Why does 2D suck so bad on GeForce Cards?

[HouRman]

I tried it on my Geforce DDR and I didn't notice anything.

 

[Rand]

<< Aaah that was the one I was looking for, sorry it was 7.00a.m when I replied and I was late for work. I still stand by what I said that the geforce 3 is close to the ati card in performance - the geforce 4 can only get better. This is getting rather off topic though as the subject was actually geforce cards which infers the home range and not the professional. >>



Ah well, off topic or not... I said my piece on the 2D issue in my original post anyway.
It simply find it very difficult to believe there are many areas any of the Quadro varients can adequately compare with the FireGL4. Indeed, the Quadro 2 Pro is hard pressed in most instances to come near the FireGL2, and even then it losing the majority of the time. And the FireGL4 is in turn a good 20% faster then the FireGL2 the majority of the time.
And that's not even touching upon the fact that the FireGL is simply a much more versatile card in it's intended market, with better drivers and a much more fully fleshed out feature set.



<< the geforce 4 can only get better >>


Honestly, I'd settle for them to fix the issues that have been plauging the Quadro DCC of GF3 heritage, all to often the Quadro DCC seems to be falling way behind the Quadro 2 Pro. And the two pixel rendering errors when doing smooth blinn shading have become all too common.
With the brute force of the Quadro2 Pro, and the bandwidth measures of the Quadro DCC, one might hope the Quadro varient of the GF4 can finally push nVidia solidly into the mid-range professional cards....so long as the versatility of the GF4 bred Quadro's T&L engine doesnt penialize it's rendering power the way the Quadro DCC has suffered.
It should hit the market before 3DLabs next series of cards also, and ATi's FireGL8800 obviously it's going beyond the lower end of the spectrum, so this is there opening.

 

[Quetzalboat]

Dear Se7en01,

Mingon was right, if you want a card with better (or best?) 2D and 3 D quality, not only playing games but also work on 3D matter.
You could choose NVidia Quadro2 series (ELSA Card - Synergy III, Gloria DCC and Gloria III) or ATI FieGL series. But don't complain about the "skycraper" price they have!!

 

[EJ]

I knew about the 2d fix a long time ago. I didn't want to risk it because my geforce 2 ultra cost a lot. Well I went ahead and did and and now I can use higher resolutions without sticking needles in my eyes to dull the pain.

Still kinda dumb you have to do that though... It's also still a little blurry although I only did 6 of the 9 cause I was afraid to do the other 3. Yeah I'm a square

Like I said I'm going to buy my future geforce 4/5 on its 2d qualtiy not it's 3d.



EJ

 

[Se7en01]

This is for Defref.....Like I said, You won't miss what you never had. If you had ever seen the 2D performance of a V5 you would know what I was talking about. As for being an NVIDIA hater...Bah, Read my original post. I said that I loved my GF3 and it did great in games but the 2D was not good as compared to my V5. And as for cleaning off the smoke from my monitor due to a bong...LOL, how immature that comment is. BTW, I am a 40 year old elementary school teacher and do not use a bong nor do I smoke. If your going to make immature replies to posts maybe you should do it over on www.aol.com/forums/juvenile

I can't believe the people that take a simple request for info and turn it into a major issue.

 

[dummy2001]

Just out of curiosity, can someone be more descriptive about bad vs good 2d? I am still using an S3/Diamond Stealth 540 PCI so I'm not really part of this, but I have always been happy with my 2d quality, at 800x600 or 1024x768. What am I missing?