Geforce 3 Image quality

[cbman]

I like the whole my GFx is faster and better bit.

I was looking at an old review at anandtech on videocards.

Competition at the time was

Matrox G400
Voodoo 3
Nvidia TNT2
Savage 4
ATI Rage 128Pro

If you look at things in context Nvidia has gone through alot of revisions of their graphics chips (TNT2 Ultra, Geforce SDR, DDR, Geforce 2 GTS, PRO, Ultra, Geforce 2 MX, MX 200, MX 400, and Geforce 3) (Three being Major Architecture changes)

I read threads like this and get the feeling that people are trying to compare a 2001 Porsche to a 67 Firebird.

Sure the porsche has EFI, GPS, ABS, Anti-Theft, Turbo

But the 67 Firebird still has better lines.



Ok... I am a bit biased to the Firebird

But to make my point a little better.

You can't really win. There are always people who will like the firebird better than the porsche, just as there will always be people who like the porsche better than the firebird.

My little brother has a TNT2 on a Cele 600. I have yet to find a game that does not run at an acceptable framerate... (Not talking framecounter here... I am talking perception of motion)

Oh and as for 2D... I have seen good (mystique G200), I have seen bad (ati rage pro that barely ran white text on a black background legibly at 800*600)... and it all comes down to preference... My friend thought the ATI was the bee's knee's until I sold him my Matrox... I don't think he ever left 1024*768 again

The industry improves vastly at a great rate. I think the question that should be asked is - Why is it that people can still compare the G400 to a card 3 Architecture Generations ahead of it and still be able to say that the G400 is better (albiet with a larger percentile saying they can't really tell the difference)

2D is taken for granted at the moment.

So were tires... until the ford firestone fiasco... now more people are aware of the tires on their vehicle (Instead of just being able to say yeah... I got 4). Some people still don't care what tires they have, or even if they match... others do.

What if Text Shadowning at High Resolutions were to be found to impair your vision slightly over time due to undue strain.


I guess my lame point of this wandering post is...

If you care... you care... if you don't... you don't... if you care and someone don't... don't care about it... and if you don't care and someone does... just leave it alone




[This message has been edited by cbman (edited 02 June 2001).]

[DosFreak]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by DosFreak:
What's really going to be odd is when Whistler hits the streets. Alot of people compare Matrox 2D by sitting at the desktop. Well Windows XP uses GDI+ which uses ALOT of video card features. Who knows if Matrox will be able to keep up with these features? (I don't like these new features in fact I turn 'em off) but it's another thing to factor in considering the way Matrox seems to be going with suppport now....</font>

[Kosh Naranek]

CBMAN
I like both The G400 Max and I also like the GF2 .. so I do and I don't .. he he

[DentyCracker]

Like I said the G400 just looked better to ME. I never said it looked better to anyone else. I also said some of my friends freferred it and some preferred the GF2. It comes down to taste. That's all. I wouldn't buy a GTS for any price, because I am not primarily a gamer. I play mostly football (the real football) games like Fifa2001 with an occasional game of UT (to socialise online really). The G400 runs these fast enough at the resolutions which I use. Even the G200 was good enough for Fifa2000, but not the ATi RageIIC I had, or the Trident CyberBlade on the MVP4 chipset, or the Alladin TNT2.

[The Rock]

I think many people in here (myself included) simply hold 2D as a higer priority over 3D. I went from a G400 to a Creative Labs GF2 to my current 64mb Radeon, and I can honestly say the 2D of the GF2 is the worst in the bunch. If you take into account the fact that I'm capped at 1024x768x85hz (cheap 17" monitor), this is surprising. You would THINK that even if the GF2's 2d display was weak that you wouldn't notice it that much at a low res like 1024, but I sure did. Fuzzy text, stale colors, etc. Noticed an immediate difference when I replaced my G400 with it, for the worse.

I think one point that no one has made yet is that ATI and Matrox have been making video cards for a much longer time. They're both 2D veteran companies that were in the game long before 3D hit the scene. I tend to half-agree with Gurm; there could be a flaw in nVidias chips. Maybe this is due to lack of experience in 2D on their part.

Bart

[cbman]

Heh Heh

Hey I was just looking to clear out some fluff... not pick on you guys.

I did notice a difference between my G200 and the TNT2 just as I notice a difference between the TNT2 and my GF2.

The icing on the cake is when I lent my GF2 to someone and I came to the realization that the 815 onboard video just looked better.

I still can't figure it out.

At the moment I am using a Samsung SyncMaster 14G and a Dell Ultrascan (14")VC5

Both of them will hit 1280*1024 with a bit of tweaking and the Dell will also do 1600*1200 with the left edge of the screen just touching the edge of the moniter if I crank it all the way to the right.

Why do I use such small moniters you may ask... its because I have small eyes.

[Kosh Naranek]

ROCK
As I have said before NO blurry text or stale colors on my screen using an ASUS v7700 ~ GF2 GTS.
So I must be blind .. have been suspecting this ever since I replaced my G400 Max.

[Rags]

Well, I got my second GF3 all tested, and it's better than my original one, but it still has the same problems, just not as severe. It's definitely a step up from my V7700, which has the worst quality I have seen in a long time.

Rags

[DosFreak]

UT in OGL looks ugly on a Geforce. D3D looks like it should.

Also enable 64-bit tap and 4x fsaa. MMmMMMM. Watch that screen come alive!

[az]

I think we can all agree that, while picture quality on SOME nVidia based cards may be good, there is quite a bigger risk of getting a bad nVidia card than a bad Matrox card. Maybe nVidia/its (not it's ) manufacturers should work on their QA

AZ

[Novdid]

Right on az!!!