Need help deciding on a video card... excellent 2d for 1280x1024 DVI.

[KiLLaZ]

I've got a 17.1" Princeton Graphics LCD that runs at 1280x1024 60Hz w/ a digital signal DVI. So I'm looking for a video card that has excellent 2d quality at that resolution and of course I am only going to use DVI. I've heard that 2d quality on video cards does not differ very much if you are using a DVI output, is this true?

Finally, although 2d quality is the most important - I need something that will run Warcraft III and Counter-Strike decently as well.

Any reccomendations? I was thinking of going with the ATI Radeon 8500LE. Thanks in advance!

 

[Nafets]

Since you are using a DVI connection, you don't have to worry about the 2D quality. The quality should be the same for any DVI video card.

One important thing to consider is, will your prospective video card be able to run the games you play, with decent frame rates, at your LCD's native resolution?

Other than that, it depends on how much you want to spend.

 

[AnAndAustin]

I totally agree Nafets. It also depends upon your current and near-future hw. What CPU are you packing and are there any plans to upgrade? As said budget and req play a big part here. Rad8500 is excellent, esp for the money in US & Canada, GF4TI are wise if you have an Athlon CPU faster than 1.4ghz or P4 faster than 1.6ghz.

 

[KiLLaZ]

I running an Athlon XP 2000+ w/ 512MB DDR PC2100. I was under the impression that nVidia cards had the worse 2d quality...

 

[AnAndAustin]

Well little gets spoken of DVI but from what I gather image quality matters VERY little since most of the diffs in cards comes down to the converting to and fro which usually takes place. As for image quality in general GF4 cards are hugely improved from GF2 and GF3 cards and are now up there with ATI and Matrox, 1280x1024 isn't going to push any of these cards in the image quality dept, and as mentioned DVI negates this anyway!

Technicly it would be a big shame to put anything less than a GF4TI4200-128MB with that setup as GF3, Rad8500 and Rad9000 gain very little once the CPU speed goes above 1.4ghz so your extra power is largely wasted. At XP2000+ speeds you gain a whole lot more from a GF4TI card as opposed to the lesser cards and that's before factoring in that 4200 o/c REALLY well too! Rad8500 128MB is the next best choice IMHO and by no means a poor card only losing out a bit of perf and AA to the GF4TI4200.

What are the prices like near you, and what are your req and budget?

 

[Rand]

Originally posted by: KiLLaZ
I running an Athlon XP 2000+ w/ 512MB DDR PC2100. I was under the impression that nVidia cards had the worse 2d quality...

DVI is a digital signal, and so the analog 2D output quality will not have any impact at all. Any graphics card will be virtually identical regardless of brand if your using LCD + DVI.
The differences between the best output quality and the worst quality will be virtually non-existant regardless of what graphics card you choose.

 

[cmdrdredd]

If you have some money to spare I'd recommend getting one of the 9700Pro cards that are becomming available.