If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
2D performance ATI compared to Matrox
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, -- Jo Vermeulen Student Computer Science at the tUL email: www: http://lumumba.luc.ac.be/jo |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. "Jo Vermeulen" wrote in message ... 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, -- Jo Vermeulen Student Computer Science at the tUL email: www: http://lumumba.luc.ac.be/jo --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.557 / Virus Database: 349 - Release Date: 12/30/2003 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"On the contrary, the ATI Radeon 9200 card is very good in 3D You must be joking !!!! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 14:40:46 -0500, "Jean" wrote:
"On the contrary, the ATI Radeon 9200 card is very good in 3D You must be joking !!!! 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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 13:51:02 +0100, Jo Vermeulen
wrote: 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, If you want great 2d performance get a Matrox card. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
kony wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 14:40:46 -0500, "Jean" wrote: "On the contrary, the ATI Radeon 9200 card is very good in 3D You must be joking !!!! It's true... compared to a Matrox G450 or older. 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. 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 Vermeulen Student Computer Science at the tUL email: www: http://lumumba.luc.ac.be/jo |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Jo Vermeulen wrote:
kony wrote: On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 14:40:46 -0500, "Jean" wrote: "On the contrary, the ATI Radeon 9200 card is very good in 3D You must be joking !!!! It's true... compared to a Matrox G450 or older. 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. 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? Just found this: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ma...ews.com&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 ) Does anybody know how the P650 compares? Kind regards, -- Jo Vermeulen Student Computer Science at the tUL email: www: http://lumumba.luc.ac.be/jo |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 Vermeulen" wrote in message ... 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, -- Jo Vermeulen Student Computer Science at the tUL email: www: http://lumumba.luc.ac.be/jo |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Jo Vermeulen wrote:
Jo Vermeulen wrote: kony wrote: It doesn't sound like he needs blazing 3D speed though, a Radeon 9200 or 9600 might be ideal for the purpose. 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? Just found this: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ma...ews.com&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 ) 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? 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 Student Computer Science at the tUL email: www: http://lumumba.luc.ac.be/jo |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Jo Vermeulen wrote:
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. 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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Vidieo Performance issues | Mike Seltenright | General | 5 | December 18th 03 10:04 PM |
extremely bad game performance | Kelly Miggs | General | 6 | October 4th 03 11:19 PM |
Matrox video card | D F Bonnett | General | 3 | August 10th 03 03:58 AM |
increase performance? using 4 modules of 512MB 2225 1T ? | ali yousefi | General | 1 | August 1st 03 12:07 PM |
RAM Performance | frag | General | 3 | July 17th 03 04:43 PM |