Winfast GeForce3 Ti500 Has BETTER 2D Image Quality Than Matrox?

[AGodspeed]

http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/winfastti500/page2.asp

During our tests with a Matrox G450, G550, ATI Radeon VE, Radeon All-in-Wonder, the WinFast Ti 500 showed better image consistency than any other card. While the Matrox cards were already displayed razor sharp text, the WinFast slightly passed it in terms of resolution scaling. At 1600x1200x85Hz, lines and text on the WinFast Ti 500 exhibited no noticeable ghosting or blur while the G550 showed very faint signs of edge blurriness.

 

[Almighty1]

How long is the warranty on the WinFast and what about GainWard and do they have good support? Thanks.

 

[Cosmo3]

I doubt anyone that thinks the TI500 video cards have better 2D than the Matrox knows what the heck they are talking about. Matrox has not kept up with 3D but their 2D is at a level everyone else would like to be at. If you looked at the same system at a resolution that is useable I am sure the Matrox would come out on top. I used to have a Matrox card and now I have a ATI card which is a good all around card as it has pretty good 3D and just a notch below Matrox on 2D but not by much.

 

[jfunk]

<< the WinFast Ti 500 showed better image CONSISTENCY than any other card >>




consistency does not = quality


j

 

[lsd]

<< consistency does not = quality >>




<< Leadtek will be using high-quality filters for all of its future graphics boards starting with the WinFast GeForce3 TDH. We sure hope that other board manufacturers realize that although games are wonderful to play, most users still spend the majority of their computing time in Windows. >>


High Quality filters=High Quality...

 

[Rand]

<< I doubt anyone that thinks the TI500 video cards have better 2D than the Matrox knows what the heck they are talking about. Matrox has not kept up with 3D but their 2D is at a level everyone else would like to be at. If you looked at the same system at a resolution that is useable I am sure the Matrox would come out on top. >>



Agreed.

I've seen Leadteck's Ti500... the 2D is very good. I can't even honestly say it's the best I've seen from a GF3 though let alone the best period, but it's quite good and totally acceptable for most. From basic use it was decent at 1600x1200, but there was a faint blurriness that was all but unnoticeable. I definitely would in no way say it's at all comparable to Matrox though, the G400/450/550 is clearly superior to LeadTek's Ti500 IMHO. It is IMHO very slightly worse then the ATi Radeon.
The LeadTek Ti500 it totally fine at up to 1280x1024, and is still near perfect at 1600x1200. Gainward's classic GF3 was still slightly better IMHO though.

It takes a hell of a lot to match Matrox though. Even their old mid-98 release of the G200 could match up quite well to the best 2D I've seen from any card from any manufacturer yet.

I've had the dubious honor of having had to work for about 14 hours straight on a system using an ATi Radeon 64MB VIVO, this was on a very nice 19" monitor also, running at 1600x1200. At first it was perfect to my eyes with not the slightest issue... by the end of the work day with my tired eyes everything was seeming blurry and less crisp, I was developing a headache from staring at the monitor non-stop for so long. I even had to increase the font size by almost 6 points to make it more legible to me.
Doing the same thing on a Matrox G400.... and even after all that time and given how tired my eyes were... it was still damn near perfect and I was having no issues with it at all.
The 2D output quality obviously didnt change over that time- but my eyes did become a lot more sensitive to the visual quality.... and as that happened the difference between the Matrox and Radeon was like night and day. And this from an ATi Radeon that is supposedly among the very best in 2D.

Quite good- Yes.
Matrox calibar- Not a chance in hell.

Matrox's reputation for 2D isnt fluff... their 2D really is that good.
The day I see a card that can match Matrox in 2D is the day I see Bitboys Oy release a graphics card..... in other words, it's possible, but pretty damn unlikely.

Believe me, if I ever found a card that could offer Matrox 2D and reasonable 3D at the same time I'd buy it in an instant and wouldnt be much worried about the price.

 

[Raspewtin]

really IMO can't just slap a HQ filter and expect better than matrox 2d on a gf3 at most resolutions. that said, i am not sorry that i am using a gf3, that's for sure

 

[KpocAlypse]

eh, i stopped reading FS reviews after they gave my Be6-2 rev.1 a high score, and the excellent HPT 366 contoller that it provided...

EDIT: but anyway, IQ is usually in the eye of the beholder. Personally i don't think even my pny ti200 is that bad, or at least not as bad as some make it out to be. But yes, it dosen't come close to my g400 max..

 

[Clevor]

For the record, the Leadtek card that Firing Squad reviewed had special RF filters in it. Even the Leadtek support people will admit this. Give them credit for being honest.

That's why the production card that Rand and I saw is nowhere near a G400 MAX. Heck, some Matrox afficiondos feel the G550 is not up to par with the original G400 MAXs made in Ireland either.

I had a Leadtek Ti 500 TD for 2 days and sent it back. It was totally unstable (a matrix of pink dots when trying to run Powerpoint presentations), and numerous GPFs and runtime errors. The drivers would not install from the CD and the Winfox software would not work. I totally agree with Rand above regarding the 2D, not bad at all.

I picked up an Asus 8200-T5 Deluxe card instead, and everything on this card works as advertised. I was pleased to find out the 2D is the same as the Leadtek. Very acceptable indeed. The text ghosting at 1600x1200 has been virtually eliminated. It's definitely better than the Voodoo5 in my PCI slot, and I would say neck-and-neck with the Radeon VIVO. But set Digital Vibrance Control to low, and the color vibrancy and contrast is every bit as good (or exceeds) a G400 MAX! On the Radeon, ATI cheated and bumped up the default brightness or contrast from the factory, so little can be done w/o washing out the screen.

When you consider my Asus will run the QuakeIII Quaver demo at 1280x1024x32, all settings maxed, and get 62 fps with Qunicunx and 64-tap anisotrophy on, or run SOF and NOLF smoothly at 1600x1200x32 (with Quincunx!), or that it will overclock stable to 266/603, I don't care if the 2D is not as good as a Matrox.

And wait till I upgrade from the 800 Thunderbird on a 100 FSB I am stlll running

 

[MrSnowGeek]

I'm trying to figure out what is the best ti500 card out there and so far I think is the Asus 8200 ti500 DX. I like the tv-in option too.
Little pricey but hey it's christmas time. Any opinion welcome, good or bad.

 

[Asghar]

It may have, but the 3D image quality sucks...

 

[AGodspeed]

It may have, but the 3D image quality sucks...

If you had actually used a GeF3 Ti500 you would know.

Chalk up this one for the Ignorant Statements List.

 

[Basie]

I had a Matrox400Max and really loved the 2D. But the 3D for games was crapola and so I got a ATI
Vivo. Which has good 2D also. I was wondering if the G450 retained the same 2D quality as the 400Max.

 

[BFG10K]

It may have, but the 3D image quality sucks...

Let me tell you that it'll absolutely crap all over your Voodoo2 SLI setup. Don't make comments you're not qualified to make.

 

[Rankor]

<< I was wondering if the G450 retained the same 2D quality >>



2D quality has been retained for the G450 and G550.

3D performance has tapered off since (Matrox) started using 64-bit DDRAM.

Great cards if one's working behind a computer for a couple of hours.