A note on the 2D performance of various cards

[Livius]

Hi! Many people have been complaining in this forum about the poor 2D image quality of various cards. Mostly those powered by nVidia chipsets. I know you don't like nVidia but I think you should be fair to them. It's not the quality of their chipsets that stinks, it's mostly the fault of the manufacturers. I have had tens of nVidia cards on my hands and, indeed, on most of them image degraded visibly above 1024x768. At 1280x1024 (which is the highest res. acceptable on my sony monitor) most were displaying annoyingly poor images. Yet I've had some excellent nVidia cards as well. By the far the best were those manufactured by Gigabyte (a TNT2 660Plus and a GeForce2 MX). They are excellent even at 1600x1200 (so far as I can tell). Creative cards were acceptable (I've tried a GF DDR and an Ultra), while the two Leadtek cards I've seen were less adequate (GF256) and above-average (GF2 MX).

[Maggi]

W know that it's not based in the chips ...

http://www.geocities.com/porotuner/imagequality.html

It's the analog back end.

[dZeus]

yes it is... those modifications just take away the filters that are needed for FCC compliant VGA output.

[Nuno]

So... I assume Matrox cards aren´t FCC compliant?

[dZeus]

yes they are. They produce cleaner output at the lower electronic emission values, giving better image quality