Hypotheses on why the GeForce/Geforce2GTS cards suck at 2d...

[Lore]

Screenshots are almost useless when you talk about ghosting - I see ghosts in your screenshot when I look at it. 🙂 (Not to mention artifacts, but that's from your jpeg encoding)

 

[Hardware]

For all my fans CT made a 2D-test with some gfx cards and the Matrox cards were only medicore. In these tests the clear 2D crisp winner was S3!
PS: Bought next day a S3 and the 2D picture was holy crap!

 

[zippy]

LMAO! Ok, first 3dfx sucks at 3d now Matrox sucks at 2d...LMAO! But nVidia rul3z j00...they are 31337 right?!

Go away you damn troll...

btw, i'm assuming www.ctnew3d.com? No 2d comparison you moron...

Edit: You wanna give us a link for the first time in your life?!?

 

[Doomguy]

So matrox is the king of 2d quality and nvidia is the king of 3d quality. People who buy nvidia cards are looking for 3d abilities not 2d. Yes you need 2d and nvidia provides sufficent 2d but remember its a gamers card!

 

[zippy]

Doomguy, right.

I started this thread with the intention of getting ideas on why the 2d is RELATIVELY poor, I think most people here (cept hardware...) will agree with for 2d it goes:

Matrox
ATi/3dfx
nVidia

S3, I honestly don't know, but my really old video card was based on an S3 chipset (Diamond Stealth 2500) and it was pretty lousy.

3D...for speed goes like this:

nVidia
3dfx
Matrox/S3
ATi

I know matrox isn't the fastest for 3d (but, the picture quality in 3d is less dark and seems to be a lil more crisp...that can prolly be altered in the settings for the nvidia cards though), but this thread isn't what that was meant to be about...

🙁

 

[scottie]

Zippy, I don't agree that 3dfx has better 2D than Nvidia's GeoForce and GTSII. I've had all three cards and the 2D to me is the same.

There is no doubt, however, that G400 Matrox is the best at 2D. After that, I think they all are about the same.