(2D) Matrox G400 Vs ATI 9800pro (sapphire, hercules, powercolour)

[AD]

I have owned a g400max DH 32meg Matrox since 1999, and for the life of me i cannot get over how amazing it looks on my sony.

What i want to know is, is there anyone out there who owns

a) a sony monitor trinitron 17" or higher and
b) a matrox g400 or equivilent and has stepped up to a 9600pro or later ati based videocard.

Can you tell me if it rivals matrox for 2d Quality?. I have not seen any websites that address this problem (reviews). Also here are a few things that none seem to address, which are important to me. Eg.

1) Photoshop 2D performance
2) Windows tearing when you move them to fast on the screen
3) DVD overlay performance (general video performance)
4) General fast responsive screen updates
5) The Brand (ATI based, sapphire, hercules, powercolour etc) of the card denotes how the card performs in a 2D environment

Im sure you have all heard this question asked before but I am in a dilemma as to what kind of quality I am going to get from the 3 or so brands of ATI sold in australia. Fair enough 3D wise they might perform all the same, but 2D wise ive heard that some manufactores of ATI based video cards use higher quality 2D filtering than other brands.

Im looking toward purchasing a ATI 9800pro or anything up in the next couple of months, but i am still pondering on which brand to go for as some prices range between 600 and 850 AUD.

Some brands off the top of my head include ATI (there own branded card), sapphire, hercules, powercolour, gigacube, gigabyte.

-cheers

[Chrono_Wanderer]

I have a GDM-200PS (Professional 17" monitor that costs ~1000 back then) on a Radeon 8500 128MB. (see sig)

I used to run the G550 on it, and then swapped to the Radeon.

At first I wasn't really used to it, dunno why. But after a few hours I am used to it and I think its great.

However, not that its an ATI (BBA) 8500. 9x00 is known to be better in terms of output quality i think.

DVD Ovverlay on both ATI and nVIDIA cards IMO are better than what Matrox can do on the G-series. Photoshop, i dunno much. Screen update? No need to worry about that on any card .

BRAND...

Rule of thumb, if you want good 2D, don't go anywhere other than BBA (Built-by-ATI) or Sapphire. In fact, Sappire makes the PCBs for ATI IIRC so their quality is virtually the same. (which then leads to what sample of card did u get, which analog output quality largely depends on)

Powercolor SUCKS big time in 2D, close to what most nV cards are lol, please don't go there. Hercules, i dunno much about them. Gigabyte Maya series, dunno about them too. Gigacube, never heard of them.

But your safest bet will be ATI/Sapphire, they are known to have the best analog output quality among all PCB makers with an ATI core logic.

Hope this helps

Cheers,

Ron

[Tempest]

I have a 9800SE AIW. My 19" Hyundai tube isn't Trinitron though...

1) Photoshop 2D performance
2) Windows tearing when you move them to fast on the screen
3) DVD overlay performance (general video performance)
4) General fast responsive screen updates

2D is definitely satisfactory. The overall 2D speed is as good or better than the G400. There is some tearing when moving windows though (I don't recall how this was with the G400, because I normally turn "show contents while dragging" off).

Overlay performance is also good. The lack of "real" DVDMax bothers me a little though. From what I've seen, in order to have "Theatre mode" (ATI's equivalent to DVDMax ie. plays overlay content fullscreen) enabled you need to enable "clone mode" TV output - which means that games will run slower unless you go to the Control panel and disable TV output between DVD viewing and gaming.

5) My current AIW is branded Connect3D... I have no complaints about the image quality. From what I've read, Sapphire and Hercules generally have a good image quality, while Powercolor and Club3D are at the other end of the spectrum.

[The PIT]

G400 still has better 2d Quality after all these years. Amazing isn't it.

[dZeus]

I've got a 19" Tron-tube monitor, and I definately saw a difference in quality when I switched from my G400 to a Sapphire 9500 Pro. The Sapphire 9700 Pro that I've got right now is no different. On the Saphires the quality is ok, just not as sharp as on the G400.

Tempest: does clone mode impact performance on the ATI cards? I thought it scaled in hardware to tv-out. Otherwise I see no reason why it only scales to tv-out up to 1024x768 after which it will use panning.

[az]

If you want to use the second output, nothing can touch Matrox.

AZ

[Tempest]

Originally posted by dZeus
Tempest: does clone mode impact performance on the ATI cards? I thought it scaled in hardware to tv-out. Otherwise I see no reason why it only scales to tv-out up to 1024x768 after which it will use panning.

Okay, scratch that one... I just tried it and it seems to work perfectly well. Strange thing is, I tried this earlier and it slowed down noticeably. Might have been another driver version though. I'm glad that this finally works as advertised

Now my only wish would be to have a "Matroxy" mode where ONLY the overlay (if such a thing exists) is output to TV, without cloning the desktop. Guess I'm being petty.

[dbdg]

Don't go near dual head on an ATi card, not sure about the TV mode but just in general as it just doesn't work right.

I have a 9700Pro and G200 in my system, tried the Dual head of the 9700Pro to have a three screen set up and it is just painful, not overly slow or anything but it doesn't feel right. I tried to start UED 3.0 and it just complained about Direct-x. Tried without the G200 in as well and it was still being a tit.

I reckon that my G200 has better image quality then the 9700Pro but the difference is nothing to worry about, unless you have the two side by side, you won't notice after a time. (Tiny bit sharper at high res on my Diamondtron but nothing major)

Whats nice about the Matrox drivers is that they manage saving icon positions etc and window loactions, untick that option in the control panel and icons have a mind of their own, where I suppose apps like ultramon fit in.

Just gotta find a nice *cheap* PCI G400/G450 to replace my G200.

My mate has a 8500 and rather then use the awful dual head on that he has a Millenium 2 in his system.

btw I have a Sapphire (sp) 9700Pro.

[Paddy]

I have a Matrox G400, 9700 Pro, and a Sony G400.

The 2D on the second head was much better with the M. However, I don't notice that much difference with the 9700 Pro.. It has been a while since i saw the M though.

[J1NG]

I have a Matrox Marvel G200 16MB (With all the bells and whisltes ) PCI card and used it to drive Sony's 19" G420 Trinitron monitor. I later changed the card to a Sapphire 9000Pro and then a Sapphire 9600Pro. And all I'll say is I didn't notice any improvement in 2D. At best they only matched it.

J1NG

[AD]

ok thanks!, this information has been really helpful!. If anyone else has anymore opinions on this thread dont hesitate to add your thoughts.

[bsdgeek]

This is not directly related, but I can honestly say that I believe Parhelia was sharper than G400, an retains that sharpness on the 2nd head, and of course the third. I briefly compared my Parhelia to the 9700Pro my friend owns on this rig/monitor, and Parhelia was the winner hands down. TV-out, however, is still unsurpassed on G400.