Eveyone complains about the crap 2D quality of the Geforce 2 cards, I'm just curious, has the 2D quality been improved on the Geforce 3 video cards???
Has the 2D quality improved on the Geforce 3 video cards???
- Thread starter Detoyminador_
- Start date
In comparison to my Asus 7700deluxe nothing has changed by switching to a 8200deluce ti200, but i had considerably better 2d with a Diamond Viper V-550 (TNT) and my Matrox G400 is still to beat in that discipline. I think 2d at 1024*768*85Hz is still too bad with all new NVidia boards.
Actually, the improvement in 2D was very noticable for me going from a 64mb GeForce 2 to a Visiontek GeForce3. That was really surprising, considering I wasn't really expecting any improvement. I normally run at 1154x856x32 at 100hz with my 19" Sony 420GS.
My Visiontek GF3 Ti200 has excellent 2D quality. I would rate it a little better than the Voodoo4 and and Radeon LE cards I had. I run at 1152x864 @85hz on a 19" NEC FP950 (Flat Diamontron tube) monitor. I've tested it up to 1600x1200 and still had excellent 2D. I had concerns about 2D quality when I bought the GF3, but I was not at all disappointed.
Detoyminador_,
My Gainward GF3 is much better than the Elsa GF2 I owned (briefly). It's not quite as good as my Radeon was. I've tested it up to 16x12@85Hz (19 inch Sony G400). On my 17 inch Sony 200PS, the display is very good (running 12x10 or lower). It's still no Matrox, but it is acceptable (since I'm so d*mn picky, I imagine most would say that the Gainward has very good 2D). This card is nice though, you can get it for a little over 200 dollars and mine overclocks like crazy (YMMV).
Leeb00,
A non-gamer would probably be better off with a G450 (I've heard the 550's 2D IQ isn't quite as good). You may want to check: MURC for comments on which Matrox card to get.
-AJ
My Gainward GF3 is much better than the Elsa GF2 I owned (briefly). It's not quite as good as my Radeon was. I've tested it up to 16x12@85Hz (19 inch Sony G400). On my 17 inch Sony 200PS, the display is very good (running 12x10 or lower). It's still no Matrox, but it is acceptable (since I'm so d*mn picky, I imagine most would say that the Gainward has very good 2D). This card is nice though, you can get it for a little over 200 dollars and mine overclocks like crazy (YMMV).
Leeb00,
A non-gamer would probably be better off with a G450 (I've heard the 550's 2D IQ isn't quite as good). You may want to check: MURC for comments on which Matrox card to get.
-AJ
There is nothing in the architecture of the GF3 that has inherently improved 2D visual quality over the GF1/2 series of graphics cards.
Internally, the 2D side of the chip is damn near identical.
As was the case with the GF2 it depends much upin the individual board manufacturer and the quality of the PCB, and filters used upon it.
Some GF2's had terrible 2D image quality, some had quite reasonable 2D image quality. The case is still pretty much the same with the GF3 wherein there are some GF3's with terrible 2D image quality, and some with very good 2D image quality.
Regarding the LeadTek card that jpprod linked....see this thread..
2D is NOT unanimously bad with the GF2 or the GF3.
There are some GF boards 2D that is very good, there are some that are extremely poor.
2D is one aspect that varies considerably between different manufacturers.
Internally, the 2D side of the chip is damn near identical.
As was the case with the GF2 it depends much upin the individual board manufacturer and the quality of the PCB, and filters used upon it.
Some GF2's had terrible 2D image quality, some had quite reasonable 2D image quality. The case is still pretty much the same with the GF3 wherein there are some GF3's with terrible 2D image quality, and some with very good 2D image quality.
Regarding the LeadTek card that jpprod linked....see this thread..
2D is NOT unanimously bad with the GF2 or the GF3.
There are some GF boards 2D that is very good, there are some that are extremely poor.
2D is one aspect that varies considerably between different manufacturers.
<< Would a non-gamer be better off buying a Matrox G550? >>
Certainly, particularly if you sit in front of your monitor for long hours daily. Even a slight difference at a glance looms large with hours of use.
Some people claim G450 has a better 2D IQ than Matrox G550, but I'm not sure if that's true. I'd like to know in what ways they think G450's IQ is "better". I presume the difference is really minimal, though. One big advantage of G550 is that it supports DVI-out, whereas G450 doesn't, with the exception of one variant that I haven't really seen on the market.
Ausone, I think you are confusing the G450 with the G400 MAX. The G450 came after the G400 MAX and is the precursor to the G550.
Many diehard Matrox afficiondos feel neither card is up to par with the original G400 cards. Matrox claims otherwise. I've seen a G450 and I don't think it is as good as the G400 MAX. Maybe it's the QC control; both cards are imported now whereas the G400 MAXs were made in Ireland.
So Leebe, if you are not into gaming, your best bet is to try to find a used G400 MAX on Ebay. Good luck, they are not easy to find. I have 4 of them, including a still shrink-wrapped retail card, all made in Ireland, but I am not willing to sell yet. With the latest drivers, the card can even run some 3D games surprisingly well.
But back to the original question: Do the Geforce3 cards have improved 2D image quality? I can only speak for the Asus 8200-T5 Deluxe (Ti 500) I just purchased. IT'S UNBELIEVABLE, BUT YES!!!!!!!
I suspected the 2d on my Asus card was exceptional, so 3 nights ago I stuck my Radeon VIVO back in to compare. Right away I could see the Asus was clearly better. Icons for fonts was rather grainy. I played around with the card on a couple of games and took it out. I then stuck my G400 MAX back in. Ran it one night. Last night I ran the MAX for 30' and immediately switched to my Asus 8200-T5. The switch took 5' since I have DriveImage copies of my Win98 OS with various drivers. I just restore the partition, shut down, swap AGP cards, and reboot.
As soon as I booted up with the Ti 500, I noticed the color saturation of my desktop was dead on with the G400 MAX! Virtually identical. When my icons came up on the screen, it verified what I suspected before, the 2D on my Asus card is every bit as good as a G400 MAX! Not only that, but I think it is even better, for the following reasons:
1. I am using a 9-10 font size for my icons, white on a black background. The fonts are more distinct (fatter), and creamier looking on the Asus. They are easier to read, even at 1600x1200.
2. I checked the tiny fonts on my Norton System Doctor popup box, and the clarity and contrast against the white/blue background was excellent, every bit as good as the G400 MAX.
3. I checked an MS Word document with #10 Arial font on a white background. Checked font sizes from 500-75. I did this at 1280x1024 and 1600x1200. To my astonishment, the text was very very clean and with virtually no ghosting. Maybe the G400 MAX is a tiny bit cleaner, but on a desktop, the difference is not noticeable.
4. I'm positive Nvidia or Asus bumped up the default contrast and brightness of the Ti series at least, to try to match Matrox. One other give away of this is in DOS: the Matrox has very bright white text on a jet black background. Obviously, this inherently good contrast contributes to it's image superiority. Guess what? The Asus card looks every bit as good. Again, the text is fatter, creamier and less grainy. To top it all off, the Ti card has Digital Vibrance Control, so when I set it to low, the color vibrancy of the card exceeds that of the Matrox!
5. One other dead giveaway is I run a Voodoo5 in the PCI slot. The last time I booted up on this card with my Ti 500 installed, I couldn't believe how blurry the desktop was. Intolerable, frankly. Now the 2D of the Voodoo5 is not exactly chopped liver. This is exactly the kind of difference I noted when I had my G400 MAX in the AGP slot.
What can I say? I like the 2D on this monster Ti 500 even better than my G400 MAXs. When you consider my Asus Ti 500 will overclock to 266/603 stable, this is one incredible card I got. I was going to sell the card in 3-4 months as soon as the Asus NV25 Deluxe card comes out (I can sell it in Japan for what I paid for it in the U.S.), but I don't know now. Imagine, a card you could use for graphics design work, and it don't do too bad at 3D games either.
How fast is this card, even with the 800 TB on a 100 FSB I am running now? I ran the QuakeIII Quaver demo at 1280x1024x32, all settings maxed out, 64-tap anisotrophy + trilinear, and with Quincunx on, and I get 62 fps. I ran the same settings on a Geforce256 DDR card (max 16-tap anisotrophy) overclocked to 160/360 (from a stock 120/300), and got 8 fps! And that's with NO FSAA!! Sheesh!
Many diehard Matrox afficiondos feel neither card is up to par with the original G400 cards. Matrox claims otherwise. I've seen a G450 and I don't think it is as good as the G400 MAX. Maybe it's the QC control; both cards are imported now whereas the G400 MAXs were made in Ireland.
So Leebe, if you are not into gaming, your best bet is to try to find a used G400 MAX on Ebay. Good luck, they are not easy to find. I have 4 of them, including a still shrink-wrapped retail card, all made in Ireland, but I am not willing to sell yet. With the latest drivers, the card can even run some 3D games surprisingly well.
But back to the original question: Do the Geforce3 cards have improved 2D image quality? I can only speak for the Asus 8200-T5 Deluxe (Ti 500) I just purchased. IT'S UNBELIEVABLE, BUT YES!!!!!!!
I suspected the 2d on my Asus card was exceptional, so 3 nights ago I stuck my Radeon VIVO back in to compare. Right away I could see the Asus was clearly better. Icons for fonts was rather grainy. I played around with the card on a couple of games and took it out. I then stuck my G400 MAX back in. Ran it one night. Last night I ran the MAX for 30' and immediately switched to my Asus 8200-T5. The switch took 5' since I have DriveImage copies of my Win98 OS with various drivers. I just restore the partition, shut down, swap AGP cards, and reboot.
As soon as I booted up with the Ti 500, I noticed the color saturation of my desktop was dead on with the G400 MAX! Virtually identical. When my icons came up on the screen, it verified what I suspected before, the 2D on my Asus card is every bit as good as a G400 MAX! Not only that, but I think it is even better, for the following reasons:
1. I am using a 9-10 font size for my icons, white on a black background. The fonts are more distinct (fatter), and creamier looking on the Asus. They are easier to read, even at 1600x1200.
2. I checked the tiny fonts on my Norton System Doctor popup box, and the clarity and contrast against the white/blue background was excellent, every bit as good as the G400 MAX.
3. I checked an MS Word document with #10 Arial font on a white background. Checked font sizes from 500-75. I did this at 1280x1024 and 1600x1200. To my astonishment, the text was very very clean and with virtually no ghosting. Maybe the G400 MAX is a tiny bit cleaner, but on a desktop, the difference is not noticeable.
4. I'm positive Nvidia or Asus bumped up the default contrast and brightness of the Ti series at least, to try to match Matrox. One other give away of this is in DOS: the Matrox has very bright white text on a jet black background. Obviously, this inherently good contrast contributes to it's image superiority. Guess what? The Asus card looks every bit as good. Again, the text is fatter, creamier and less grainy. To top it all off, the Ti card has Digital Vibrance Control, so when I set it to low, the color vibrancy of the card exceeds that of the Matrox!
5. One other dead giveaway is I run a Voodoo5 in the PCI slot. The last time I booted up on this card with my Ti 500 installed, I couldn't believe how blurry the desktop was. Intolerable, frankly. Now the 2D of the Voodoo5 is not exactly chopped liver. This is exactly the kind of difference I noted when I had my G400 MAX in the AGP slot.
What can I say? I like the 2D on this monster Ti 500 even better than my G400 MAXs. When you consider my Asus Ti 500 will overclock to 266/603 stable, this is one incredible card I got. I was going to sell the card in 3-4 months as soon as the Asus NV25 Deluxe card comes out (I can sell it in Japan for what I paid for it in the U.S.), but I don't know now. Imagine, a card you could use for graphics design work, and it don't do too bad at 3D games either.
How fast is this card, even with the 800 TB on a 100 FSB I am running now? I ran the QuakeIII Quaver demo at 1280x1024x32, all settings maxed out, 64-tap anisotrophy + trilinear, and with Quincunx on, and I get 62 fps. I ran the same settings on a Geforce256 DDR card (max 16-tap anisotrophy) overclocked to 160/360 (from a stock 120/300), and got 8 fps! And that's with NO FSAA!! Sheesh!
I'm planning on getting Gainward Ti200, i know Gainward has awesome 2D. It beats Asus and Radeons, i notice the text is much easier to read. It also depends on your monitor too. I have Sony G200 and you can defenetly tell. On a generic CRAPUSA one it's hard. I also have a Samgsung, but it's kinda cheap too and doesn't make too big difference. I also have an Envision 17" with has RICH color, i mean it bleeds!!! It's on a VooDoo3 now, but I will test on a Radeon, Asus, Gainward, and i'm trying to get a cheap Matrox. Do the older Maxtrox boards are similar 2D to new ones?
<< Ausone, I think you are confusing the G450 with the G400 MAX. The G450 came after the G400 MAX and is the precursor to the G550. >>
No, I'm not. I did see some posts saying that G450 is better than G550, although I've seen more people saying that G400Max is better than G450/550.
As you suggest, I don't think there is any significant difference between G450 and G550. G400Max may have been under better QC, as you say. I thought of getting G400Max at eBay, too, but I opted for G550 because G400Max has a fan, which is a big disadvantage from my point of view.
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter