Superior

[K6-III]

Originally posted by Greebe
K6-III, the Canopus GF3 are still a notch down in 2D quality comapared to Matrox cards.

Hopefully someday soon we'll be able to have our cake and eat it too

How do you know??? Have you used one or read a review of one. Canopus is famous for being the only manufacturer to match Matrox's image quality. All I want now is to be able to purchase thier cards in the US.

[Greebe]

@K6-III

Not meaning to sound sarcastic, but Uh Duh?!

Didn't you read my post above?

[Rags]

Originally posted by Tom


N o w t h a t w a s n ' t v e r y n i c e

Peace? o.k.?

Peace. Sorry, been a hot day here

Rags

[waldo22]

RAMDAC

It seems that Matrox' quality has always been from a faster RAMDAC.

Matrox was using 300 Mhz when everyone else was hovering around 250.

My G400 max has a 360 mhz RAMDAC. In two years, no one else has been able to match that (that I know of anyway).

My $0.02

Wes

[Greebe]

It's not ramdac speed, but it's the quality of the ramdac that the other lack, quality filtering and a few more things like VCQ2 which only M has.

Speed in itself has nothing todo with it.

[Ant]

I think a couple of the locals should continue twanging their banjos and digest peoples posts rather than dropping them immediately and picking up their rifles

[Rags]

Originally posted by Ant
I think a couple of the locals should continue twanging their banjos and digest peoples posts rather than dropping them immediately and picking up their rifles

Point taken. *begins playing banjo*.

Rags

[WayneHu]

It is true that Matrox's G400 RAMDAC produces better analog signal than most other graphics chipset. Especially above the resolution of 1280x960 85 Hz.

If G400 is compared with GF2 GTS with better filters, or just like what I have done -- remove the bad filters on my GF2 GTS card, I can say the video signal of GF2 GTS can match G400 at 1280x960 85 Hz.

Above this dot clock, I do not have any experience because my monitor cannot support per pixel on screen at 1600x1200 resolution. Thus the signal clarity cannot be observed easily.

The above statments only apply to CRT monitors. With LCD monitors, it has some different story.

If the signal is not clear (in other word, the waveform has been distorted) under high frequency dot clock, it is quite easy to observe the SHADOW or GHOST IMAGE at the right postion of each pixel. This apply to both CRT and LCD monitors. This conclusion is made from the comparison of the ultra-thick cable and general shielded cable.

With DVI-I, good card like G400 is not required. But a good shielded cable should be still necessary. Otherwise, the above effect might still happen.

ps: My monitor is SONY GDM-400PS and my LCD monitor uses the following panel:

http://edevice.fujitsu.com/fj/CATALOG/AD26/26-00031/5e-2.html#a

[harkpabst_meliantrop]

Originally posted by WayneHu
It is true that Matrox's G400 RAMDAC produces better analog signal than most other graphics chipset. Especially above the resolution of 1280x960 85 Hz.

Yepp!! It's always a good idea to recall, that the (regular) output of a graphics card is an analog signal, so there's plenty of room for doing things very right or very wrong (as with all analog systems).

I'd also like to remind everybody (I'm sure you all know), that RAMDACs are integrated parts of the chip since a couple of years now. In earlier times, making different models of what appeard to be the same card (same chip) using different RAMDACs was not too uncommon.

--E<:|