Should I pick up a Matrox G400 or ATI 7000 to replace my TNT2U?

[Antoneo]

I'm thinking of upgrading my video card on my older computer just to see if the 2D can be improved .

I currently have a Creative TNT2Ultra connected to a NEC E750 and I think the image (the text at least) could be improved at 1024x768@100Hz. My friend is offering me his 32MB G400 MAXX for about $30 and I have found a retail built by ATI 32MB Radeon 7000 to be around $50. I don't do much gaming and read a lot on it. I have a ASUS P3B-F motherboard and I'm not quite sure if it takes 1.5V (I think the ATI is that) cards in the 3.3V slot. I am also aiming for a quiet comp.

Also, are the DACs on "Powered by ATI" boards such as Powercolor any good?

Should I stick with the TNT2U, get the G400 or ATI 7000?

 

[PCHPlayer]

If you game at all I would go for a built-by ATI. You could probably do better than $50 if you look around (Radeon 7000 32 MB DDR for $35 on pricewatch.com). If you don't care about gaming then go for the Matrox, you will not be disappointed with the 2D you get from a Matrox card.
Since 2D is your major concern I think the upgrade is worth it.

 

[Blooz1]

The 2D on the G400 is razor sharp. If you read a lot on that system, that's the one for you!

 

[Peter]

You shouldn't run 100 Hz anyway. Research has shown that eye strain and reading speed get worse at 90 Hz and above, for a yet undetermined reason, but it's true.

 

[Looney]

If you don't game, definitely get the G400... you'll be AMAZED at the 2D. The TNT2 cards use to have the worst 2D back in those days, and G400 had the best. So definitely get the G400 if you don't game. If you do game, i would suggest at least an ATI Radeon 8500LE... they're so dirt cheap now.

 

[spanky]

i got my radeon 7000 for $25 shipped on fs/ft

 

[selfbuilt]

Go for the G400 ... it's a great card, and the text will look superb. But don't expect gaming to be any better than your old TNT.

 

[Keysplayr]

Matrox all the way for 2D image quality. No doubt.

 

[AmdInside]

Matrox. They have much better 2D than ATI or your TNT2U.

 

[BuckNaked]

G400 gets my vote

 

[FearoftheNight]

how much better? like instant difference?

 

[Brian48]

I think either card is much superior in terms of image quality over your existing TNT2, however I doubt you'd see that much of a difference in my opinion. Your monitor is not exactly all that great in this area. I had a similiar NEC model and the image quality was mediorce at best regardless of what video card I used (including my G400).

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Brian48
I think either card is much superior in terms of image quality over your existing TNT2, however I doubt you'd see that much of a difference in my opinion. Your monitor is not exactly all that great in this area. I had a similiar NEC model and the image quality was mediorce at best regardless of what video card I used (including my G400).

Ah, i forgot to take into account the monitor... and i had a very similar NEC monitor as yours, and it was complete crap.

 

[Antoneo]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

Originally posted by: Brian48
I think either card is much superior in terms of image quality over your existing TNT2, however I doubt you'd see that much of a difference in my opinion. Your monitor is not exactly all that great in this area. I had a similiar NEC model and the image quality was mediorce at best regardless of what video card I used (including my G400).

Ah, i forgot to take into account the monitor... and i had a very similar NEC monitor as yours, and it was complete crap.

Well there were many similar models to my monitor, I found mine to be rather very good. It's a ChromaClear monitor and has characteristics (in some aspects) of both AG and dot pitch (slot mask). The tube has gotten slightly but noticebly dimmer (aging process kicking in) and LCDs look attractive nowadays but would like to give it one more try.

 

[ultimatebob]

I've found that the Radeon 7000 isn't any faster in 3D than a TNT2 Ultra, and the 2D image quality isn't much better. I would recommend the G400.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Antoneo

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

Originally posted by: Brian48
I think either card is much superior in terms of image quality over your existing TNT2, however I doubt you'd see that much of a difference in my opinion. Your monitor is not exactly all that great in this area. I had a similiar NEC model and the image quality was mediorce at best regardless of what video card I used (including my G400).

Ah, i forgot to take into account the monitor... and i had a very similar NEC monitor as yours, and it was complete crap.

Well there were many similar models to my monitor, I found mine to be rather very good. It's a ChromaClear monitor and has characteristics (in some aspects) of both AG and dot pitch (slot mask). The tube has gotten slightly but noticebly dimmer (aging process kicking in) and LCDs look attractive nowadays but would like to give it one more try.

I'm not sure about the G400 in question, but AFAIK most Radeon 7000s (and certain G400 cards) have both analog and DVI outputs. This is something to consider if you're planning to upgrade to an LCD later on.

 

[Soumaxeridis]

No question about it, Matrox is the king of 2D quality. Go for it!

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: Peter
You shouldn't run 100 Hz anyway. Research has shown that eye strain and reading speed get worse at 90 Hz and above, for a yet undetermined reason, but it's true.

link?

 

[queenzbwai]

yeah Ant man, the 2-dimensional graphics quality of the G400 will do you good. Sharper than the blades on a Mach 3. Man, those things leave my face smoother than a baby's butt for a good two days...you should give it a shot...

 

[Schadenfroh]

vote Matrox

 

[Antoneo]

Deed is done, I bought a Matrox G400 . Should be coming in a week or so.

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by: EdipisReks

Originally posted by: Peter
You shouldn't run 100 Hz anyway. Research has shown that eye strain and reading speed get worse at 90 Hz and above, for a yet undetermined reason, but it's true.

link?

That was a study (with a significantly large test group) conveyed some thirteen years ago, when the Web wasn't around yet, just when ergonomic monitors became big and companies like Sigma started to bring out 100 and 120 Hz capable monitors. They measured the amount of eye movement, working speed of the persons, and asked for subjective results in eye strain.

You can try for yourself. Change between 85 and 100 Hz, and you'll find that you're more relaxed and faster (in terms of eye movement and strain) at 85.