What do you guys think about the G550 review at Ace's??

[Rags]

Originally posted by K6-III
The best 2D is on the Canopus and Gainward Geforce3's.

I have heard the Gainward has alright 2D, but Canopus I bet is still a level lower than the G400 or G550.

Rags

[The Viking]

2D

Of the non-GeForce3 cards tested, the Matrox G450 eTV set the standard with a score of 1, indicating that it provided the best 2D image quality. The GeForce2 MX, on the other hand, provided a reference point for poor image quality, earning a score of 5. The ATI Radeon DDR scored a 2 in our subjective test. The score of each individual GeForce3 product is noted in the summary table of the card in the "Image Quality" row.



The 2D image quality of the Gainward CARDEXPERT GeForce3 PowerPack !!! was spectacular. Our notes clearly mark the card as "best" among GeForce3 cards in both the 1600x1200x32 at 85Hz as well as the 1800x1440x32 at 70Hz test. The 2D image quality of the Gainward CARDEXPERT GeForce3 PowerPack !!! was right on par with the ATI Radeon DDR card we used for comparison, leaving the other GeForce3 cards behind.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1507

[Rags]

You see, IMO, the G400 and G550 have better 2D output than my G450. So if it's a notch below the G450, then I don't think it could be all that good.

My Visiontek GF3 sucks. It's a bit worse than my Radeon.

Rags

[The Viking]

IMO?

IMO =

[Rags]

In My Opinion.

Rags

[Rags]

Just thought I would add that I have VERY sensitive eyes. I can see subtle differences right away.

Rags

[The Viking]

G-200 PCI 16 MB SDRAM

How would you rate a G-200 PCI 16 MB SDRAM (the one I have now)

[Greebe]

The biggest reason Galvin gets picked on is because he's comparing 2D quality based on a resolution of 1024x768... not only that, but also on a 21" monitor!

I personally could care less what card he has, as long as it suits his needs, fine, but if coming in here claiming his 2D is as good as M... polease give us all a break.

[Galvin]

I can't tell the difference at 1024x767, so for someone that doesn't need anything higher it doesn't matter.

I mean seriously how good does 2D have to be before you don't notice the difference anymore ?

But I do see a lot of these kind of things, one person will say well this video card has awesome 3D, then a matrox user will say well my G4xx card has better 2D, heh. Silly isn't it

[Joel]

But I do see a lot of these kind of things, one person will say well this video card has awesome 3D, then a matrox user will say well my G4xx card has better 2D, heh. Silly isn't it

No, not at all, for serveral reasons.
1) This is a Matrox Users forum so therefore we can talk about the things that make the Matrox cards superior in our eyes.
2) It has been said over and over again in rerviews left and right that the Matrox cards have the 2D quality that everyone else has yet to achieve.
3) For most of us here image quality is the number one thing that we look for in a video card.
4) Most of us here use our machines for more than just glorified gaming consoles. So for a, I need no brain, game like Q3 we don't need all those mega frames per second.

These are just a few that I can think of right now, too early in the morning yet for me, but I sure others can think of more.

Joel

PS: Galvin we are glad that you have a card that suits your needs. So why don't you go and use that card for the reasons you bought it and let us use our Matrox cards for the reasons we bought them. Besides you are trying to preach Nvidiot to the wrong crowd.

[Greebe]

And try comparing your GF3 at say 1600x1200 res and claim the same... it just can't compete!

Still @ 1024x768 res... geez you're either blind, have a pathetic monitor, or are sitting 20' away.

(I pick D). all the above

[The Viking]

VERY sensitive

Hi Rags.

Which type of monitor do you use and how
would you rate the picture quality of a G-200 PCI 16 MB SDRAM (the one I have now)

Originally posted by Rags
Just thought I would add that I have VERY sensitive eyes. I can see subtle differences right away.

Rags

[Electric Amish]

Here at work I run a Geforce 2MX (eVGA flavor) on a Dell P991 19" trinitron monitor. I tried running at 1600x1200 and it just killed my eyes. 1280x1024 is bad enough.

I go home to my G400 running on a KDS VS-195e (non-Trinitron) and can run 1600x1200 and it beats the HELL out of my work machine. I can imediately tell the difference in 2D.

As for all the games I listed, I run them in 1024x768x32 res. Usually medium detail. Tribes 2 ran just fine, for an app that is co-written by nVidia.

amish

[Rags]

Re: VERY sensitive

Originally posted by The Viking
Hi Rags.

Which type of monitor do you use and how
would you rate the picture quality of a G-200 PCI 16 MB SDRAM (the one I have now)

Which one? The one I use the most is my (third) Sony G400.

G200 is right up there with a Max for the most part.

Rags

[Indiana]

From what I gathered when I had my computer connected to the second input of a friends monitor, his G200 even was slightly better / "more steady" than my G400. But then the G200 was connected via BNC while the G400 "only" had the usual RGB.