That's not a rhetorical question. I'm really interested to hear some perspectives out there. I've heard lately that the Radeon has significantly better 2D, crisper fonts, graphics, etc. than the GTS. Is this true? The reason I'm interested is that I need very good 2D for business use, but I can't help but salivate over those benchmark scores on the GTS, GTS Pro, & Ultra. What's the scoop?
Does the Radeon really have better 2D than the GTS?
- Thread starter Octoberblue
- Start date
Yes the radeon card is better than the geforce cards for 2d. So are the voodoo5 cards. So are the matrox cards. Actually every card out there is better than the geforce 2d because it is so low quality 2d.
At 1600x1280 and above, there is a big difference. Below that, you can hardly tell the difference.
It might look better, but most reviews I've seen say that the 2D on the Radeon is slower. Maximum PC is one mag that said it.
Please, no flames. If you find a review(s) that states the that the 2D is faster on the Radeon, leave a link to one and I'll eat my words. Otherwise, shut up.
Taz4158:
<< The 3D looks far better too. >>
Comparisons? Where?
Please, no flames. If you find a review(s) that states the that the 2D is faster on the Radeon, leave a link to one and I'll eat my words. Otherwise, shut up.
Taz4158:
<< The 3D looks far better too. >>
Comparisons? Where?
Oh boy, here we go again. Everybody knows the Nvidia 2D is weak, but it's amazing that threads pop up on the subject ever 2-3 days. Geez.
The truth is that the GeForce 2D is decent (not great) at normal resolutions, but it becomes much worse at very high resolutions. Some people exaggerate it though. It doesn't suck, it's just not as good as ATI / Matrox / 3dfx, that's all.
Now that was a fair comment damnit, so if the Nvidia Fanboys flame me for this then I give up.
The truth is that the GeForce 2D is decent (not great) at normal resolutions, but it becomes much worse at very high resolutions. Some people exaggerate it though. It doesn't suck, it's just not as good as ATI / Matrox / 3dfx, that's all.
Now that was a fair comment damnit, so if the Nvidia Fanboys flame me for this then I give up.
<< It might look better, but most reviews I've seen say that the 2D on the Radeon is slower. Maximum PC is one mag that said it. >>
Compellor always has to put his 2 cents in, although I think 2 cents is overinflating the value. Run out of Prozac again?
Taz4158:
Still waiting for a rebuttle on the Radeon's 2D PERFORMANCE -- not quality. Tick...tick...tick...
Um...nothing to back it up again, as always. You people amaze me.
Still waiting for a rebuttle on the Radeon's 2D PERFORMANCE -- not quality. Tick...tick...tick...
Um...nothing to back it up again, as always. You people amaze me.
Based on experience, 2d is of the same quality with 3dfx and GeForce2, which is great. But, others have said that when using specific, popular GeForce2 cards, 2d sucks at ultra-high resolutions when used with Trinitron based monitors, (you know the ones, the same monitors that have those 2 nasty wire lines going accoss the screen, that they keep forgetting to also mention). nVidia has come a long way from the days of crap 2d that the TNT had. Also, popular concensus is the Matrox has the very best 2d. ATI's 2d has been rated great and bad by many, depending on what day it is.
Ahhhh, what the hell I can't resist.
Hello Compellor or should I call you by your other nicks LSD or RobsTV. Heh! Busted.
Anyhoo.........
Here is nice quote from the recent article about image quality at Adrenaline Vault.
"2D and 3D quality has been the primary weak point on all Nvidia chipsets, and those trends do not seem to be improving. They lack the outstanding high resolution 2D and vibrant 3D colors that their competition offers."
OR since you like Maximum PC so much, here is juicy tidbit from their Radeon review 2 months ago.
"The Radeon's image quality puts the GeForce2 to shame".
OR if you like Sharky, he also comments that while the Nvidia cards follow the reference design closer, the Radeon simply looks better, with better colors and better image quality.
As far as 2D performance in terms of speed, if you are going to try and hang your hat on that, then you are even more desperate then I thought. All of the current cards are plenty fast in 2D performance, so much so that it's a non issue. BTW Compellor (or whatever name you are using right now) the guy was asking about 2d image quality, crispness, etc.
And before Ben says something about applications besides games for 3D, yes we all know that Nvidia cards are great for those. I am talking about gaming of course. And I have seen Ben say repeatedly that he agrees the Radeon has better 32 bit image quality for gaming.
Of course I don't even know why all this 3D stuff is going on in this thread anyway. The guy is asking about 2D.
Hello Compellor or should I call you by your other nicks LSD or RobsTV. Heh! Busted.
Anyhoo.........
Here is nice quote from the recent article about image quality at Adrenaline Vault.
"2D and 3D quality has been the primary weak point on all Nvidia chipsets, and those trends do not seem to be improving. They lack the outstanding high resolution 2D and vibrant 3D colors that their competition offers."
OR since you like Maximum PC so much, here is juicy tidbit from their Radeon review 2 months ago.
"The Radeon's image quality puts the GeForce2 to shame".
OR if you like Sharky, he also comments that while the Nvidia cards follow the reference design closer, the Radeon simply looks better, with better colors and better image quality.
As far as 2D performance in terms of speed, if you are going to try and hang your hat on that, then you are even more desperate then I thought. All of the current cards are plenty fast in 2D performance, so much so that it's a non issue. BTW Compellor (or whatever name you are using right now) the guy was asking about 2d image quality, crispness, etc.
And before Ben says something about applications besides games for 3D, yes we all know that Nvidia cards are great for those. I am talking about gaming of course. And I have seen Ben say repeatedly that he agrees the Radeon has better 32 bit image quality for gaming.
Of course I don't even know why all this 3D stuff is going on in this thread anyway. The guy is asking about 2D.
Hey Domino, ya read my mind. Was just looking for those. I'd get in a battle of wits with Compellor but it wouldn't be fair against an unarmed person.
<< Still waiting for a rebuttle on the Radeon's 2D PERFORMANCE -- not quality. Tick...tick...tick... >>
See proof above and yeah, I remember my first beer too.
The only mention of 3d is from you DominoBoy, and someone that said Radeon's 2d and 3d is better. Can't you for once just stick to the subject?
The answer to the original post is yes, the Radeon does have better 2d than GTS.
How does Anand rate the GeForce2 GTS 2d?
Since Elsa Gladiac and Visiontek GTS are basically the same cards, and since I have a VisionTek that gives me perfect 2d, but that Anand failed to review, I'll use his Elsa comments.
in part:
<< the 2D image quality of the GLADIAC is very good. >>
Elsa review at Sharky says in part:
<< 2D quality is good, though not quite as good as a Matrox G400 or a Voodoo3. If you are the type to run at 1600x1200 all day, another card might be a better choice. 3D quality is standard GeForce2 GTS quality, which is just about as good as it gets. >>
and his ATI review says in part
<< If you're in the market for good 3D performance (not the absolute fastest, mind you), crisp 2D, and excellent video acceleration, than the Radeon is a sure bet. If hardcore 3D is your main concern, look to one of the GeForce2 cards >>
And lasst off at Sharky's
<< ELSA has gone above and beyond the other GeForce2 board manufacturers and we noticed a distinct difference in the GLADIAC's 2D clarity. Whether it is driver work or high quality analog circuitry, we aren't sure. What we do know, however, is that ELSA's 2D quality is easier on our eyes than the other GeForce2 boards at high resolutions.
Now, don't get us wrong, the GeForce2 has good 2D. After a full day of work though, 1600x1200 seems to get a bit blurry, and we'd just rather run at 1280x1024 then put up with the additional eyestrain. While this will not affect your 3D gaming experience, it may become a bother after sweating through hours of spreadsheets. >>
The answer to the original post is yes, the Radeon does have better 2d than GTS.
How does Anand rate the GeForce2 GTS 2d?
Since Elsa Gladiac and Visiontek GTS are basically the same cards, and since I have a VisionTek that gives me perfect 2d, but that Anand failed to review, I'll use his Elsa comments.
in part:
<< the 2D image quality of the GLADIAC is very good. >>
Elsa review at Sharky says in part:
<< 2D quality is good, though not quite as good as a Matrox G400 or a Voodoo3. If you are the type to run at 1600x1200 all day, another card might be a better choice. 3D quality is standard GeForce2 GTS quality, which is just about as good as it gets. >>
and his ATI review says in part
<< If you're in the market for good 3D performance (not the absolute fastest, mind you), crisp 2D, and excellent video acceleration, than the Radeon is a sure bet. If hardcore 3D is your main concern, look to one of the GeForce2 cards >>
And lasst off at Sharky's
<< ELSA has gone above and beyond the other GeForce2 board manufacturers and we noticed a distinct difference in the GLADIAC's 2D clarity. Whether it is driver work or high quality analog circuitry, we aren't sure. What we do know, however, is that ELSA's 2D quality is easier on our eyes than the other GeForce2 boards at high resolutions.
Now, don't get us wrong, the GeForce2 has good 2D. After a full day of work though, 1600x1200 seems to get a bit blurry, and we'd just rather run at 1280x1024 then put up with the additional eyestrain. While this will not affect your 3D gaming experience, it may become a bother after sweating through hours of spreadsheets. >>
The Radeon's 2D is rated just a hair behind the Matrox for the best hands down. They are clearly the best 2 cards for 2D image quality. Then comes the 3dfx boards, and then Nvidia. I won't say the Nvidia 2D is horrible or anything, but it's not nearly as nice as the other cards. And at 1280 or 1600 (which I run all the time) it certainly leaves a lot to be desired.
For the record, I have a 64MB RADEON in one machine, and an ULTRA in another. I also use Matrox cards at work. I can give you plenty of comparisons.
Hey look it's Ben. HOWDY BEN, GOOD MORNING.
I'm afraid he may have quit speaking to me because he thinks I've gone crazy for spending so much money to have both the Radeon and ULTRA. I was struggling back and forth between cards a while back and even asked for his input. I bet he never figured I would get both and build a 2nd machine. Damnit Ben I waited for COMDEX, and nothing different. I decided I would just go all out now, and this way I have a great LAN setup when people come over, and I truly have the best of both worlds with Radeon and Ultra. I guess you will kill me when I mention that I might put a V5 PCI card in just for fun. C'mon Ben, speak to me, speak to me.
For the record, I have a 64MB RADEON in one machine, and an ULTRA in another. I also use Matrox cards at work. I can give you plenty of comparisons.
Hey look it's Ben. HOWDY BEN, GOOD MORNING.
I'm afraid he may have quit speaking to me because he thinks I've gone crazy for spending so much money to have both the Radeon and ULTRA. I was struggling back and forth between cards a while back and even asked for his input. I bet he never figured I would get both and build a 2nd machine. Damnit Ben I waited for COMDEX, and nothing different. I decided I would just go all out now, and this way I have a great LAN setup when people come over, and I truly have the best of both worlds with Radeon and Ultra. I guess you will kill me when I mention that I might put a V5 PCI card in just for fun. C'mon Ben, speak to me, speak to me.
I'd like to add one important point.
<< << the 2D image quality of the GLADIAC is very good. >> >>
Of course the ELSA Gladiac's 2D quality is good, it's also not the norm for Geforce/GF2 cards. Most, following the reference design (ala Creative Labs), have 2D quality that's only tolerable at 1024x768 and pitiful above. (Yes, I actually owned an ASUS 7100MX for a week. Blecch. I might have kept it if I got the Gladiac MX I ordered. )
I also got hooked on FSAA, which the MX could only just barely handle. I can't wait for my V5-5500 to get here. No more fuzzy text, and the best FSAA going. No, it doesn't rule the benchmarks, just performs great with all the GAMES I'll throw at it. Makes sense to me.
<< << the 2D image quality of the GLADIAC is very good. >> >>
Of course the ELSA Gladiac's 2D quality is good, it's also not the norm for Geforce/GF2 cards. Most, following the reference design (ala Creative Labs), have 2D quality that's only tolerable at 1024x768 and pitiful above. (Yes, I actually owned an ASUS 7100MX for a week. Blecch. I might have kept it if I got the Gladiac MX I ordered.
)I also got hooked on FSAA, which the MX could only just barely handle. I can't wait for my V5-5500 to get here. No more fuzzy text, and the best FSAA going. No, it doesn't rule the benchmarks, just performs great with all the GAMES I'll throw at it. Makes sense to me.
<< Hello Compellor or should I call you by your other nicks LSD or RobsTV. Heh! Busted >>
LOL..... Do you have something agianst me?
LOL
idiot.
actually if no one figured out yet..octoberblue=solojoe=dominoidiot
.Dude, you really just got to try the cards out for yourself. My GF 2 MX looks easily as good as my Voodoo 3 did. However, many people DO complain about the GeForce's 2D quality, and very few complain about the ATI and 3dfx cards.
As far as I can tell, it is basically a crap shoot, varying from one manufacturer to another, and even from card to card. Pick up a GeForce from a place with a good return policy, and check it out for yourself. If it isn't up to snuff, return it for a GF from a different manufacturer, or try an ATI or 3dfx. Most of these people around here are just flamer fanboys anyways, and YOU are the one that is gonna be looking at the thing. Unlike with benchmarks, there is really no cut and dried answer to this issue.
As far as I can tell, it is basically a crap shoot, varying from one manufacturer to another, and even from card to card. Pick up a GeForce from a place with a good return policy, and check it out for yourself. If it isn't up to snuff, return it for a GF from a different manufacturer, or try an ATI or 3dfx. Most of these people around here are just flamer fanboys anyways, and YOU are the one that is gonna be looking at the thing. Unlike with benchmarks, there is really no cut and dried answer to this issue.
I would have to agree with bluemax when he says, "Of course the ELSA Gladiac's 2D quality is good, it's also not the norm for Geforce/GF2 cards."
Now the good news is that Elsa get's it's Gladiac from Visiontek, an OEM supplier, and it turns out that the OEM VisionTek cards do in fact have the same 2d quality as the Elsa cards. (which is the same as 3dfx cards). But, the best news is that the VisionTek OEM cards are the least expensive GTS card you can get.
Now the good news is that Elsa get's it's Gladiac from Visiontek, an OEM supplier, and it turns out that the OEM VisionTek cards do in fact have the same 2d quality as the Elsa cards. (which is the same as 3dfx cards). But, the best news is that the VisionTek OEM cards are the least expensive GTS card you can get.
I hear a lot about poor image quality at high resolutions from the GTS, but what about lower resolutions? I have a 17" AG monitor and only run at 1024x768. Will I be able to notice the difference? Sorry for the newbie type question.
If you run at 1024 and not a Visiontek, it'll probably be a little crappy, just tolerable like bluemax said.
I just went from an ATI AIW Radeon to a Hercules Prophet II Pro. At 1280x1024, there was a very small difference, which is the resolution I always use on my Sony G400. And I have very sensative eyes so I know how to look at the screen. Its not blurry, just not as colorful as the Radeon, sort of a washed out look. Its not bad though. Its very suttle.
I was the opposite of Pidge.. i went from a CLAP GF2 to a Radeon 64DDR, and i saw a world of difference. Originally i had a Matrox G400 before the CLAP, and when i got the CLAP, i was seriously disappointed. My resolution is always set at 1600x1200, and that seems to be where it's worst.
As for the G400 and Radeon... i honestly can't tell the difference here, even at 1600x1200.
As for the G400 and Radeon... i honestly can't tell the difference here, even at 1600x1200.
MustangSVT
Lifer
- Oct 7, 2000
- 11,554
- 12
- 81
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter