GF2 2D as good as Matrox?

[Greebe]

Ashley, you forgot to mention at that res the TnT would cause anyone to blow chunks! The G400 Max has a 360mHz DAC that supports 2048x1536 @85Hz! Also it's not simply what it'll sync to, but the quality of the image rendered at that res. D'oh

BTW, that was a cheap "gamers mentality" shot at the G400 mentioning the TnT's low low price of $65... yah... low low quality, gross lack of features, crappy support, must I go on?! Geesh

[DRED]

Speaking from the point of being a video card junkie. I like to try and use the different video cards that come down the line currently I have a g400MAX, Elsa geforce SDR, vodoo 3, Had a viper II but just returned it and got a geforce 2 by Hercules. I can tell you from my experience all geforce cards are not created equal when it comes to 2D. My G400 still looks the best The Elsa geforce is neck and neck with the G400 ( it was a big improvement over the TNT2 card I had) The Hercules Geforce 2 in 2D is not as good as Elsa's. I do not know why this is but that is what my eye's see. Just my 2 cents from a guy who has 5 computers likes to have current hardware so the are fast enough for those spur of the moment UT lan parties.

[Ashley]

Q. Why have (rough guess here) $2500 worth of monitors and then go cheap on the gcards?

I never thought of it that way, so don't hold back: what would you recommend that's better?

Q. Why complain Matrox doesn't have a solution

I wasn't complaining, but the answer is simple: they don't have a solution...

[spoogenet]

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

Although they may support the resolution or the refresh rate, what I'm talking about is AT THE SAME TIME!

Some of this also varies depending on the vendor who provides the board. The Hercules GTS goes up to 2048, but only at 60 Hz. It is also listed as supporting 1920, but only at 60 Hz. Compare that to Matrox's 85 Hz, or Elsa's GTS, which is only listed on their site as going up to 1900, but it will do 85 Hz.

Therefore it can be concluded that your statement is blatantly wrong, in multiple respects. All the cards DO NOT support the high resolutions, and all the cards DO NOT hit high refresh rates at the high resolutions. Matrox wins hands-down with the 360 MHz RAMDAC on the G400 MAX, vs the 350 MHz RAMDAC of the GTS. Quality/layout of the board also makes a big difference in whether the benefits of the fast RAMDAC will payoff in resolution or refresh rates.

b

[The PIT]

Apart from gigabyte Matrox doesn't supply the chip for another manufactures. If they did you would get a variance of 2d quality. No doubt there are "good" and "bad" g400 out there where some display better 2d then others.
I think you find what Ashley was saying that the chip is capable of it however how the manufacture impliments the design has a bearing on what the card can finally achieve.

[Joel]

"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."

There will be don't worry.

Joel

[Ashley]

Although they may support the resolution or the refresh rate, what I'm talking about is AT THE SAME TIME!

Yes, and what I was saying is that I can run an old, cheap TNT2 at 2048x1536x32bpp at 72HZ - "all at the same time", whatever that might mean. And it looks good.

What a manufacturer claims was not at issue. For the standard G400, Matrox claims a 70Hz maximum at 2048x1536, but in PowerDesk you are limited to 60Hz, unless you do a monitor customization - where you will still be allowed a maximum of "only" 67Hz.

Please don't misunderstand: I am not criticizing Matrox and I am certainly not praising Nvidia.

I am just pointing out that high resolutions and refresh rates are now commonplace, even at the low end. Matrox may still have better 2D, but it is no longer the commanding superiority they once shared with Number9.

[Joel]

About time they wake up and realize there is more to computers than getting the fastest FPS in games.

Joel

[paulcs]

Where did the rumor get started that the GeForce2 supports "hardware EMBM?"

I bet here.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[spoogenet]

<QUOTE>Yes, and what I was saying is that I can run an old, cheap TNT2 at 2048x1536x32bpp at 72HZ - "all at the same time", whatever that might mean. And it looks good.

What a manufacturer claims was not at issue. For the standard G400, Matrox claims a 70Hz maximum at 2048x1536, but in PowerDesk you are limited to 60Hz, unless you do a monitor customization - where you will still be allowed a maximum of "only" 67Hz.

</QUOTE>

Well who the hell makes your TNT2 vid card? Every one I've looked at only claims to hit up to 60 Hz at that res and color depth. And, quite contrary to what you may think, what the manufacturer claims DOES matter, especially if they claim it does less than it actually does?!? Don't know if you've studied marketing much, but if anything, companies tend to tell the customers their products do MORE than they actually do, not LESS.

When a manufacturer claims a vid card will only do 60 Hz, chances are it'll only do 60 Hz. When a manufacturer claims it'll do 240 Hz, maybe it will, but then you've got to ask the question of whether you'll ever be able to get it to do 240 Hz.

Also, do you have any way of measuring the actual refresh rate, or do you simply rely on what Windoze tells you? I only find your claim hard to believe because I have yet to find any technical specifications that agree with your claims.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking you nor am I saying that your case isn't true, I just find it hard to swallow without any more proveable proof.

b

[billko]

Here's what I have to say about all this...

Matrox must have really scared the bejeezus out of all these video card companies if they're all scrambling to "be better" than the G400.

All these reviews seem to be saying "as good as the G400," or, "better than the G400." I would say that's a pretty nice compliment for the G400.

So, I'd say that maybe everyone caught up to the G400, or even passed it up... but it took them quite a while to do it, didn't it? Now, let's see what Matrox has up its sleeve...

Bill

[paulcs]

I think the image quality on the GeForce2 is better than the GeForce DDR, which was better than the TNT2 Ultra, which isn't saying much.

The truth of the matter is, when the TNT came out, reviewers were claiming it's 2D image quality was as good as the G200's, and then back up their claims with 2D benchmarks. It was just plain silly, and I'm glad they stopped doing that. I found the image quality on the TNT to be lousy. I just didn't like it.

The image quality of the GeForce2 is very nice. I still don't think it's up to Matrox's standard. It just seems to me that nVidia has "caught up" with Matrox over their last four product cycles. I suspect the next generation of nVidia boards will finally catch up with Matrox as well, and the generation after that, and the generation after that. Although it defies all logic, I'm certain that nVidia boards will continue to "catch up" with Matrox boards until people tire of saying it.

These same people, when reviewing a Matrox board, will reference Matrox's "unparalleled" or "unsurpassed" image quality.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[AJ]

HedsSpaz, thanks for the direct comparisons.
I guess with other manufacturers, it kind of luck of the draw. My brother had a bunch of V3 cards at work that had pretty good 2D output, so I bought one - but the 2D was poor.

I use Matrox primarily because I hate poor 2D output. But I've been getting more into 3D accelerated games lately, and the G400 is starting to show it's age (and the OpenGL drivers are still so-so). I hope Matrox comes out with a competitive card within the next few months, otherwise gamers attention (mine included) will shift elsewhere. But for me, that will only happen if I can get acceptable 2D (the MillII was acceptable, most cards I've seen can't even match that, nevermind the G200 & G400).

Thanks for the input, I'll just have to keep up on this stuff till it's time to buy.

-AJ

[Ashley]

spoogenet - You've clearly never actually run resolutions this high, which makes this a kind of pointless argument, but since you ask: I actually have 2 PCI TNT2 cards - one from Gainward and one from CP Tech. (Remember: I don't have a whole lot of choice here: Matrox's doesn't make a PCI card with 300+ MHz RAMDAC.) And as to how I know that I'm "really" at 72Hz, well: monitors that handle these kind of frequencies tend to have very accurate OSDs, but you can also validate them with software utilities as well as by measuring the Hsync and/or Vsync signal with a frequency counter.

But look: let me put your mind at ease. Last night I took a very close look at the sharpness and color purity of the G400 and thought it was pretty good. Then I went out and drank a lot of tequilla and when I came back I took a good hard look at the TNT2 from across the room, and you know what? You're right: from across the room the TNT2 looked just terrible. I couldn't make out the text at all, and the colors seemed to bleed together; it was so bad, in fact, that the monitor itself actually seemed to be moving around on the desk. It made me nauseous just looking at it.

Feel better?

[Alfie]

Hey Greebe!
Why are you putting my name into this!
I have a g400 that I'm quite happy with!
But,while I'm here why would anyone be comparing the latest and greatest from nVidia,with the g400 that's almost a year old now?
Interesting point,eh?
The newest card has caught up to the g400
in 2d!!!
In all fairness,shouldn't we wait until the next generation card from Matrox comes out 'til we make comparisons?