• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

R

RaynorWolfcastle

Diamond Member
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top