Matrox v. ATI, 2d comparison

[N11]

What is the comparison like at resolutions 1280x1024, 1600x1200, etc. between a matrox 450/550 and the ATI Radeon 32 DDR?

 

[BFG10K]

It's generally accepted that ATi's 2D image quality is practically on par with Matrox's. Some people claim that Matrox is better while others have commented that ATi is better. Either way, you can't go wrong with either.

 

[merlocka]

I did this comparison with a Radeon LE versus a Matrox G400 vs a Gainward Geforce3. I tried all three, switching from one to another. Not the best way to compare (A-B) but it's all I had.

I found the quality of the three to be equal up to 1280x1024 at any refresh rate (Sony G520 monitor). At 1600 and higher, the Matrox was noticably better than both the Gainward and the ATI Radeon LE in text clarity and image ghosting. This was suprising to me, as I didn't believe the Matrox 2D hype, but now I admit that (with respect to the cards I tested) the Matrox was superior.

 

[Rand]

This is a touchy subject, as it will depend considerably upon the monitor in use, and it also depends greatly upon the individual person. Many people are completely unable to see the difference between even a very low quality GeForce cards 2D visual quailtiy and Matrox... while others find the difference very easy to see.

Personally, at 1280x1024 the difference is minimal IMHO... I can see it but it's definitely not enough to be at all bothersome though the Matrox card does seem a bit more crisp.

At 1600x1200 though I can definitely see the difference. ATi is slightly above acceptable at 1600x1200 for me, while Matrox is still crystal clear with perfect quality to my eyes. Resolutions above 1600x1200 are pretty much strictly the domain of Matrox, and a few Appian models, as well as one or two 3dfx cards.
I do not consider ATi at all acceptable at resolutions above 1600x1200.

Again... this is only to my eyesight though. And it's clear that different people see things differently, but it's pretty much widely accepted that Matrox is superior though how much better will vary depending upon whom you ask.

If you don't need allot of 3D performance, or top notch DVD/TV capabilities then I'd definitely go with Matrox.
Their cards are truly pleasing on the eye.... Matrox truly does deserve every inch of the hype they get for their 2D.

 

[N11]

Rand,

This is for an NEC FE950+BK. I am the type that is very picky about desktop and any other 2d display. I don't game or get into any of the dvd/tv things and have pretty bad eyesight as it is.

I'm pleased with what I see with the ATI card at 1280x1024, however, I am disappointed at 1600x1200. What I am unsure of is if 1600x1200 is a realistic resolution for me to work at with this monitor even if the display was crystal clear. It is difficult to know this without the ability to compare/contrast.

Thanks for the info.

 

[BD231]

The Matrox card overall just add's more brightness to colors. This in turn makes for a sharper and more vibrant picture. If you use the same monitor on and ATI card and a Matrox card, you can tell the difference. I feel that the first Radeon line was the only card that offerd the same 2D quality as matrox, the 2D image got worse one the 8500 IMO.

 

[Booster]

The Radeon's 2D quality is better than that of a regular Geforce, but it can't compete with Matrox. Matrox cards, like the G550, for example, have unparalled 2D image quality and color purity. I could compare diferent card in first person and found that the G550, though has lackluster 3D speed, is the 2D king among existing cards. I'm sure that Parhelia will compensate for existing Matrox 3D performance deficiences, and you will be able to get a complete, the best video solution ever (at least for me, IMO).

 

[Rand]

<< The Matrox card overall just add's more brightness to colors. This in turn makes for a sharper and more vibrant picture. >>



I disagree, if it was purely a matter of brightness then one would easily be able to adjust the gamma settings for the Radeon and create identical image quality to Matrox. Such clearly is not the case.



<<
This is for an NEC FE950+BK. I am the type that is very picky about desktop and any other 2d display. I don't game or get into any of the dvd/tv things and have pretty bad eyesight as it is.

I'm pleased with what I see with the ATI card at 1280x1024, however, I am disappointed at 1600x1200. What I am unsure of is if 1600x1200 is a realistic resolution for me to work at with this monitor even if the display was crystal clear. It is difficult to know this without the ability to compare/contrast.
>>



If you have poor eyesight as it is and your picky about the 2D quality, then I'd say go for the best you can afford... and that seems to be Matrox. No use aggravatin your eyes unnecessarily if the advantages of the Radeon are not applicable to you.

I havent personally used the FE950+BK, but judging by the specs listed by NEC is seems as though it should be reasonably capable at 1600x1200.

I think you'll find the G450/G550 easier on the eyes for any prolonged usage of the PC at 1600x1200.

 

[HGC]

I watched two monitors at 1600x1200 on G400s since the month that card came out. A few weeks ago I bought the 8500, and to my surprise I actually like the 2D better. Small text is sharper on my Viewsonic PF815 22". This is very subjective, but the 8500 does seem a bit "thinner" and/or "hotter". The Matrox had a kind of rock solid quality. However the 8500 is more clear and sharp to me.

Had I known of the Parhelia I would have waited, though

 

[AmdInside]

I recently did a test with a Matrox G450 and Radeon 8500 and the Matrox looked soooo much better at higher resolutions. I was using a hardly used Viewsonic P815 monitor for testing.

 

[HGC]

grrrrrrrr now I will have to buy parhelia... want to buy my 8500?