Radeon 32 MB DDR (classic) or GeForce2 GTS-V?

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Which is better for 1600x1200x32, gaming is NOT a priority. My primary concern is about 2D quality: any word on the GTS-V's 2D quality?

-Ice

 

[Sunner]

Some GTS's have 2D quality that are comparable to the Radeon's, but frankly, if 3D ain't important, why not go with a Matrox G550?

Matrox have allways been the best non 3D cards for me, solid drivers, and extremely good image quality, I'd love to have one in every box I own, if they didn't suck so bad at 3D.

 

[tapir]

If you're not interested in a Matrox, I'd recommend the ATI as their 2d quality is great and sufficient for pretty much anything. But like Sunner said, Matrox rules for 2D and I think they have a few cards in that price range.

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

upon rereading of my first post, I realized it came out wrong. I still need some 3D capabilities as I enjoy the occasional FPS, however 2D is more important. I want to be able to see clearly on my brand-spanking-new FD Trinitron at 1600x1200.

-Ice

 

[eplebnista]

IMO, I'd recommend the Radeon 32MB DDR(make sure it's not the VE though), as it has the better 2D quality as mentioned above.

My $.02,
eplebnista

 

[Rand]

ATi.
Gaming performance should be pretty much even between the GTS-V and the regular Radeon 32MB DDR. And the Radeon has a slightly better feature set, along with better 2D.