2D visual quality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Species
  • Start date Start date
S

Species

I'm not really interested in hard-core fast 3D, but I'd like the best 2D
visual quality and colour because onboard video is lousy. I'm thinking
about a low end DVI Radeon 9xxx card. Is the colour and 2D visual
quality dependent on the ATI chipset or the actual card's manufacturer?
Which manufacturers are the best? I hear Powercolor is bad.
Thanks for any help/
 
Species said:
I'm not really interested in hard-core fast 3D, but I'd like the best
2D visual quality and colour because onboard video is lousy. I'm
thinking about a low end DVI Radeon 9xxx card. Is the colour and 2D
visual quality dependent on the ATI chipset or the actual card's
manufacturer? Which manufacturers are the best? I hear Powercolor is
bad.
Thanks for any help/
Click to expand...

Matrox G550 or Parhelia should suit perfect for you.

Matrox has the BEST 2D quality over the market.

--

~Yra Ghore
[Arcane Vaultkeeper]

Abit NF7-S 2.0
Thoro A 1800+@1800Mhz (200x9) 1.75v
1Gb DDR433 Kingmaxx
Ati Radeon 9700Pro @ Default
60Gb HD Maxtor 7200rpm
 
~YrA* said:
Matrox G550 or Parhelia should suit perfect for you.
Click to expand...

The G550 (a Matrox G400 with DDR ram & DVI) doesn't work with a heap of
different 3D software. I'm not really interested in max 3D performance, but
I'd like programs to be able to work at all.
Matrox has the BEST 2D quality over the market.
Click to expand...

I know, I had a G400 but it died, but the Parhelia is utterly unaffordable.
 
Matrox G550 or Parhelia should suit perfect for you.

Matrox has the BEST 2D quality over the market.
Click to expand...

Yea, but they are expensive too. ATI cards have good 2D and I would
just get an ATI R8500 or R9200.
 
Yea, but they are expensive too. ATI cards have good 2D and I would
just get an ATI R8500 or R9200.
Click to expand...

The 8500 was a $300 card a few years and can be had for cheap now. Get a
made by ATI full 8500 and you got a top performing 2D card that can still
hold it's own in the modern 3D games.

-Kent
 
Species said:
The G550 (a Matrox G400 with DDR ram & DVI) doesn't work with a heap of
different 3D software. I'm not really interested in max 3D performance, but
I'd like programs to be able to work at all.


I know, I had a G400 but it died, but the Parhelia is utterly unaffordable.
Click to expand...
When I went from a G400 to a Radeon 9000Pro I got both better performance
and, in my view, better 2D quality. (on a Sony 17 inch monitor anyway).

Laurence
 
Laurence said:
When I went from a G400 to a Radeon 9000Pro I got both better performance
and, in my view, better 2D quality. (on a Sony 17 inch monitor anyway).
Click to expand...


I see no major reason why Matrox should still be better than ATI - I suspect
it's usually down to the quality of the RAMDAC.

On a Sony G400 (19" flat Trinitron) the quality is excellent, I usually run
1600x1200@85Hz on my ATI 9800 Pro (Crucial - possibly a rebadged Sapphire) -
you'd expect the text to be unreadable, but I can read this (9pt Arial) from
3' from the screen and it looks pretty sharp to me. If the Matrox is
better, there doesn't seem much need. Whether the cheaper ATI cards use the
same quality RAMDACS I'm unsure.

Ben
 
Ben said:
I see no major reason why Matrox should still be better than ATI - I
suspect it's usually down to the quality of the RAMDAC.

On a Sony G400 (19" flat Trinitron) the quality is excellent, I
usually run 1600x1200@85Hz on my ATI 9800 Pro (Crucial - possibly a
rebadged Sapphire) - you'd expect the text to be unreadable, but I
can read this (9pt Arial) from 3' from the screen and it looks pretty
sharp to me. If the Matrox is better, there doesn't seem much need.
Whether the cheaper ATI cards use the same quality RAMDACS I'm unsure.
Click to expand...

From the 9000 onwards, both RAMDACs are integrated in the GPU core.

Thomas
 
Back
Top