Will the NV20 have much better 3D image quality than the GeForce2 GTS?

[Noriaki]

3D Image Quality...not speed...obviously the NV20 will be faster I don't care about that. My V3 is still fast enough for me...I'd like a bit more speed in Q3A...

Honestly...TNT2, GeForce256, GeForce2. I really don't see a lot of image quality difference between them...the GFs are a little better..but really not much. The Radeons and even G400s have far better 3D image quality than a GF2....I can get an Asus V7700 GF2 GTS at a really good price at a little local shop...and I'm trying to decide if I should go for it. I had a Radeon for a while and we really didn't get along. So I'm either going GF2 GTS or NV20. My decision hinges on how much better the image quality will be on the NV20 than the GTS...again I don't really care about the speed difference...I'm still happy with the speed of my Voodoo3...

Any idea how pretty the NV20 will be?

Edit: this is specifically 3D image quality BTW. I have heavy vision problems so I run in 800x600x32 for my desktop, so any video card that can manage 85Hz or higher at that res is fine for my 2D. I don't think a GeForce2's 2D quality has an issues at Res that low.

 

[Viperoni]

frankly, all (15) of the Radeon's I've had have amazing visual quality. CS looks totally different on the Radeon compared to a tnt2 ultra, and even Quake3 looks a fair bit better.
The colours aren't as "plain", if you could call it that.

 

[Noriaki]

I wasn't meaning to comment negatively on the Radeon's image quality.

The Radeon's quality was stunning...I found it to be an excellent card for 2D quality, 3D quality and 3D speed. It had more features than I could shake a stick at, and it performed DVD decoding damn near as well as my hollywood plus (with the noteable exception of AC-3 sound output, but you can hardly expect that from a video card ). My problem with the Radeon was Drivers, specifically in the Win2000 category. Great hardware, Poor drivers...nVidia has Good hardware and Great drivers. I like the Radeon's hardware a little better than the GeForce2's, but there is no comparison on the drivers front.

 

[*kjm]

Noriaki

I feel your pain. I had the Radeon64Meg and took it back because of the Win2000 drivers. That was around 1.5months ago so it may be different now. The card had a great picture, 2D and 3D. It makes me wonder how many of these cards ATI could sell if they would get the drivers right. If you look on this board and rage3D?s bbs you will see literally over a hundred posts about their Win2000 drivers not being up to snuff. Anyway I am back to my V3 3000 till this all gets worked out in the next set of cards be it a G800, NV20, or ATI. I don?t care who makes it as long as when I pay $300+ for the card I don?t get that bent over used feeling!

 

[Noriaki]

<< I don?t get that bent over used feeling! >>



Haha exactly. If ATi would get their drivers rights I'd seriously consider them to replace my aging V3-2000. Matrox too though I have no idea when we will see the G800....but when the TNT2 and G400 were the top stuff the G400 was very expensive compared to the TNT2 and V3...if the G800 is a reasonable price I will definately consider it...

But between ATi's driver support (or in this case lack thereof) and not knowing when Matrox's next card will be available I find myself thinking that nVidia will likely replace my V3....I'm definately willing to consider anyone else if they have a good product with good drivers.