NVIDIA versus ATI, 2D image quality.

[Le Québécois]

NVIDIA versus ATI, 2D image quality.
I know lot of people say ATI have a better 2D vs Nvidia, I want to know if there is web site where I can read about it or if there's any kind of test.

 

[paralazarguer]

They do have better image quality. Go to hardocp.com and download his 1hour get together with anand. They do a speech and he's quite vocal about Nvidia image quality.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

The Matrox Parhelia does well under 2D situations, atleast thats what I've heard.

 

[GTaudiophile]

2D visual quality is very subjective, so it's hard to test. In FiringSquad's recent review of the GeForceFX 5800 Ultra, they do compare its 2D quality with that of the ATi.

I think it's important to note, that in this case, FS is using nVidia's own reference card for comparison. 2D could be even worse from other manufacturers.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
2D visual quality is very subjective, so it's hard to test. In FiringSquad's recent review of the GeForceFX 5800 Ultra, they do compare its 2D quality with that of the ATi.

I think it's important to note, that in this case, FS is using nVidia's own reference card for comparison. 2D could be even worse from other manufacturers.

Definitely. My Asus dual DVI-I Geforce4 MX 440 was completely unusable for VGA 2D IMO, and my friend's Ti4200 VGA is quite poor. (Dunno the brand though as it came with his Dell.)

 

[paralazarguer]

It's always much more noticable at very high resolutions.

 

[merlocka]

According to the Techchannel.de article referenced in this thread, the "chipset" of card might not be the greatest indicator of 2d quality.

Summary... Top 10 2d quality

1) matrox G550
2) Hercules Radeon 8500 AIW
3) Hercules 8500LE
4) FireGL 8700
5) Creative Ti4600
6) Gigabyte Radeon 8500
7) Asus GF2 GTS
8) matrox Parhelia 512
9) MSI GF4 Ti4600
10) MSI GF4 Ti4200

A geforce 2 ousts a Parhelia? Who knows. The babelfish translation was hard to read.

As for the firingsquad comments on the GFFX vs ATI, I find it amusing that although they found that both cards have "razor" sharp text, they pich ATI for better 2d quality for having warmer colors. I wonder if they even bothered to equalize gamma levels or calibrate (something that people who really care about 2d quality might do).

 

[First]

It all depends on resolution. If you're like a lot of people who run between 1024x768 and 1280x1024, it really doesn't matter all that much. Once you start reaching 1600x1200 will you start to notice a real difference between GeForce4 and Radeon 9500/9700 2D quality.

Though GTaudiophile is right, sometimes 2D quality can be very subjective.

 

[Blooz1]

I recently upgraded my video card from a Matrox G400 to a Sapphire Radeon 8500LE. The 8500LE is a temporary 3D solution until the new cards coming out from both nVidia and ATi get sorted out...

I find I miss the razor-sharp 2D I had grown accustomed to with the Matrox, although the 8500LE is good at 1024x768. At 800x600 it's very fuzzy!

 

[ProviaFan]

Built-by ATI cards are almost always better than powered-by-nvidia cards in 2D image quality, though Matrox is even better than ATI in that aspect. Powered-by-ATI cards sometimes have 2D quality similar to Built-by-ATI cards, but they can also have sporadic quality, like nvidia cards.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
It all depends on resolution. If you're like a lot of people who run between 1024x768 and 1280x1024, it really doesn't matter all that much. Once you start reaching 1600x1200 will you start to notice a real difference between GeForce4 and Radeon 9500/9700 2D quality.

Though GTaudiophile is right, sometimes 2D quality can be very subjective.

That Asus 9180 video suite card I mentioned I thought was unusable even at 1280x1024x75. I think my friend's Ti4200 is unusable at 1280x1024 too.

My Radeon 9100 is razor sharp at the same resolution.

Kinda moot though, since I have DVI.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
2D visual quality is very subjective, so it's hard to test.

it is not really that visual quality is based on subjective things, it is just that things like the quality of the monitor and the quality of the reviews eye site has a lot to do with the opinions voiced. just like many may say that it is a cold day out today here in kansas but an eskimo would probably disagree, however the temperature is still about 50f.


as for the question, radeons from ati have image quality that only the best geforce based cards i have ever seen can come close to rivaling. however some manufacturers build cards on ati chips that do not have the image quality that the better nvidia based cards do. in between that is a bit of grey area which may or may not matter to you depending on your eye site and your monitor.

 

[Schadenfroh]

All Your Base are belong to Matrox