is the image quality on a geforce bad

[sugar18]

I have a matrox g200 and for what I do it is great mainly office products and image programs, but I have recently started to get into games on the pc.

I am also going to get a new video card and from what I can tell the top choices are the geforces and the redeons but what I want to know is dose the Geforce's have bad image quality. They will probably be more than sufficient for my gaming needs but I do ant to get a new video card that had very good image quality from business and photo editing programs.



What are your thoughts

 

[hans007]

generally, most nvidia cards "2d" for like regular windows and art, is blurrier / less crisp / more ghosting in high res like 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 with high refresh rates. Varies from card to card, its because of the EMI filter , which inadvertantly filters out parts of the video bandwith. Get a radeon , has real good 2d. Or secondly a 3dfx card.

 

[lsd]

Get an elsa gladiac, I have one and i'm still trying to see what everybody is talking about. Most of the people here say it has bad 2d beacuse they read what someone else wrote as they have never seen it fot themselves.
If you're still unsure about what to get just get a radeon.

 

[hans007]

lsd, i had a elsa erazor x, that is my experience with it, and well that was plain horrible. The asus v6800 was pretty good well the 32mb version, the 64 wasn't quite as good. The 2d seemed to vary from card to card though, like some would have wierd blurries, others less so

 

[snow patrol]

Yep, I heard that the 2d quality on the ELSA based Geforces is superior to that of other Geforce models..

 

[Taz4158]

The Elsa is good for a nVidia but the Radeon and Matrox are far superior. The Radeon's 3D also is great!!!

 

[audreymi]

Here is another related thread
called

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=31&threadid=268506

 

[audreymi]

Here is another related thread
called

Is the image quality on GeForce bad ?

I like to get to the bottom of this because some people say it
good on one card and some say it is bad on the same card. What gives ?

 

[macssuck]

I purchased a 3D Prophet but it made text look fuzzy compared to my Riva 128. I borrowed a g400 TV from work and it has excellent 2d quality at 1024x768x32 at 85hz. so I turned the resolution up but text never became fuzzy even at 1600x1200x32 at 65hz. which is the highest res. my 17in. monitor supports

 

[audreymi]

I looking for an updated graphics card for
my son's Nvidia TNT2. When he is not on it,
The computer has me in front of it the
other 40% of time when he is not playing
games and I am working on spread
sheets and Word documents. The thread below
seems to favour Matrox G400 cards.
Will I notice the difference ?

End of hardcore gaming, bye GF2, hello G400.

 

[Taz4158]

Yes but a Radeon gives you the quality you're looking for and speed for da kid.

 

[RoboTECH]

If you run in higher resolutions, i.e. 1280 and above, you're not going to want a GeForce. I had 2 of them, and the 2d quality just plain sucked balls at the higher resolutions.

Fuzzy text and ghosting were my main complaints.

The 5500 and Radeon both offer outstanding 2d quality at higher resolutions. Someone has said that a Radeon has "issues" with some trinitron monitors. I can neither confirm nor deny.

If you're into benchmarking your video cards, then the GTS is the card to get. It definitely will outdo the 5500 and Radeon in benchmarking. However, if you're not too concerned with bragging about your framerates, then don't sweat it and stay away from the GTS. Pick up a Radeon or 5500 instead. The 5500 will offer much better game compatibility with all old and new games, whereas the Radeon offers a bit more speed in 3d at the highest resolutions/32-bit color.