Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GF2 2D as good as Matrox?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 4
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
  • #1

    GF2 2D as good as Matrox?

    From http://wwww.ixbt-labs.com/video/geforce2-gts.html

    "And as for the 2D graphics quality, there are a few things worth pointing out here. We do realize the risk of arousing general reproach of all Matrox fans, but we will still make bold to state that in terms of 2D image quality NVIDIA GeForce2 GTS managed to catch up with Matrox G400 at higher resolutions as well. Although we were pretty much satisfied with the 2D quality provided by NVIDIA GeForce256 based cards, the picture shown by GeForce2 GTS based card was beyond any competition. Of course, we should also take into account that the piece we had was just a test sample of NVIDIA GeForce2 GTS based graphics card that's why the graphics cards from other manufacturers built on the same chipset can provide different 2D image quality.

    How did they manage this incredible 2D? RAMDAC works at the same 350MHz as NVIDIA GeForce256, but the difference is still very tangible. In our first NVIDIA NV15 Preview we mentioned that this chipset had a totally new RAMDAC, which is not integrated into the GPU core although it is placed into the same package with the chipset. This is very likely to be one of the reasons of its success in 2D. However, we think that there is one more reason: the TV-out circuits location, which is moved from the PCB to the daughter card."

    Could this be true? In the past I've never seen a Nvidia, 3dfx, ATI, etc card that looked as good as my MillII, never mind my G400 (or the G200 I *used* to have at work, sigh).

    This, and the fact that Nvidia is supposedly doing pretty well with OGL on Win2k, could make them a contender for my next card.

    Any comments, or observations?

    -AJ

    PS I am NOT trying to start a flame war.
    Trying to figuring out what Matrox is up to is like tying to find a road that's not on the map, at night, while wearing welders googles!
    Tags: None
  • #2
    I'm sure this is possible. Why couldn't it be? First off, integrated RAMDAC's are usually worse off, taking the RAMDAC out of the core could improve quality. Layout of the board, RF noise, etc etc also play a big role in quality, or at least in detrimental quality.

    The GF2 implementations, however, do not support the high refresh rates of the Matrox at higher resolutions. I've looked at the Elsa and Hercules cards so far and they don't support as high refresh rates as the Matrox. Fine if you want to run 1200, but if you like to push your expensive 19" or 21" monitor to get the performance you paid for, Matrox still takes the cake IMHO.

    b
    Why do today what you can put off until tomorrow? But why put off until tomorrow what you can put off altogether?

    Comment

    • #3
      this is one reviewers opinion...
      I'd have to see them both to be fully convinced that the GF2 has caught up to Matrox in the Quality of the 2D display...

      That's one thing about opinions, everyones got one... ;o)


      Craig
      1.3 Taulatin @1600 - Watercooled, DangerDen waterblock, Enhiem 1046 pump, 8x6x2 HeaterCore Radiator - Asus TUSL2C - 256 MB Corsair PC150 - G400 DH 32b SGR - IBM 20Gb 75GXP HDD - InWin A500

      Comment

      • #4
        very impressive ! with hardware EMBM , T&l & high framerate count @ HIGH res. in 32 bit & MATROX have nothing NEW right now it makes the best choice for now.... hope that MATROX will have somthing for us soon (not g450)..
        PIII650@806(fsb@124),ASUS P3B-F,128mb,Matrox Mill-G400 32SH,SB.Live!vlue ,IntelliMouse Explorer

        Comment

        • #5
          The GF2 implementations, however, do not support the high refresh rates of the Matrox at higher resolutions.
          ??? All NVidia cards from the TNT up with any driver build since 3.60 support *any* resolution up to 2048x1536, and *any* refresh rate up to 240Hz. The GF2 just looks better doing it.

          Comment

          • #6
            IMO, Matrox's 2D quality is the only reason they still have some market share in the pro arena. If nVidia catches up here then it would be pretty hard to find a reason to buy a Matrox card, especially with dual head knobbled under Windows 2000.

            Paul

            Comment

            • #7
              Err, Ashley? Where'd you here this? Been reading too much of nvidia.com?

              All NVidia cards from the TNT up with any driver build since 3.60 support *any* resolution up to 2048x1536, and *any* refresh rate up to 240Hz
              Yeah, it supports 2048x1536 and 240Hz refresh rates but not at the same time e.g. 2048*1536 @ 60Hz or 800x600 @ 240Hz.

              The G400 on the other hand support upto 85Hz at 2048*1536 - much nicer.

              And PaulS, there have been some strong rumours that NVIDIA are thinking of adding dual-head capabilities to their range soon. Matrox have some work to do.

              Paul.
              Meet Jasmine.
              flickr.com/photos/pace3000

              Comment

              • #8
                Pace, that is just plain wrong and it makes me wonder if you ever tested this.

                With a G400, the max is 67Hz, period, even at 8bpp - you can't select a higher refresh rate in PowerDesk (and that's as it should be since 67Hz requires a pixel clock of just under 300MHz).

                Since, alongside a AGP G400 I also happen to be running a PCI TNT2 M64, I just checked and it happily syncs to 72Hz at 2048x1536x16bpp.

                Yes, a G400Max can probably go a few Hz higher than the 67Hz limit of a G400, but then the TNT2 M64 is a $65 card...

                Comment

                • #9
                  Greebe, I completely fail to understand why pointing out a *factual error*, or - for that matter - saying anything non-negative about a non-Matrox card, must be a "cheap shot".

                  In your opinion the G400 is great, and the TNT2 sucks. Surprise, surprise...

                  In my opinion - and I use both, along with many others - the TNT2 looks just as good at 72Hz as the G400 does at 67Hz - and 67Hz is the G400's max. I don't play games at all, ever, and I don't think the TNT2 is better than a G400 or a G400Max.

                  But it *is* cheaper than either, and - to be perfectly honest - Matrox doesn't offer anything even remotely competitive (remember: this is a PCI card driving a second monitor at 2048x1536x72Hz)...

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Even 3dfx is bumping up its 2D capabilities!

                    From:
                    http://www.penstarsys.com/Reviews/vi.../v5_5500_2.htm

                    "Firing up Windows for the first time gave excellent 2D quality and performance. The 2D core of the VSA-100 (slightly tweaked from the 128 bit core used in the Voodoo 3 and the Banshee) is very good, and image quality is a step up from the Voodoo 3 and the GeForce 256 that used to reside in my main machine. This has more to do with filters between the RAMDAC and the analog out of the card. The results are very nice, as the image supplied to my Viewsonic PF 790 is second to none."

                    Most of the time, reviewers don't comment much on 2D for "Gaming" cards. But it seems like those who care, are noticing improvements. I've stuck with Matrox in large part due to their great 2D. It's looking now like that their next card better be pretty impressive, since the competition is closing in on 2D quality and are ahead in 3D capabilities.

                    This fall is going to be very interesting.

                    -AJ

                    BTW, I'm not a "High" end user in 2d, I don't run higher than 1280x1024 on my 17" Sony when programming (where the sharp text produced by the G400 saves my eyes and lets me get alot of lines on the screen).
                    Trying to figuring out what Matrox is up to is like tying to find a road that's not on the map, at night, while wearing welders googles!

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Personal experience here. I just helped a friend build a shiny new Athlon system with the Elsa GF2 coupled with a very nice 19" Princeton monitor.

                      I have a G200 on a pretty good 17" Mag.
                      My friend has a G400 on an aging 15" something or other.(IBM I think)

                      Both of our computers spank the GF2. In UT the colors are extremely washed out. 2d windows desktop icons are horribly pixelated and the colors aren't nearly as clear as either the G200 or G400.

                      Ian
                      Primary System:
                      MSI 745 Ultra, AMD 2400+ XP, 1024 MB Crucial PC2100 DDR SDRAM, Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro, 3Com 3c905C NIC,
                      120GB Seagate UDMA 100 HD, 60 GB Seagate UDMA 100 HD, Pioneer DVD 105S, BenQ 12x24x40 CDRW, SB Audigy OEM,
                      Win XP, MS Intellimouse Optical, 17" Mag 720v2
                      Seccondary System:
                      Epox 7KXA BIOS 5/22, Athlon 650, 512 MB Crucial 7E PC133 SDRAM, Hercules Prophet 4500 Kyro II, SBLive Value,
                      3Com 3c905B-TX NIC, 40 GB IBM UDMA 100 HD, 45X Acer CD-ROM,
                      Win XP, MS Wheel Mouse Optical, 15" POS Monitor
                      Tertiary system
                      Offbrand PII Mobo, PII 350, 256MB PC100 SDRAM, 15GB UDMA66 7200RPM Maxtor HD, USRobotics 10/100 NIC, RedHat Linux 8.0
                      Camera: Canon 10D DSLR, Canon 100-400L f4.5-5.6 IS USM, Canon 100 Macro USM Canon 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM, Canon Speedlite 200E, tripod, bag, etc.

                      "Any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic." --Arthur C. Clarke

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        The true test of course is on the same computer and monitor. Even after that personnel preferance would come into it. So to make the test fair the cards would need to be changed without the reviewer knowing than asking the reviewer if he could spot the differance and say which card is in fact fitted.
                        Chief Lemon Buyer no more Linux sucks but not as much
                        Weather nut and sad git.

                        My Weather Page

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Ashley,
                          Well as long as your happy with it, that's all that matters.
                          Q. Why have (rough guess here) $2500 worth of monitors and then go cheap on the gcards? Isn't that like putting oxygenated 87 octane gas in a Ferrari?
                          Q. Why complain Matrox doesn't have a solution for you when you're comparing a discontinued gcard and a regular G400?

                          BTW, I do own other non Matrox gcards

                          I'm pro Matrox for several reasons...
                          1. Best support in the industry
                          2. Best quality and features bar none
                          3. Value
                          4. The MURC, hands down has the greatest knowledge base of *mature* individuals.

                          [This message has been edited by Greebe (edited 25 May 2000).]
                          "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind." -- Dr. Seuss

                          "Always do good. It will gratify some and astonish the rest." ~Mark Twain

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Greebe, I don't know about mature, but we're well marinated Actually, the MURC attracts a pretty impressive group of experienced hackers.

                            A bud is looking for a new graphics card where image quality is paramount (for DVD playback). He currently has the ATI Rage Fury and is considering the G400 so he can run dual monitors (second head to a data-grade projector via VGA). I haven't noticed NVIDIA based cards supporting dual-head, or for that matter anyone but Matrox. Is the G400 still the choice for him?
                            <TABLE BGCOLOR=Red><TR><TD><Font-weight="+1"><font COLOR=Black>The world just changed, Sep. 11, 2001</font></Font-weight></TR></TD></TABLE>

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              If you can get this bud to hold off just a little, I recently read something that says G450's should be on the market as early as next month. Given the improvements over the G400 cards, I think that it would be a better choice, assuming there is some sort of adapter to use a standard VGA/TV with the digital connector on the second head.

                              ------------------
                              Ace
                              "..so much for subtlety.."

                              System specs:
                              Gainward Ti4600
                              AMD Athlon XP2100+ (o.c. to 1845MHz)

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
                              Working...
                              X