The real poop: 2D quality comparison between the G400 and the GTS.

[Thorn]

Ok, I've been the proud owner of several G400s (3 total), and I'm still a big fan of their's when it comes 2D quality... (You know there's a BUT coming don't you?) But, I've now experienced, first hand, the differences between the G400 and the GF2 GTS. This opportunity came when I replaced the 32MB G400 in my wife's PC with a Herc GTS 64MB.

First of all, I want to say that I tested the differences very carefully and at every resolution my monitors would support.

Secondly, I tested the cards on 2 different monitors: a 19" Optiquest V95 (Rev. 2) and a 19" Viewsonic PF790. The V95 (standard tube) representing midrange quality and the PF790 (Trinitron) representing the higher range.

The rating scale I'll be using runs from 1-10, and I didn't bother testing below 1024x768... who the hell buys a 19" monitor to run it at 800x600? I used the newset drivers for each card and ran them at their default settings (I used the latest official release reference drivers for the GTS). Default font sizes were used in all tests.

1024x768x16bit (V95)

G400: 10
GTS: 9.5

No outstanding differences. Slightly (very slightly) better color on the G400. Both are outstanding. Text is razor sharp on both.

1024x768x16bit (PF790)

G400: 10
GTS: 9.5

Very similar results, but the color saturation on the G400 was a bit better. Though the GTS still looked very nice. Text is razor sharp on both.

1024x768x32bit (V95)

G400: 9.5
GTS: 9

Both are still very attractive, with a nod going to the G400 due to slightly better color saturation. Text is razor sharp on both.

1024x768x32bit (PF790)

G400: 10
GTS: 9

Ok, a bit of difference here. The Trinitron tube starts to show the first true signs of seperation between the two cards (though it's still not hugely obvious), more vibrant color on the G400, if only by a small margin. Text is razor sharp on both.

1280x1024x16bit (V95)

G400: 9.5
GTS: 9

Still very nice picture from both cards, no hardcore differences between the two. Slightly better color on the G400. Text is razor sharp on both.

1280x1024x16bit (PF790)

G400: 9.5
GTS: 8.5

Ok, the GTS is starting to slip a small bit. Color is slightly better on the G400. Text on the G400 is very sharp. The GTS shows a very small amount of fuzzyness on text but you can only really tell when you stare at it from 12" or closer, still very useable. Only the very smallest fonts would cause any problems. Note: Some Trinitron tubes are known for slightly fuzzy text at higher res. This could be the case here to an extent.

1280x1024x32bit (V95)

G400: 9
GTS: 8.5

Same thing here, color is just a bit better on the G400. Text is very sharp on both.

1280x1024x32bit (PF790)

G400: 9.5
GTS: 8.5

Color is slightly better on the G400. Text on the G400 is very sharp. The GTS shows a very small amount of fuzzyness on text but you can only tell when you stare at it from 12" or closer, still quite useable. Note: Some Trinitron tubes are known for slightly fuzzy text at higher res. This could be the case here to an extent.

1600x1280x16bit (V95)

G400: 9
GTS: 7.5

Color is a little better on the G400, but the real story is in the text quality. There's a definite difference in text sharpness, not that the GTS is awful... but it is a bit fuzzy at a glance. This would really bug me if I had to look at it all day. NOTE: the 75Hz refresh limitation on this monitor makes this res unuseable by me, I'm VERY picky on that kind of stuff.

1600x1280x16bit (PF790)

G400: 8.5
GTS: 6

Ack! :Q Color is a bit better on the G400, but the text on the GTS is... ummm... quite fuzzy. Looking at it for more than a few minutes made my eyes hurt (but like I said, I'm very picky). My wife said it was "fuzzy, but not that bad". *shrug*

1600x1280x32bit (V95)

G400: 9
GTS: 7.5

Color is a bit better on the G400. There's a definite difference in text sharpness. The G400 is quite sharp while the GTS is a bit fuzzy at a glance. The GTS at this Res/Color depth would annoy me if I had to look at it all day.

1600x1280x32bit (PF790)

G400: 8.5
GTS: 5.5

Color is noticeably better on the G400, though the GTS is still not bad. Text is the story here. The G400 is still quite sharp and useable. The GTS is just not up to par here, looking at it for more than a minute hurt my eyes. My wife said, "that doesn't look right".

So, to sum it up...

The GTS and G400 are very comparable in 2D on standard tubes up to 1280x1024x32bit. Note: you monitor can affect high res quite a bit, and is still the main deciding factor in picture quality. On Trinitron tubes, 1280x1024x32bit is the limit on my Herc GTS. Beyond that and it's just too fuzzy for me to handle on a daily basis. 1600x1280 at any color depth for me, is right out when it comes to the GTS (on either a standard or Trinitron tube), while the G400 is just pretty all the way around. On the plus side, most people with 19" monitors keep their res at 1280x1024 or less, and for that, the GTS is quite nice.

Well, there ya go, and as usual... it's all IMHO.

 

[Electric Amish]

I agree TOTALLY!!

I have a Geforce256 here at work on a Viewsonic E773 17" monitor. Even running at 1024x768x32bit the Geforce is fuzzy.

When I go home to my G400 on my 19" KDS-VS195e monitor running 1280x1024x32bit I can tell loads of difference. Text and window edges are MUCH more defined on my G400.

amish

 

[xtreme2k]

great review Thorn

this is exactly what I speculate and expect

 

[Czar]

HAHA, nothing can beat Matrox in 2d

 

[Czar]

HAHA, nothing can beat Matrox in 2d

 

[Thorn]

Electric Amish, from what I can tell the GTS is quite a bit sharper on text and images than the GeForce 256... this probably comes from the fact that the RAMDAC on the GTS, although in the same die package, is seperate from the GPU (that and the GTS' RAMDAC running at 350MHz). This allows for cleaner signals and less cross-talk.

All in all, the GTS did fairly well and is a nice card for 2D in most resolutions. Definitely a step up for Nvidia.

Czar, yeah... noone has caught up to Matrox when it comes to 2D. Even the Radeon isn't that good (but it is a bit closer than the GTS).

 

[Dufusyte]

You should throw a 3dfx card into the comparison, since their 2D is supposed to be very good. People have remarked how pretty the 2D is on my V3. At work I also have ATI cards, a GeForce2 MX, and some other things, but they are on different monitors, so it is hard to do a direct comparison. I do like my V3 2D at home though, very much.

 

[Thorn]

I would, but I don't own a 3dfx card.

This was just a good oppertunity to compare the G400 to the GTS since I was changing out cards in my wife's PC.

 

[ElFenix]

good review. you don't have a trinitron tube though. its a flat square tube.

i'm sitting about 4 feet away from 19" sony at 1600x1200x32x75Hz. gotten used to reading the text with a geforce sdr. probably be able to sit across the room once i get a rampage or g800.

 

[Mark R]

Nice work. Those scores demonstrate elegantly what many people have said before: the 2d quality on the GeForce GTS is dissapointing.

If any one is interested in repeating this test with different equipment, then I'd recommend the following changes to the method.

Don't bother testing different colour depths - there's no good technical reason why they should alter picture quality, nor is any difference in quality demonstrated by these results (allowing a +/- 0.5 point margin for experimental error).

Testing different refresh rates, while keeping the resolution constant would have been a much better test - in particular this avoids the problem of the individual pixels shrinking and the monitor running out of resolution.

 

[Thorn]

The PF790 does have a Trinitron tube, check here. Well, if you want to be picky... It's not a "Trinitron", but it is an aperture grille (slot mask) display and is based on the same technology.

Very nice monitor, especially for $290 (display model from a local store).

 

[Looney]

Well, i can tell you GeForce is the worst of the bunch when it comes to 2D.. that's why i replaced my GF2.

G400 and my Radeon are pretty much tied (i ONLY work in 1600x1200).

My Voodoo5 is a bit lower than both, but better than the GeForce. My Radeon (64DDR VIVO) is in my main machine, but i don't do much gaming with it. Mainly DVD and text stuff.

My Voodoo5 is my main gaming machine. The 3D isn't as sharp and bright as my Radeon, but FSAA just can't be beat (and i can't enable FSAA on my Radeon because it's not supported in Win2k).

 

[Thorn]

<< Nice work. Those scores demonstrate elegantly what many people have said before: the 2d quality on the GeForce GTS is dissapointing. >>


Uh, that's not exactly what I said. I found that unless you're running your display at 1600x1280 or higher then there's actually not much difference in picture quality between the G400 and the GTS. The Hercules GTS 64 did a much better job than I'd anticipated, it seems to be a very well designed card. One difference that may be noted is that the Hercules GTS 64 has it's video out on a daughter card and not integrated on the board itself. That may account for some picture quality improvement over some other GTS cards. Well, that and the use of 1% resistors and 5% caps all over the card (as opposed to 5% resistors and 10% caps that most card makers use (Elsa does this too).


<< Testing different refresh rates, while keeping the resolution constant would have been a much better test - in particular this avoids the problem of the individual pixels shrinking and the monitor running out of resolution. >>


I thought about that after the test (hind-sight being 20/20 and all that). Oh well, I'm not gonna digging in it now... my wife was already ticked off that I took over her PC for a whole night.

 

[hans007]

my friend has a radeon 64mb vivo on a acer 95e monitor, 19&quot; . at 1600x1200@75hz you get a little fuzzy, so he has to back down to 70hz and its sharp. Voodoo4/5 on my kds-vs19sn is sharp up to 75hz, you really can tell that there is a difference. These are both pretty cheap monitors which would fall into that midrange category. We've both had g400s but needed some decent 3d, but i didnt have this monitor back then so i cant really remember. But i do remember that when i had a g400 1280x1024 was actually useable on my 19&quot; , which wasnt the case with the riva128 it replaced at even 1152x864.

 

[NOX]

Very nice Thorn.

Though at 800x600 I can hardly tell the difference between my GTS and Matrox G450. Though as I up the resolution (as your review suggest) you can start to tell the G400/450 stands out with a much sharper picture. Both monitors are Sony G400?s.

(I would have had a G400MAX, but my damn GTS crapped out)

 

[Noriaki]

Doesn't Viewsonic use DiamondTron tubes?

Hmm n/m missed your link lol

 

[Lore]

I noticed the same things about the GeForce 2 GTS way back when I first received the Hercules card - that any resolution above 1280x1024 would yield poor 2D quality when compared to the Matrox G400 Max.

I had both products and the GeForce 2 GTS really disappointed; at 1600x1200@85hz it couldn't even drive a stable image (the lower left corner would keep shaking)

 

[Eug]

Nice review. I wonder how they differ between brands of GTS cards.

I'm guessing you mean 1600x1200, not 1600x1280? Most machines don't have a 1600x1280 mode.

Just a side note: I'm not sure why 1280x1024 is such a popular resolution, especially when so many who run that size (at least here on AT) seem to be so picky about image quality. Its 5:4 aspect ratio is essentially the &quot;wrong&quot; ratio for monitors, so that any standard picture displayed on screen will be distorted. (ie. people are short and fat).

The proper screen resolution is 1280x960, which gives a 4:3 aspect ratio (just like 640x480, 1024x768, 1600x1200, etc.). (I run 1280x960 by the way, although I would run 1600x1200, if only alternate font sizes were better supported at that resolution in the Windoze OS. It's with a Voodoo 3 2000, and the quality does drop a hair at 1600x1200x32@75 though.)

 

[Thorn]

Ack! yeah, my bad. I meant 1600x1200. :Q


<< The proper screen resolution is 1280x960, which gives a 4:3 aspect ratio (just like 640x480, 1024x768, 1600x1200, etc.). (I run 1280x960 by the way, although I would run 1600x1200, if only alternate font sizes were better supported at that resolution in the Windoze OS. It's with a Voodoo 3 2000, and the quality does drop a hair at 1600x1200x32@75 though.) >>


Good point Eug, I'd never really thought about that. I'll check out 1280x960 and see if it makes any difference.

I'd run 1600x1200 on my system (I still use a G400MAX on it), but a 19&quot; monitor is just too small for me to be comfortable with that res. Of course, I am going to DualHead 21&quot;ers in a couple weeks...

 

[RoboTECH]

looks like a pretty good roundup there thorn.

you may not have realized it, but you *did* support the idea that the GTs's 2d quality is pretty poor. Something which made me dump it for the 5500.

 

[extra]

yeah i'm running on a viewsonic PS790, i used to have a G400, now i've got a voodoo5...it's very hard to tell a difference but i will swear to the god in heaven that the G400's colors were more defined and the image was crisper....however the V5 is by no means bad...i don't even wanan know what the geforce's 2d is like

 

[Thorn]

<< you may not have realized it, but you *did* support the idea that the GTs's 2d quality is pretty poor. Something which made me dump it for the 5500 >>


It's not &quot;poor&quot;, it's just not great at 1600x1200. Well, actually, it IS poor at 1600x1200. But at 1280x1024x32 it's pretty nice, and that's the res my wife runs on that system so there's no complaints here. At least now she can frag (get fragged) in Q3A at higher res and I don't have to listen to her whine anymore... &quot;800x600 sucks! I want 32bit color! You're killing me because my video card's too slow!&quot; :disgust:

 

[GT1999]

I agree completely with your review. 100%. nVidia's boards have problems with what is known as RFI filtering. Lucky me, my TNT2U (Creative) has excellent 2D, and the 3D is fine considering its age. Here's something that you might find interesting:



<< Many (or all?) nVIDIA GeForce and TNT -based cards have the above circuit onboard. It is a low pass filter and it's purpose is to reduce RFI emissions. In many cases it's manufactured with low quality components and / or designed badly. If 'misdesigned' it basically stops most of the high frequency information necessary to produce, for example, sharp text at high resolutions and refresh rates.

To produce decently sharp image at 1600x1200@75Hz you need at least 150MHz of videobandwidth. That is half of the pixelclock frequency, called also as RAMDAC speed. However, on some videocards the RF filter on the VGA outputs (diagram above) is designed so that it restricts the videobandwidth to even as low as 60...70MHz. This is unacceptable because these videocards, in case of GeForce2 GTS / MX, are advertised to have 350MHz RAMDACs and capable of resolutions of 2048x1536 at refresh rate of 75Hz. >>



GeForce/TNT Image Quality Problems Due to RFI Filtering

 

[zippy]

I agree with Thorn's review. Although, you may have been a bit too forgiving with some of the GTS scores, but only by a touch. It's all in the eyes really, I need clean, crisp text, I haven't found an nVidia video card that can offer me that. Matrox and ATI (radeon only) can provide me with the level of 2D that I require.

 

[Radboy]

Thx for taking the time to run the comparison &amp; post. You chose the GTS with the *best* 2D (from what I've heard). Heard that other cards (like the CL, for example) are (much?) worse. Never seen a GTS in action, but was looking to buy, so I researched the subject. Have heard a lot worse comments .. words like 'horrible' used to describe the GTS's 2D. Went w/ the Radeon (DDR 32MB) .. since I spend majotity of my time in 2D. Also have a G400 (32MB, wife's).