2D performance ATI compared to Matrox

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jo Vermeulen
  • Start date Start date
J

Jo Vermeulen

Hi,

I recently upgraded my monitor to an iiyama 22 inch Diamnondtron
(HM204DT, Vision Master Pro 514). I'm really satisfied about it.

The only thing that bothers me is a fuzzy image at high resolutions at
high refresh rates (currently 1600 x 1200 @ 85 Hz). The image is
significantly more crisp at lower refresh rates or lower resolutions.

I think this is probably due to my Nvidia Geforce2 MX 400 graphics card.
I read a few posts and articles about blurry 2D quality with these cards.

I'm looking for an upgrade, and although 2D performance is much more
important to me, I wouldn't want to cut back on the 3D performance my
Geforce2 MX had (which isn't great compared to high-end 3D cards nowadays).

So I was considering either a low-end ATI or a Matrox card which would
cost about 100 euros (comparable to about 100 dollars). I don't want to
pay much more than that (the monitor already cost me a fortune) :)

The problem with the Matrox cards I looked at (G450, G550) was that they
had pretty bad 3D performance (even worse than my Geforce2 MX). They
deliver superb 2D quality though.

On the contrary, the ATI Radeon 9200 card is very good in 3D. I don't
know about the 2D quality. Does anybody know how it compares to the
G450/G550?

I would like to work comfortably in at least 1600 x 1200 @ 85 Hz. This
should feature very crisp image quality. The 2D performance has thus a
higher priority.

Thanks in advance,
 
I have owned a GF3 and 4 and found them to have noticeable blur even at
1280x960, I now have a ATI 9700 Pro in my main machine, 9700 AIW in HTPC and
7500 AIW in bedroom box, the 2D image quality is far superior even with the
7500, currently using a Viewsonic P225 22" Diamondtron tube monitor in the
main PC.

Matrox is still the best for 2D and multi-monitor but if you game, not a
great or even seriously viable choice with the latest and greatest. I wish
Matrox would get more serious about 3D, I owned a G200 and G400 and they
were excellent cards in their day.
 
"On the contrary, the ATI Radeon 9200 card is very good in 3D >>


You must be joking !!!!
 
"On the contrary, the ATI Radeon 9200 card is very good in 3D >>


You must be joking !!!!
Click to expand...


It's true... compared to a Matrox G450 or older.

It doesn't sound like he needs blazing 3D speed though, a Radeon 9200
or 9600 might be ideal for the purpose.
 
Hi,

I recently upgraded my monitor to an iiyama 22 inch Diamnondtron
(HM204DT, Vision Master Pro 514). I'm really satisfied about it.

The only thing that bothers me is a fuzzy image at high resolutions at
high refresh rates (currently 1600 x 1200 @ 85 Hz). The image is
significantly more crisp at lower refresh rates or lower resolutions.

I think this is probably due to my Nvidia Geforce2 MX 400 graphics card.
I read a few posts and articles about blurry 2D quality with these cards.

I'm looking for an upgrade, and although 2D performance is much more
important to me, I wouldn't want to cut back on the 3D performance my
Geforce2 MX had (which isn't great compared to high-end 3D cards nowadays).

So I was considering either a low-end ATI or a Matrox card which would
cost about 100 euros (comparable to about 100 dollars). I don't want to
pay much more than that (the monitor already cost me a fortune) :)

The problem with the Matrox cards I looked at (G450, G550) was that they
had pretty bad 3D performance (even worse than my Geforce2 MX). They
deliver superb 2D quality though.

On the contrary, the ATI Radeon 9200 card is very good in 3D. I don't
know about the 2D quality. Does anybody know how it compares to the
G450/G550?

I would like to work comfortably in at least 1600 x 1200 @ 85 Hz. This
should feature very crisp image quality. The 2D performance has thus a
higher priority.

Thanks in advance,
Click to expand...

If you want great 2d performance get a Matrox card.
 
kony said:
It's true... compared to a Matrox G450 or older.
Click to expand...

Indeed, that's what I meant :-)
It doesn't sound like he needs blazing 3D speed though, a Radeon 9200
or 9600 might be ideal for the purpose.
Click to expand...

You are right. I don't need a very fast card. I occassionaly play games
(e.g. Max Payne, FIFA 2003, GTA 3, Midnight Club, ...). My Geforce 2 MX
card was good enough for that purpose.

I don't even need the performance of an Radeon 9200. It just want to
keep playing the games I played before. But I don't know if any of the
Matrox cards is capable of the 3D performance of my old Geforce 2 MX 400
(not considering the Parhelia, which is way out of my budget).

Maybe the G550 or P650 are?

Kind regards,
 
Jo said:
Indeed, that's what I meant :-)



You are right. I don't need a very fast card. I occassionaly play games
(e.g. Max Payne, FIFA 2003, GTA 3, Midnight Club, ...). My Geforce 2 MX
card was good enough for that purpose.

I don't even need the performance of an Radeon 9200. It just want to
keep playing the games I played before. But I don't know if any of the
Matrox cards is capable of the 3D performance of my old Geforce 2 MX 400
(not considering the Parhelia, which is way out of my budget).

Maybe the G550 or P650 are?
Click to expand...

Just found this:

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]&rnum=2

<quote>
Seriously, from what I've read, you won't see much improvement in 2D
performance or image quality. 3D gets the biggest boost. The G450 is
like a TNT 2 ultra but the G550's 3D performace is close to a GeForce 2 MX.
</quote>

So apparantly the G550 is as good as my Geforce2 MX :o)

Does anybody know how the P650 compares?

Kind regards,
 
I use to use a Matrox G400 32MB DH,
I later used an Sapphire ATI 9100 128MB, 2D was a least 90% as good as the
G400.
(now I've got an ATI 9600 PRO AIW).
The 9000, 9200 are slightly stripped down version of the 8500,9100 line.
So get the 9100 instead of the 9200
 
Jo said:
Just found this:

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]&rnum=2


<quote>
Seriously, from what I've read, you won't see much improvement in 2D
performance or image quality. 3D gets the biggest boost. The G450 is
like a TNT 2 ultra but the G550's 3D performace is close to a GeForce 2 MX.
</quote>

So apparantly the G550 is as good as my Geforce2 MX :o)
Click to expand...

Just found an article contradicting that. The G550 comes "close", but
cannot match the performance of the Geforce2 MX.
Does anybody know how the P650 compares?
Click to expand...

I think I will try to go for this card, since it's not much more
expensive than the G550 and should have better 3D performance than my
Geforce 2 MX card (I heard somebody was able to play C&C Generals with it).

Kind regards,
 
Jo Vermeulen said:
I would like to work comfortably in at least 1600 x 1200 @ 85 Hz. This
should feature very crisp image quality. The 2D performance has thus a
higher priority.
Click to expand...

I've had several ATI cards, and they've all been quite good in 2D.
1600x1200 should be no problem if you've got the monitor for it.
 
Jo said:
Hi,

I recently upgraded my monitor to an iiyama 22 inch Diamnondtron
(HM204DT, Vision Master Pro 514). I'm really satisfied about it.

The only thing that bothers me is a fuzzy image at high resolutions at
high refresh rates (currently 1600 x 1200 @ 85 Hz). The image is
significantly more crisp at lower refresh rates or lower resolutions.

I think this is probably due to my Nvidia Geforce2 MX 400 graphics card.
I read a few posts and articles about blurry 2D quality with these cards.

I'm looking for an upgrade, and although 2D performance is much more
important to me, I wouldn't want to cut back on the 3D performance my
Geforce2 MX had (which isn't great compared to high-end 3D cards nowadays).
Click to expand...

I just bought myself a Matrox Millenium P650, which has excellent 2D
image quality, and better 3D performance than my Geforce2MX.

Kind regards,
 
Jo said:
Hi,

I recently upgraded my monitor to an iiyama 22 inch Diamnondtron
(HM204DT, Vision Master Pro 514). I'm really satisfied about it.

The only thing that bothers me is a fuzzy image at high resolutions at
high refresh rates (currently 1600 x 1200 @ 85 Hz). The image is
significantly more crisp at lower refresh rates or lower resolutions.

I think this is probably due to my Nvidia Geforce2 MX 400 graphics card.
I read a few posts and articles about blurry 2D quality with these cards.
Click to expand...

Apparantly it was not (only) my Geforce2 MX 400 card.

I had fuzzy quality at the right side of the display (this means for
example a fuzzy clock in the Windows taskbar).

I use the Matrox Millenium P650 now, which in combination with my
monitor gives a very crisp image in the middle and at the left side.
Unfortunately the right side is still fuzzy.

This is probably due to my Iiyama monitor. I will try to contact the
helpdesk on Monday, and explain my problem.

The ultimate test I did was take a screenshot of the right corner, save
it to a file, and view that image in the upper left corner, where it
displayed very crisp.

It's a pity :(

Kind regards,
 
I had fuzzy quality at the right side of the display (this
means for example a fuzzy clock in the Windows taskbar).

I use the Matrox Millenium P650 now, which in combination with my
monitor gives a very crisp image in the middle and at the left side.
Unfortunately the right side is still fuzzy.

This is probably due to my Iiyama monitor. I will try to contact the
helpdesk on Monday, and explain my problem.

The ultimate test I did was take a screenshot of the right
corner, save it to a file, and view that image in the upper
left corner, where it displayed very crisp.

It's a pity :(
Click to expand...

Your montior have a bad focus adjustment.
 
Ken said:
Your montior have a bad focus adjustment.
Click to expand...

I hope this problem can be fixed by getting a new monitor from the
dealer (same model, same brand ofcourse)?

Kind regards,
 
<snip>
| I had fuzzy quality at the right side of the display (this means for
| example a fuzzy clock in the Windows taskbar).
|
| I use the Matrox Millenium P650 now, which in combination with my
| monitor gives a very crisp image in the middle and at the left side.
| Unfortunately the right side is still fuzzy.
|
| This is probably due to my Iiyama monitor. I will try to contact the
| helpdesk on Monday, and explain my problem.

The 'fuzzy' corner of the display will be either due to a fault in the
monitor itself, or maybe some external factor - magnetism ?
Try the simplest things first.
Make sure that there is nothing ganerating magnetic fields near to the
monitor - speakers, adapters/power supplies, force-feedback joystick,
external drive, etc. Just moving things around on the desk might make the
difference. At one time I had the power 'bricks' for various peripherals -
scanner, joystick, etc - plugged into a power strip on a shelf just below
the monitor. It didn't exactly 'help' the bottm of the display. If in doubt,
move it and see.
Kevin.
 
Kevin Lawton schreef:
<snip>
| I had fuzzy quality at the right side of the display (this means for
| example a fuzzy clock in the Windows taskbar).
|
| I use the Matrox Millenium P650 now, which in combination with my
| monitor gives a very crisp image in the middle and at the left side.
| Unfortunately the right side is still fuzzy.
|
| This is probably due to my Iiyama monitor. I will try to contact the
| helpdesk on Monday, and explain my problem.

The 'fuzzy' corner of the display will be either due to a fault in the
monitor itself, or maybe some external factor - magnetism ?
Try the simplest things first.
Make sure that there is nothing ganerating magnetic fields near to the
monitor - speakers, adapters/power supplies, force-feedback joystick,
external drive, etc. Just moving things around on the desk might make the
difference. At one time I had the power 'bricks' for various peripherals -
scanner, joystick, etc - plugged into a power strip on a shelf just below
the monitor. It didn't exactly 'help' the bottm of the display. If in doubt,
move it and see.
Kevin.
Click to expand...

I unplugged the speakers and all near power 'bricks', with no change in
focus.

The monitor is plugged in together with the PC into a power strip,
located about a meter below the monitor (on the ground actually) :-)

But if the problem is magnetic/electrical interference, shouldn't I have
experienced the problem with my old monitor too?

Also, remember the unsharp picture occurs when I'm using high refresh
rates (85 Hz, 100 Hz, ...), and the picture is more or less OK starting
from 70 Hz to 60 Hz.

I also noted an unsharp picture, horizontally in the middle of the
screen, and vertically in the upper half of the screen:

Schematic:
_________
| x x|
| x|
|________x|


An x means loss of focus.

Kind regards,
 
| Kevin Lawton schreef:
|
|| <snip>
|| | I had fuzzy quality at the right side of the display (this means
|| for | example a fuzzy clock in the Windows taskbar).
|| |
|| | I use the Matrox Millenium P650 now, which in combination with my
|| | monitor gives a very crisp image in the middle and at the left
|| side. | Unfortunately the right side is still fuzzy.
|| |
|| | This is probably due to my Iiyama monitor. I will try to contact
|| the | helpdesk on Monday, and explain my problem.
||
|| The 'fuzzy' corner of the display will be either due to a fault in
|| the monitor itself, or maybe some external factor - magnetism ?
|| Try the simplest things first.
|| Make sure that there is nothing ganerating magnetic fields near to
|| the monitor - speakers, adapters/power supplies, force-feedback
|| joystick, external drive, etc. Just moving things around on the desk
|| might make the difference. At one time I had the power 'bricks' for
|| various peripherals - scanner, joystick, etc - plugged into a power
|| strip on a shelf just below the monitor. It didn't exactly 'help'
|| the bottm of the display. If in doubt, move it and see.
|| Kevin.
|
| I unplugged the speakers and all near power 'bricks', with no change
| in focus.
|
| The monitor is plugged in together with the PC into a power strip,
| located about a meter below the monitor (on the ground actually) :-)
|
| But if the problem is magnetic/electrical interference, shouldn't I
| have experienced the problem with my old monitor too?
|
| Also, remember the unsharp picture occurs when I'm using high refresh
| rates (85 Hz, 100 Hz, ...), and the picture is more or less OK
| starting
| from 70 Hz to 60 Hz.
|
| I also noted an unsharp picture, horizontally in the middle of the
| screen, and vertically in the upper half of the screen:
|
| Schematic:
| _________
|| x x|
|| x|
|| ________x|
|
|
| An x means loss of focus.

Okay - you seem to have eliminated the easy ones - so it is probably time
for the monitor to visit a service engineer.
Kevin.
 
Kevin Lawton schreef:
Okay - you seem to have eliminated the easy ones - so it is probably time
for the monitor to visit a service engineer.
Kevin.
Click to expand...

I contacted the Iiyama service, and they are going to deliver a
replacement monitor.

Kind regards,
 
Back
Top