GF2 2D as good as Matrox?

[dwright]

I just got an Elsa Gladiac Geforce2 and replaced the G400max in this machine (I am keeping the max for another machine). The image quality difference is very noticable (Viewsonic PT795 @ 1280*1024). The characters on the screen are "fuzzy", 3d stuff is fine though. I swapped the BNC cable with a quailty standard (shorter) cable and the Gladiac improved a little but this is no Matrox. I seem to notice image quality more that most people (many systems at work are setup @60hz and no one notices).
From the posts above I suspect that my Gladiac may be defective. I would love to try another card to be sure. The difference between cards is enough that I have considered lowering my resolution a notch.
What do you think? Has anyone tried text at 1280*1024 and compared it to G400max?

[Greebe]

Oops, corrected
Sorry dude

[Hugh G Recshun]

Hey Ashley,
I wonder if what is causing the display problems you have is because of using Power Strip? I heard that it eats video card's bioses for breakfast.

Hugh G.

[paulcs]

O.K. I think we crossed a line with that last post. Let's keep it civil.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[spoogenet]

Ashley: I sure hope you're not directing that drunkennes paragraph to me, because afterall, I have done NO comparison in image quality here, nor do I intend to, I'm merely talking about res and refresh. But, to put your mind at ease, feel free to rant to your little heart's content about your binge drinking problem.

If you're monitor is telling you the scan rate, chances are it's correct. That's all I was asking. What I do find rather peculiar is that you are claiming, and chances are quite correctly, that your vid card will hit 72 Hz at 2048, whereas Gainward claims their TNT2 only does 60 Hz. Why not advertise it as doing 72?

And does it really matter if I've hit the high res or not? All things being equal, everything isn't equal. Take a vid card that is advertised as hitting a certain refresh rate at a given res, which when tested, actually does. Take a driver set for it that also supports given res and refresh rate. Take a monitor that supports given res and refresh. Put it all together, voila, it all works, right? Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

b

[Ashley]

HUGH! That's another one of my favorite Matrox myths - PowerStrip the BIOS Eater. Where'd you hear that the PowerStrip eats video BIOSes? Here on MURC, right? The same place you can read that only Matrox cards do high resolutions?

spoogenet - I'm not sure I can adequately explain why a manufacturer's claims are at odd with actual caps. Perhaps someone with a G400 running Windows 2000 would care to take a shot at this one?

But you're putting a different twist on this. If you back up at the top of this thread you said NVidia's newest chip cannot do the high resolutions and refresh rates Matrox can. I said they can; that even their old chips can, and that I happened to be using one at 2048x1536x32bppx72Hz. You replied - and I quote - that I was "blatantly wrong, in multiple respects". How am I supposed to react to that?

Really, it didn't occur to me that something like this would provoke that kind of response, or I never would have mentioned it. If you like, I take it back: NVidia cards cannot do high resolutions and refresh rates. Only Matrox cards can.

Peace.

[dwright]

I was convinced by posts here and in other newgroups that my Elsa GF2 was defective because the 2d was fuzzy. I exchanged the card for a Hercules 3DProphetII. I opened it in the store, the board quality looked good - it even has heatsinks on the ram chips and a larger heatsink on the gpu. At home I was dissapointed to find the image quality about the same as the Elsa.
Update May 27: with a bit of tweaking, some burn-in time, and a shorter video cable I have improved the 2d quality of the prophetII to acceptable levels (near g400max quality).
My observation/conclusion is that Matrox G400max 2d image quality is better than Nvidia GF2 at higher resolutions (above 1024*768) on a good monitor. The 3d quality on all three cards is good (I use 1024*768 for 3d). I wish I had 2 agp slots.
David

[This message has been edited by dwright (edited 27 May 2000).]

[Snake-Eyes]

Despite the gains nVidia has made in the 2D arena, I doubt that they'll dethrone matrox any time soon. After all, Matrox started out to make the BEST 2D core, bar none, and then worked toward making the 3D perform as well as the competition. nVidia has never really tried to compete in the 2D arena- they have no need to, as their cards are primarily meant to compete in games, which are dominated primarily by 3D.

I'm sure nVidia is satisfied that their 2D core is above average, given the majority of the market, allowing them to continue to concentrate on the 3D front. Matrox seems to be happy with this too, as each generation of the Big M cards seems to up the anty in 2D just enough to maintain the lead, while they manage to stay near the front of the 3D pack (kind of inverse to nVidia's strategy).

This all comes down to the primary markets each is targeting. Matrox is aimed squarely at the business users, who value the 2D above all else. At the same time, they want the average user to be able to take advantage of their products, so that they can at least have a presence in other markets. nVidia, on the other hand, aims more at the gaming (average joe) marketplace, which tends to value 3D features/performance above other considerations, since 2D video/image editing generally don't have a great bearing to them.

So, 2 different markets, 2 different design/marketing strategies.

------------------
Ace

[Snake-Eyes]

I forgot to add this to the final statement- there will always be overlap to the two markets and strategies. Hence the competition between these companies.

------------------
Ace

[spoogenet]

<QUOTE>
If you back up at the top of this thread you said NVidia's newest chip cannot do the high resolutions and refresh rates Matrox can. I said they can; that even their old chips can, and that I happened to be using one at 2048x1536x32bppx72Hz. You replied - and I quote - that I was "blatantly wrong, in multiple respects". How am I supposed to react to that?
</QUOTE>

Since your memory (reading skills) seem to be so advanced, perhaps you'd like to go back and re-read my post. YOU said that they will support 240 Hz at any res, or that sure is how your statement appears to have been worded, and my statement, (read the quote in my old post) was in response to your statement. But I'm sure you already knew that.

Pardon me for relying a little too much on manufacturing specs. Perhaps I should listen to god (you) a little more often rather than rely on what a mfg says. Afterall, I would love to buy a product where the mfg says "we have absolutely no tech support or driver support for our products" so long as you claim they do.

And with your little mfg claims deal, there's a huge difference between a card not doing AS WELL as a mfg claims vs. doing BETTER. You do see a difference between those, don't you?

Peace is overrated.

b

[Brian R.]

Ashley - The problem with Powerstrip was not necessarily a myth. The version of Powerstrip available last year when the G400s initially came out, caused occasional loss of information in the video BIOS. EnTech quickly released an updated version which reportedly eliminated the problem. I have used Powerstrip ever since that update and have had no problem with both of my MAXs. However, some people reported BIOS erasures on this forum when they used the old version of Powerstrip.

[AJ]

Ace - I think that 2D has become more important to Nvidia as they enter the professional market (with Quattro boards).

Matrox does seem to target the professional "workstation" market. There solid 2D, dual head (and increasing, price) are important. Hence the G450.

But Matrox has also started to gun for the gaming market. In the 3D fps realm, framerates (and increasingly, quality) are the key drivers. Price is becoming somewhat less important. In other areas of 3D gaming, eye candy is all that really matters.

Matrox's (and nearly everyone else's) problem is Nvidia's rapid design cycle. If Matrox wants to have a piece of the high end gaming market (which they say they do), then it's not good enough to ship a new product with competitve features every 18 months. If they match NVidia in one cycle, they will fall behind the next two. That simply makes them look like an "also ran" in this market. Heck, Nvidia is on the verge of making 3dfx look like and also ran (but this is with alot of "help" from 3dfx's inablility to execute of late).

Nvidia is increasingly penetrating the pc oem, consumer and (soon) the console market. They have the resources (engineering, marketing and financial) to become the dominate graphic chipset player and they are able to leverage the marketing of the many manufactures that sell products based on their chipset.

It simple won't be enough for Matrox to stay just ahead in 2D quality and 3D eye candy with an 18 month design cycle. If that is all they do, then vendors will increasingly choose Nvidia as the safe bet (ie nobody every got fired for choosing, IBM, MS, Cisco, etc).

Personally, I hope that both Matrox and 3dfx deliver highly competitive products this fall, and then again in the spring and then again ...

It wouldn't be good for consumers if Nvidia winds up with 75% of the market leaving Matrox doing video editing solutions and 3dfx making large scale arcade and simulation products.

-AJ

[Ashley]

spongenet - I didn't say 240Hz at any res, I specifically wrote "refresh rates up to 240Hz". I'm going to have to hone up on my English. Did you really think I meant my old TNT2 could do 2048x1536x240Hz? You must think me a complete idiot. Mea culpa, really... (peace can never be overrated).

Brian - I think Hugh was just pulling my chain, but you should know that G400 hardware support in the PowerStrip has NOT been changed since July'99, well before that controversy erupted. I can't explain why people here on the MURC had problems then, and I can't explain why no one has problems with it now. Just be advised that, where Matrox cards are concerned, the program you're using today is the same one that people were using then.

[SwAmPlAdY]

I don't think Hugh was pulling your chain. You were in that long thread arguiing and denying with everyone that PS wasn't capable of destroying the bios. It did and the only way to get it back was to use the bios backup.

I don't know if this would make a difference but are you aware that matrox is no longer using the same bios chips?

SwAmPy

[Ashley]

Hmmm... I thought the clocks just went out of whack after overclocking, and the BIOS needed to be reflashed to set things right?

Now the BIOS was completely "destroyed"?
Sheesh. One day I expect I'll read how whole cities were levelled by the PowerStrip virus...

Anyway, its not worth going into again. I'm just pointing out that nothing in the PowerStrip was ever changed, so anyone still using it is "destroying their BIOS" over and over again.