2D IQ: 8500 vs. 9700pro, which better?

[chaoliang]

According to the TecChanel test (http://www.tecchannel.de/tecdaten/sh...sortorder=desc), 8500 has better signal quality than 9700Pro and just below the best card, G550. Some in the forum report that 8500 has quite poor 2D quality and 9700pro should be better. What's your opinions, pls?

BTW, the TecChanel test looks quite serious but I haven't found many discussions here. Why?

[Electric Amish]

Haven't seen an 8500, but my 9700 Pro is very clear.

amish

[Wombat]

Conventional wisdom around here is that the 9700 looks better, and that the 8500 was a degradation compared to the 7500.

Aren't Tecchannel the same guys who decided that Parhelia looks worse than a the Matrox cards that came before it? I'm pretty sure they are. I also think they're wrong on that count. Personally, I had a G450 in my system just to compare it to when I installed my P, and the P looks better.

[GNEP]

I also went from G450 to P, and there was virtually no difference at 1600x1200. Both were very sharp. If I was going to come down on one side or the other, I'd say that the G450 had every so slightly better IQ. But the P offers so much more...

[Cobos]

And the problem with saying the 8500 is better/worse than the 9700 Pro is pretty silly in my book as the exact layout of the filters and the boards vary depending on who made it. It's the same with comparing Daytona GF4200 with a Leadtek one, same chip but huge difference in IQ (or at least so does everyone that has tried them say)

Cobos

[chaoliang]

Originally posted by Wombat
Conventional wisdom around here is that the 9700 looks better, and that the 8500 was a degradation compared to the 7500.

Aren't Tecchannel the same guys who decided that Parhelia looks worse than a the Matrox cards that came before it? I'm pretty sure they are. I also think they're wrong on that count. Personally, I had a G450 in my system just to compare it to when I installed my P, and the P looks better.

Well, I think they did the tests and had the figures. I also hope that Parhelia could do better. But there must be ways to prove it. Figures are more convincible than belief. If you say that what they have done didn't tell the true story, I would love to hear why you say so and what have they done wrong.

[Wombat]

I don't dispute their data, just the way they interpreted it. Parhelia's rise/fall times are pretty symmetrical, while the G450 has a faster, but less even, swing.

Pass those signals through a noisy RLC model at high speed, then decide which will be interpreted better by the monitor. It's analog, so there's a bit of the subjective in there. Also, I'm a digital expert by trade, and just let some of the analog stuff be black magic for now.

Text and other sharp do appear to be better defined with my P, though.

[chaoliang]

Thanks for the explaination!

[Indiana]

The ATI-News.de page did test the 2D signal of various 8500 and 9700 cards as well as the R7500 (=old Radeon). They also did measurements, not only subjective ratings.
And there the 8500 boards most were bad with the Hercules being about the best, the R9700Pro was much better and about the same as the original Radeon/Radeon7500.

Which is much more in line with my observations: The R8500 BBA had noticeably worse signal than my old RadeonDDR VIVO, my R9700 BBA is much better again, i'd even give it a slight lead compared to the RadeonDDR at 1600x1200@85Hz.

[chaoliang]

Where can i get a 9700pro in Germany?

[chaoliang]

Originally posted by Indiana
The ATI-News.de page did test the 2D signal of various 8500 and 9700 cards as well as the R7500 (=old Radeon). They also did measurements, not only subjective ratings.
And there the 8500 boards most were bad with the Hercules being about the best, the R9700Pro was much better and about the same as the original Radeon/Radeon7500.

Which is much more in line with my observations: The R8500 BBA had noticeably worse signal than my old RadeonDDR VIVO, my R9700 BBA is much better again, i'd even give it a slight lead compared to the RadeonDDR at 1600x1200@85Hz.

Could you pls give me the link of the test, Indiana?

[Novdid]

What I have seen goes right in line with what Wombat and Indiana have posted. I have a 9700Pro and a 7500, both BBA, and both produce a sharper image than the 8500 and just about every nvidia based board out there.

[Indiana]

Originally posted by chaoliang
Could you pls give me the link of the test, Indiana?

I just did a search and came up with these links:

R7500:
R7500 test

Als Referenz diente, wie schon bei den anderen Tests, die ATI Radeon 7500, welche über ein sehr sauberes Signal verfügt.

R8500
R8500 test

Im Allgemeinem ist das Radeon 8500 Signal etwas schlechter, als das der Radeon 7500.

R9700
Hercules R9700 test

Beim Test des RV250 stellte sich heraus, dass es keine Verbesserung zum R200 gegeben hat.
Nur die Hercules 3D Prophet 8500 128 MB stellt eine Ausnahme dar und bietet die beste 2D Qualität aller von uns getesteten Radeon 8500 Grafikkarten. Teilweise war die Qualität bei einigen Herstellern sehr schlecht, mit den neuen Chips gibt ATI den Herstellern mehr Vorgaben, um die Qualität zu steigern.

ATI findet zu alten Tugenden zurück und bietet mit dem R300 eine deutlich bessere Bildqualität, als die des R200 .

R9700 BBA test

Die BBA Radeon 9700 Pro liefert das beste Signal unter den von uns getesteten Radeon 9700 Pro Referenz-Boards.

[Chrono_Wanderer]

one weird thing i found: as an user of G550 and 8500, i think the 8500 do better in 2D than G550 at 1600x1200 for some reason. (the G550 has some ghosting on it)

[Indiana]

You must've been lucky with your R8500. I found the 1600x1200 to be too blurry to be actually usable with my R8500, so I used the 1280x1024 instead.
With the R9700, the 16x12 is usable again, not really as razor-sharp as I would wish, but good enough.

Or maybe you got a "bad" G550?