• 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.

is the image quality on a geforce bad

S

sugar18

Banned
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

 
2D quality, yes. GeForce's 3D quality is excellent, but Radeon's is outstanding on both 2D and 3D side.
 
There's almost no difference anymore between video card 2D quality. Hasn't been for quite some time. There's only so much acceleration that can be given to 2D images that are all based on the same code every time.
 
Just read a post the other day that said 2D on GeForce suk'ed. Lemme see if I can find. Yeah, here it is.

Quote:

My Asus V6800 DDR did about 6100 using 10x7@16 bit but there was a BIG drop off in 32-bit. That damn thing's image quality looked like hell too. 2D was horrendous. I'm quite happy with this card and glad to be "nvidia free".

end quote.

I have personally never seen a GF in action.
 
There is definitely a sharpness difference when moving to higher resolutions. To a lesser degree you will notice saturation differences as well. Nvidia cards rank near the bottom in current generation 2d image quality.
 
Well, he will get the answer to his question (hopefully), nothing too in-depth or long, just some fair 2D info concerning NVidia, 3dFx and Matrox. 🙂
 
Vlad:



Could you just give a quick sentence or two about your findings. I really need to know because the radeon sale ends today at my local store.

I am not a big time gamer but I have started to play the latedt games and I also use office and image programs so the computer is not a gaming pc



p3 600e
128 corsair micro pc133
bxmaster
matrox g200
maxtor 30g 7200 rpm
 
Basically GF2-based cards run fine (2D) at resolutions up to 1152x864x32. If you want best 2D go for ATI or a Matrox card. If you mostly work with 2D models and dont play 3d games all day long buy the Radeon.
 
I guess it depends on your definition of fine. IMO GeForce 2D is horrendous at 1024x768x32 and up. Pop in a Radeon or G400 and you'll notice not only a substantial improvement in sharpness, but also a large difference in color saturation and vibrancy (this latter point is also evident in 3d games). Additionally, the larger your monitor (I'm running a 19&quot😉 the larger a difference in terms of sharpness you'll notice. In fact, nvidia's 2D is so bad that I pray that the G800 and Radeon II are competitive in 3D with the NV20 b/c I won't be using another nvidia card unless they fix the 2d, no matter how fast the 3d is.
 
Got the Radeon cuz I spend most of my time in 2D. After-hours gaming. Also had the Matrox G200 & G400. I wouldn't say the 2D of the Radeon is better than the G400 (32MB), but it kills the G400's 3D, which is why I didn't get another G400.

My 32MB Radeon DDR runs fine at 183. Easy to recommend for someone who does mostly 2D (but still plays some 3D games).

The GF2-GTS is more for people who are primarily into 3D gaming.
 
I agree with Vlad; the GeForce 2's 2D quality is decent up until you start using 1280x1024. I don't know why they can't fix that problem...
 
Midnight:

Not that I want to pick on you or anything, but I think ATI has better 2D than 3dfx, the Radeon's 2D is as good as it gets for a non-Matrox.
 
i seriously dont know why everyone is saying geforces 2d are so bad
i mean
they arent that bad
i bet most of you say they are bad havent even seen one in action

i am not saying geforces have exceptional 2d quality since they really dont
but they are acceptable in my opinon
all the way up to 1600/32bit
 
xtreme2k

Maybe you're one of those lucky ones who happens to get one of the rare good ones. Most of them are just horrible in 2D quality, I've even met GF2 owners buying V4/5 just so he can play Diablo2.
 
yah maybe i am lucky

i am not saying Geforces are the best but i find it acceptable
i personally dont see any difference between my new 7700 and my older V3 2000 running 1280/32bit on my Sony 17" FD


edit: I dont have any diablo2 issues with my card. And I have been running it on full screen and windowed mode. What was wrong with D2 on a GF?
 
The bigger and better your monitor, the more obvious it is xtreme. I'm sure if you had a 15in monitor any current card would look the same.
 
Vlad-

How many different monitor types did you compare on?

Any chance we will see some non Trinitron(perhaps Daimondtron) AG views along with some slot/dot/shadow/LCD or is this just a one monitor one vid card brief run down?

Edit-

Forgot to ask, which calibration software did you use?
 
I agree with LXi (a first 🙂 ) that the Radeon has better 2D than 3dfx. I just upgraded to Radeon from V3-3K .. noticeable improvement (Iiyama VM Pro 450 w/ BNC cable).

Researched the GF2 image quality thing b4 buying my Radeon. Many diff companies make boards w/ nVidia chips. Some users say 'no prob w/ image quality', while others use words like 'horrendous' to describe their 2D. So it seems that some GF2 cards do better at 2D than others, or some users are pushing their 2D harder .. or some are simply more discriminating.
 
BenSkywalkerMy results with all the cards I'm talking about are with a 19" Diamondtron NF, the Mitsubishi 900u. V3 was acceptable in 2d, Radeon and G400 are excellent and Geforce of any variety (haven't tried Ultras 🙂) are utter crap- you'll be going blind at anything above 800x600x32. Oh, and make sure you use BNC.
 
My results with all the cards I'm talking about are with a 19" Diamondtron NF, the Mitsubishi 900u. V3 was acceptable in 2d, Radeon and G400 are excellent and Geforce of any variety (haven't tried Ultras ) are utter crap- you'll be going blind at anything above 800x600x32. Oh, and make sure you use BNC.

Words of wisdom. The Matrox and Radeon are sooooo superior that you have to believe that the Geforce marketing team, and websites, have really conned a lot of people into accepting that FPS is ALL that matters.
 
I'm happy with it my geforce 2. I think almost any card has decent 2d, but some do have an edge on others. Since i wanted the 3d games, i needed the geforce2.
 
lol, i would take Vlad's advice farther up. I just noticed he got put on board anandtech.com as consumer graphics board reviewer, lol. This is right up his alley.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top