i have a geforce 1. i do mostly 2d work (office, net, etc.) with a game occasionally. will i notice a performance difference if i invest in a newer card? if so, which one should i purchase (that's reasonably priced)?x
is there a 2D performance increase with newer 3D cards?
- Thread starter xander5000
- Start date
I've never actually had a GeForce 1, but I've heard that they have some of the worst 2D of any graphics cards because they use crappy filters. The new GeForce cards are starting to use better filters. If you don't do any gaming, then you should get a Matrox card because they are supposed to have the best 2D of any card. If you do gaming, then go with a ATI card of some kind. It really depends on your choice if you think it is worth it to upgrade cards. Does your 2D seem bad?
In terms of memory requirements, the amount of memory on today's cards are way more than you need for 2D. 8 megs is plenty as opposed to the 32 and 64 megs on 3D cards. However, 2D performance can still vary between cards. I would try and find one with the highest rated 2D performance, and keep in mind that additional memory and 3D features don't mean that much. FWIW.
2D Performance has been rather constant since the Millenium II several years ago.
The only important thing is the RAMDAC (max refresh at high resolutions), the memory if less than 8MB, and, as pointed out above, 2D quality.
2D quality only matters at 1280x1024 or above, although in my opinion mostly at 1600x1200 or above.
If you run at 1024x768, there is no need to upgrade.
The only important thing is the RAMDAC (max refresh at high resolutions), the memory if less than 8MB, and, as pointed out above, 2D quality.
2D quality only matters at 1280x1024 or above, although in my opinion mostly at 1600x1200 or above.
If you run at 1024x768, there is no need to upgrade.
I know in 2d games such as Diablo2 it is more stress full on a system than 3d like unreal or quake. On Diablo2 with the original raden at 640x480 I could play fine at 800x600 pack it up my fps would drop to 5 (and this is on a 1.3 AMD) Now with the Radeon 8500 you cant bogg it down at 800x600. I have tried the same setting with a p4 1.6 using a 64meg Geforce2 with same results 800x600 would puke out and with both puters side by side there is a night and day diff. in 2d grax quality and yes the 8500 was the good looking one.
Not sure on your budget but the 8500 at price watch is about $160 and the 7500 $125.
So yes with a newer card you would be able to tell a big diff.
Not sure on your budget but the 8500 at price watch is about $160 and the 7500 $125.
So yes with a newer card you would be able to tell a big diff.
Depends...
If you run at 1024x768 or less then you're fine. Unless you want better performance in games. But geforce 1 is ok for now if you use low res and don't play them much.
If you want better 2d with a higher res then 1024x768, and better 3d graphics, get a Radeon 7500 or 8500.
EJ
If you run at 1024x768 or less then you're fine. Unless you want better performance in games. But geforce 1 is ok for now if you use low res and don't play them much.
If you want better 2d with a higher res then 1024x768, and better 3d graphics, get a Radeon 7500 or 8500.
EJ
If you can get a ATi or Matrox 450 at a reasonable price, that at least would improve your 2D and give you some gaming ability. I had a Ati Radeon64mb vivo and it had great 2D quality and was ok for games.
I'd say that bogdowns in Diablo 2 aren't due to video card problems so much as they are to bad code. C'mon, a game that's supposed to run on a P2-233 machine with hardly any system or video ram eats it on a fairly high end machine?!? Gotta be bad code. It runs just as bad with a 3dfx Voodoo Banshee (PCI) as it does with a 32MB Geforce 2mx as it does with a retail 8500.
As far as 2D goes, it seems to be all about the quality of the components. ATI has their name on the box for retail Radeons. If they don't have good quality control on the cards they produce, their name would be dragged through the mud, and thus sales of ALL radeon cards would suffer. Nvidia doesn't manufacture cards for sale, thus QC is different from brand to brand. Plus, who knows whom each big brand name contracts out production of their cards to, and whom they buy their components from. I guess what I'm saying is that an ATI brand card is a very SAFE bet at this point for good quality 2D. You NEVER hear anyone complain about their ATI card's 2D. While Nvidia's chips are really great, their 2D varies from brand to brand. And that's my point.
EDIT: typos
As far as 2D goes, it seems to be all about the quality of the components. ATI has their name on the box for retail Radeons. If they don't have good quality control on the cards they produce, their name would be dragged through the mud, and thus sales of ALL radeon cards would suffer. Nvidia doesn't manufacture cards for sale, thus QC is different from brand to brand. Plus, who knows whom each big brand name contracts out production of their cards to, and whom they buy their components from. I guess what I'm saying is that an ATI brand card is a very SAFE bet at this point for good quality 2D. You NEVER hear anyone complain about their ATI card's 2D. While Nvidia's chips are really great, their 2D varies from brand to brand. And that's my point.
EDIT: typos
<< I've never actually had a GeForce 1, but I've heard that they have some of the worst 2D of any graphics cards because they use crappy filters. >>
2D quality is entirely different from 2D performance. While nVidia has often been acclaimed as having rather poor 2D visual quality, they've never had poor 2D performance. In fact nVidia has been near the top of the 2D performance charts ever since the original GF1.
Most of the replies seem to be answering for 2D visual quality... the original poster referenced 2D performance which is an entirely different concept.
Their are very few things left that can truly stress the 2D performance of modern graphics cards.... there are some PhotoShop activities that are somewhat limited by 2D performance, and video editing at high resolutions can be 2D performance limited. Besides that, you seldom see 2D performance related bottlenecks unless your driving two monitors via one card, in such situations there are definitely times when 2D performance can become a limiting factor.
2D performance has pretty much stagnated since the GeForce1 was released, as the 2D performance of the classic SDR GeForce1 is almost identical to that of the latest ATi/nVidia cards.
Regarding all the mentions of Matrox, while their 2D visual quality has long been the best in the industry it's been years since they were at the top in 2D performance, or anywhere near it.
One last comment, if 2D performance is a factor for you avoid the nVidia Detonator drivers 27.20 or later as they have some issues that have considerably reduced 2D performance... in most cases 2D performance has to less then half that of the previous Det4's. Alpha blending performance is less then half that of the earlier Det4's, window layering half the speed, 2D blitting, scaling etc etc.
For the vast majority of people this won't be a factor though, as there are very few applications left that are at all stressful on the 2D performance of modern graphics cards, so most likely won't notice any difference at all.
Hopefully these issues will be fixed in a future driver update.
i just bought a visiontek 32mb GTS because it was cheap ($50).
any difference between that and my geforce 1?
x
any difference between that and my geforce 1?
x
Good catch, Rand, and thanks for the enlightenting links, Richleader.
Speaking for myself (a somewhat better-informed consumer than most), I figured that with just about any card released in the last two years 2D PERFORMANCE would be acceptable, and that 2D QUALITY would be the primary 2D concern. I hope that I am not mistaken by assuming that 2D quality is also an indicator in 3D quality... Being that the framerates are fine with me in the GF3 series, too, I chose the Radeon 8500 based on the 2D quality issue. Am I far off the mark?
Speaking for myself (a somewhat better-informed consumer than most), I figured that with just about any card released in the last two years 2D PERFORMANCE would be acceptable, and that 2D QUALITY would be the primary 2D concern. I hope that I am not mistaken by assuming that 2D quality is also an indicator in 3D quality... Being that the framerates are fine with me in the GF3 series, too, I chose the Radeon 8500 based on the 2D quality issue. Am I far off the mark?
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 + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter