pick up one of those cheap Nvidia-based cards, but it seems like he'd be better off just sticking with his G200 since 2D image quality is all he cares about. As long as it can keep up 2D-wise with his new processor.
If you're only running at 1152x864, then a cheap GeForce4 MX440 would probably do the job just fine in terms of image quality. I have the same setup running the same resolution on a 17" AG MAG monitor and it looks just as crisp as the 16MB SH G400 that it replaced, but admittedly my MAG isn't the highest of quality when it comes to monitors. Speed wise, nvidia has always been top ever since 3dfx was dissolved, even ATI and Matrox can't keep up with their 2D speed, but the difference is pretty small so I wouldn't worry about it.
If your friend already has a G200, and it works with his P4 system(I'm not too sure about that since the earlier AGP cards were +3.3V ones that might not run with newer motherboards with the +1.5V AGP slots) then by all means have a go at it first before deciding on anything. If he's happy with the speed and image quality, and he doesn't need any 3D acceleration, then good for him. Otherwise, he can still pick up a cheap GF4MX then.
If your friend already has a G200, and it works with his P4 system(I'm not too sure about that since the earlier AGP cards were +3.3V ones that might not run with newer motherboards with the +1.5V AGP slots) then by all means have a go at it first before deciding on anything. If he's happy with the speed and image quality, and he doesn't need any 3D acceleration, then good for him. Otherwise, he can still pick up a cheap GF4MX then.
I have the Saphire Radeon 9000 made by Atlantis. It seems to have a slightly improved 2D image over the Radeon 8500. On a Dell Trinitron at 1152 x 864 it is absolutely perfect, I am impressed. I have a Gainward Golden Sample PowerPack GF3 Ti200 with the low pass filter capacitor mod which is excellent, but the Radeon 9000 is still a notch or two clearer.
Most definitely, 2D performance varies very little between any even remotely modern graphics card. There are only a very small number of applications left that are at all 2D performance limited anymore, and even those few are generally fine with most cards.
At this point in time 2D performance is primarily driver related more-so then hardware dependent anyway.
Unless your benchmarking you'd have to look awfully hard to find a difference between any modern graphics card in sheer 2D performance. The old G200 will handle 1152x864 quite nicely.
AnAndAustin
Platinum Member
😉 I agree Rand, just make sure any new mobo uses an 'AGP2.0 UNIVERSAL' AGP slot as this supports the oldest gfx cards, if they simply state AGP2.0 or AGP3.0 then you won't even be able to insert the old 3.3v only cards.
Gandalf90125
Member
A Universal AGP 3.0 motherboard is also supposed to be backward compatible with old AGP 3.3V cards.
But be careful--a motherboard with a universal slot won't necessarily support older cards. There seem to be at least a few SiS648 or KT400 boards with universal slots that support 1.5V or 0.8V cards only.
But be careful--a motherboard with a universal slot won't necessarily support older cards. There seem to be at least a few SiS648 or KT400 boards with universal slots that support 1.5V or 0.8V cards only.
Jeff7
Lifer
I'm also curious about what image quality is referring to. I've used an assortment of cards over the years - TNT, TNT2 M64, Geforce2, Geforce2 Ti, Radeon, and now Geforce4 Ti4200. The only thing that seems to differentiate them in terms of 2d quality is the maximum supported resolution and refresh rate. I can't really tell any difference between an old S3 videocard running 800x600@85Hz and a Geforce4 at the same resolution. That said, I don't think that I'm insensitive to colors - I can't stand 16-bit color because of the banding and artifacts that occur; I can even detect slight banding in 32-bit color, but it's not nearly as noticable.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
