Need suggestions, which card is better for 2D???

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
K

KennyH

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2000
5,904
0
0
Well, I am trying to set up a backup computer and have four video cards to choose from to put in it. This computer will not see any gaming whatsoever. I am only concerned with 2D performance. Here are the cards I have:

-- ATi Radeon VE
-- ATi Rage 128
-- Matrox G100
-- 3D Blaster Banshee

So, is it the VE by a long shot? or??? Please LMK what you think :)
 
T

tenoc

Golden Member
Jan 23, 2002
1,270
0
0
Too true, no gaming with those choices!

The VE or the Matrox for non-gaming goodness.
 
B

BoomAM

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2001
4,546
0
0
Originally posted by: shady06
i hear matrox makes good 2d cards
Click to expand...
You`ve heard right.
Matrox make the best 2D capible cards bar none.
Go for the Rage128 though. ATI are second only to Matrox in image quality, which is still very good, Plus the Rage128 has better driver support than the other cards listed.
 
K

KennyH

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2000
5,904
0
0
What I am concerned with is that the Matrox and the VE are "limited" by their 64-bit architecture. Does anyone know if the 2D would be different with a 128-bit card like the Rage 128?

The Matrox that I have is the old "Productiva" G100 version. Seen Here
 
A

artemedes

Senior member
Nov 3, 1999
778
0
0
I've used both the G100 in a couple of machines and lots of variants of Rage128s. Both will do well up to 800X600, but your likely to get more usable color depths and refresh rates with the newer Rage128. My G100 didn't look nearly as good at 1024X768 as it did at lower resolutions.

Then again if you have all of them available you can always try for yourself use whatever one you prefer.
 
yhelothar

yhelothar

Lifer
Dec 11, 2002
18,409
39
91
i'd use the radeon VE(that is if you have no driver issues, the older ati cards tends to have more driver issues)

i dunno much about the G100 though... i have a matrox millenium II, and i don't see anything special about its 2D IQ.. except the fact that it's video SUCKS.. it can't scale anything.. or it'll look really pixelated and it'll drop down to 2fps..
 
B

Brian48

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
3,410
0
0
My first choice would the Matrox. Matrox has always been the leader here. I still have a G400 laying around somewhere.

My second choice would be the Banshee. 3dfx may have had issues with IQ in games, but their Banshee, V3/4/5 line of cards had superb desktop 2D.
 
T

tlemmon

Member
Mar 17, 2001
138
0
0
Definately Matrox. I have used them for 2d for many years. You simply cannot beat them!

ATI is nice, but Matrox will still beat them on clarity at higher resolutions.


Tim
 
M

Matt84

Senior member
May 21, 2003
241
4
81
brians pretty much spot on. 3dfx's Banshee/V3 cards had exceptional 2D quality when compared to other cards of the day. Banshee is fine under 9X or 2000 but doestn' like XP too much. If r using XP then go with the Radeon Ve. The other ATI128 cards were plagued with driver issues and the G100 is just too old
 
K

KennyH

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2000
5,904
0
0
Well, I think I am going to stick with the VE (Radeon 7000) because I am using WinXP and it looks a heck of alot better than the 2MB S3 card I had in my comp. :D The catalyst drivers seem nice to work with so far. :)
 
Mem

Mem

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
21,476
13
81
Definately Matrox. I have used them for 2d for many years. You simply cannot beat them!

ATI is nice, but Matrox will still beat them on clarity at higher resolutions.
Click to expand...

I would have to agree,if 2D image quality is your highest priority and gaming not important then Matrox is king of 2D image quality).

I just wish they got back into the gaming market with a vengence,I hope that becomes reality some day,always nice to have more competition in the gaming market.
:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom