Mwahahahahah! you won´t belive this one!!!

[Nuno]

Now that G550 vs rest of the world thread are popping up, I thought I would share this with you guys. I´m still laughing at it.

I got a (rich) neighbour that is a kind of unninformed hardware freak. He gathers most of the information on our local magazines with are mostly plain rubbish. So he doesn´t really have a clue about hardware.

He recently upgraded his system from a PIII 600 to a Asus P4T/ P4 1700 + 256 MB RDRAM and he got a Sony E-500 also. Meanwhile he kept it´s old faithfull G400 MAX (hot and expensive stuff whe he bought it ). As he plays most of his games on 640x480 or 800x600 (He doesn´t seem to notice the difference to higher resolutions... ) he really still hasn´t felt the need to upgrade it. He does run his desktop at 1600x1200 mostly "because he can"

But a few weeks later he felt the compulsive need to run the nature test on 3dmark2001 after he saw the test to a geforce3 card on a magazine (I´m not exagerating), he got carried away and bought a Geforce3 (Asus V8200).

Can you believe he came asking me for help because he though he had damaged his shinny Sony monitor when he had the cards swapped (he really wouldn´t know how to do it by himself) and was thinking of returning it because it was "out of focus"

I think you can figure the rest of the story by yourselves ...

[omegaRED]

Bwahahahaha !!! Serves him right

[leech]

Now THAT is funny. That's like a friend of mine who has a Gefore2. I laugh at him because he has lots of money, and sure his video card will run circles around my old Marvel G400, but when he uses his 1000 dollar monitor to view just the desktop mine looks TONS better, he keeps his desktop at a lowly 1024x768. I can't imagine doing that. 1600x1200 all the way, if I had his monitor I'd be doing 2048x1536! I can do that on my monitor, but it's only in 60 hz, so it starts to hurt the eyes after a while. Oh that's just priceless. OUT OF FOCUS INDEED!

Leech

[The Viking]

Asus BAD

Asus card have a reputation of having bad picture quality. I quote from Anadtech – “It is too bad that image quality of the V8200 was not as strong as other cards; those with large monitors and high resolutions should stay away”.( http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1507)

I have spoken with a retailer and we have come to an agreement. I will buy a gainward GF3 card and if am not happy with the picture quality I can return it within 10 days fully refunded. (If so, I will buy a G-550)
Gainward are supposed to have good 2D quality.

I have a Sony F-500 monitor and I am very demanding when we talk about the image quality. I think I will run some test (not 3D though because we all know that….) and compare matrox and Nvidia regarding the picture quality. I will start a new thread at the end of this month and if there is anything particular you would like me to test, please let me know.

[Indiana]

Re: Asus BAD

Originally posted by The Viking
Asus card have a reputation of having bad picture quality.

Indeed. I once had a AsusVT3400TNT and this cards 2D was so crappy that I ditched it (I was happy with it's performance). And it was in fact the reason for me to get a Matrox-card (G400).
I didn't know that there were such great differences between gfx-cards output-quality before...

[Tom]

Re: Asus BAD

Originally posted by The Viking
Asus card have a reputation of having bad picture quality.

I'll second that!

A few months back, a friend and I traded video cards for a few days. I got his Asus V6800 GeForce card and he got my G400MAX.
The gaming speed of the V6800 was excellent, but the 2D was
pretty terrible. When we traded back cards, he told me that
after using the Matrox card, he now noticed how "blurry looking"
text was on his GeForce.

[Indiana]

Re: Re: Asus BAD

Originally posted by Tom

after using the Matrox card, he now noticed how "blurry looking"
text was on his GeForce.

Yes, this is the best way to convince (convert??) a NVidia user that tells you his 2D is good enough. Just letting him look at your desktop isn't enough, he probably won't really notice the difference. But whe you let him use your Matrox card for some time (a week or so) and he then has to use his Geforce again he WILL see what you meant with "superior 2D".

It's like upgrading from e.g. a Fiat to a Mercedes, you'll notice some difference, but it's only when you have to settle with the Fiat again after having acommodated with the Benz that you see HOW BIG the difference really is.

[rastlin4711]

nVidia is no oponent! They only start earlyer.

So don't worry if a G-Force is faster!
Because You know Your G-450 or G-550
were cheaper.

The name say it G-450 (450DM) & G-550 (550DM).

G-Force (999DM)

1DM = 47Cent

[Joel]

However, the tests results indicate that as the resolution increases, a decrease in image clarity also occurs. From 640x480 to 1024x768 the Titan 3 offered 2D image quality on par with a Matrox G200 and HP 71 monitor I use at work. None of the cards showed signs of "image ghosting" or blurry text, but the reference GeForce3 clearly exhibited the "rolling lines" syndrom at a 75Hz refresh rate in 2D and 3D.

The rest of the article is here: http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/titan3/page_1.shtml

Compared with a G200 and we all know the G400 had even better image quality.

Now all we need is for Matrox to develope the fastest 3D.

Joel

[The PIT]

Which is the main reason why my G400 stays in my computer. However I think the gap will start to narrow as reviewers start to point out blurry text as well as blimey 500fps.

[rastlin4711]

fast ?

My G450 only got 2414 3DMarks @
640x480 NoAA 16bit 16bit DB!

That's not enough.
But the quality is exiting.

So, fast game are ok, but
beautiful games are my passion
and only with a G4xx you get
such nice grafik!

That's all I want to say.

[Wulfman]

beautiful? 640x480 ?



mfg
wulfman

[ayoub_ibrahim]

Originally posted by Wulfman
beautiful? 640x480 ?

beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

[dZeus]

Wulfman is right. To experience the best game experience, you do not only need vibrant colours and Matrox image quality, but also enough fps to experience fluent motion. Ideally on a 19" monitor you need to be able to at least play your games at 1024x768x32 with 4x multisampling FSAA

So on one side we've got nVidia that delivers all the speed, and on the other side Matrox, who delivers all the image quality. It will be interesting to see which of these company will address the other aspect first, though of course we all have our hopes

[Indiana]

Originally posted by dZeus
So on one side we've got nVidia that delivers all the speed, and on the other side Matrox, who delivers all the image quality.

You forgot ATI in the middle which has 2D-quality just a little bit below Matrox (but way better than NVidia or any of the other contenders) AND 3D-speed just a little bit below NVidia (but way better than Matrox). Now if they'd only snatch some of NVidias driver team...

I guess the R200 should be a great success, this will be the first card with some dualhead thing and great performance. Pair this with an AIW version and a dual-chip one for the people which have to own the fastest card on the planet regardless of its cost and you'll get quite some of Matrox market and should even convert some die-hard NVidia fans. Of course, again, only if the drivers are up to the par as well (but they're mostly with the Radeon, not like it was in ATI's past).