2-d quality

  • Thread starter Thread starter J.Clarke
  • Start date Start date
J

J.Clarke

I'm looking for a card that will never be used for 3d gaming, but I
will have need for as crisp 2D images as possible. Most of the time
I'll be running at 800x600 resolution. Also, as I hate noise I don't
want to have a fan on the video card.

I've narrowed my search to ATI 900, 9200 and 9600 (all non-pro). Also
am looking at the Matrox G550 (but will never use dual monitor
setups).

If any out their have these cards your help will be appreciated.
Click to expand...

Given the criteria you have specified the Matrox will be your best
choice.
 
I'm looking for a card that will never be used for 3d gaming, but I will
have need for as crisp 2D images as possible. Most of the time I'll be
running at 800x600 resolution. Also, as I hate noise I don't want to have a
fan on the video card.

I've narrowed my search to ATI 900, 9200 and 9600 (all non-pro). Also am
looking at the Matrox G550 (but will never use dual monitor setups).

If any out their have these cards your help will be appreciated.

Thanks in advance

harry
 
harry said:
I'm looking for a card that will never be used for 3d gaming, but I
will have need for as crisp 2D images as possible. Most of the time
I'll be running at 800x600 resolution. Also, as I hate noise I don't
want to have a fan on the video card.

I've narrowed my search to ATI 900, 9200 and 9600 (all non-pro). Also
am looking at the Matrox G550 (but will never use dual monitor
setups).

If any out their have these cards your help will be appreciated.
Click to expand...

I've purchased a Crucial 9800 Pro (Yeah, I know, not your model, but I
believe the RAMDACS could easily be the same).

I'm running 1600x1200@85Hz on a Sony G400 (19"). Image quality is
excellent.

Ben
 
If you're serious about image quality, get a monitor and ATI-based card with
DVI - the difference is awesome.
 
harry wong said:
I've narrowed my search to ATI 900, 9200 and 9600 (all non-pro). Also am
looking at the Matrox G550 (but will never use dual monitor setups).
Click to expand...

Can't beat Matrox when it comes to 2d image quality.
 
I was using a Matrox G400 for 2 years and upgraded my system to a P4.
I also bought an ATI 8500, but was skeptical about the 2D performance
when compared to the G400. The G400 is excellent, and I didn't want to
take a step backwards. The 8500 made an ATI fan out of me. It's just
as good as the G400, and I think better.
 
I think Sony uses the trinitron tube, at least they did a couple years ago.
And it isn't the tube that establishes the refresh rates anyway.

Mike
 
Mike said:
I think Sony uses the trinitron tube, at least they did a couple
years ago. And it isn't the tube that establishes the refresh rates
anyway.

Mike
Click to expand...

Trinitron is a Sony design and means very little on it's own. All of Sonys
TVs are Trinitron as well and probably have been for over 5 years. Even
widescreeen ones.

And I know that it's not the tube that establishes the refresh rate. But I
was referring to the quality of the tube between the Sony and the
Mitsubishi, as well as the refresh rate.

Thanks.

Ben
 
Ben Pope said:
Aren't they both Sony tubes? I know the Mitsubishi did a higher refresh and
for less money... I got the Sony 'cos it was available locally on interest
free...

I actually purchased the E400 - my housemate had the Mitsibushi 920.

All I can say is that it's ok for me.
Click to expand...


Diamondtron is similar tech but made by Mitsubishi...You say you run at
1600x1200@85Hz and the text isn't blurry? What are the specs
(horizontal/vertical frequency) on your Sony? As to my monitors, the specs
are nearly identical in terms of scanning frequencies.
 
Shiranui said:
Diamondtron is similar tech but made by Mitsubishi...You say you run
at 1600x1200@85Hz and the text isn't blurry? What are the specs
(horizontal/vertical frequency) on your Sony? As to my monitors, the
specs are nearly identical in terms of scanning frequencies.
Click to expand...

Couldn't tell ya off hand, I never had the manual, according to:
http://www.pcresource.co.th/html/product/sony product/sony g400_spec.html

it's 30-107KHz, and 48-120Hz

Ben
 
I think Sony uses the trinitron tube, at least they did a couple years
ago. And it isn't the tube that establishes the refresh rates anyway.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I see what point you're trying to make with your
observation about Sony using the Trinitron tube. Trinitron is a Sony
brand name, Sony makes the tubes in large numbers, Sony considers their
own tube to the best in the industry, so of _course_ Sony uses the
Trinitron tube. But they also sell it to a lot of other manufacturers.

The tube doesn't establish the refresh rates but it does set an upper
bound, so generally monitors using the same tube will have more or less
the same specifications.

Generally speaking when you are using a monitor at its design limit then
the image will not be particularly good--the design limit is
established based on an "acceptable" level of image degradation, and
"acceptable" is not the same as "unnoticeable". If you're planning on
running 1600x1200 at 85 Hz then you should get a monitor that can run
the next higher resolution at 85 and that way at 1600x1200 you're well
within the performance envelope and the image will be sharper.
Mike
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top