Matrox G550 vs Radeon 8500

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 15:24:45 -0400, george1234
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 17:41:05 +0200, Edi Zubovic edi.zubovic[rem
wrote:


If you are seeking after a maximum text quality, go LCD and DVI. At
native resolution, a dot above "i" is one pixel. No less, no more, no
in-between and completely flicker-free.

that is not my experience. i did this with a syntax olevia 30" LCD and
and ATI dvi output. Text looked awful

I much prefer a CRT

--G

But was it at the native resolution (it must have been huge) and could
the ATI handle it?

I have no problems whatsoever regarding text and 2D with a Matrox
Parhelia 128 DVI connected to a Samsung Syncmaster 213T @1600 x 1200,
normal (i. not "large") desktop fonts. This is the "native" resoution
for the 213t.
It is important that the resolution matches that "native" one,
specified by the manufacturer. Otherwise, yes, text does look awful.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 22:17:42 +0200, Edi Zubovic edi.zubovic[rem
wrote:

--------------8----------------------

that is not my experience. i did this with a syntax olevia 30" LCD and
and ATI dvi output. Text looked awful

Oops -- but this is a LCD TV, not a monitor... can't say much here,
sorry.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

I much prefer a CRT

--G

But was it at the native resolution (it must have been huge) and could
the ATI handle it?

I have no problems whatsoever regarding text and 2D with a Matrox
Parhelia 128 DVI connected to a Samsung Syncmaster 213T @1600 x 1200,
normal (i. not "large") desktop fonts. This is the "native" resoution
for the 213t.
It is important that the resolution matches that "native" one,
specified by the manufacturer. Otherwise, yes, text does look awful.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

The Real Slim Shady wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:32:17 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:


If he sees a _significant_ improvement in text by going from a Radeon
8500
to a G550 then his radeon was broken. There may be some slight
difference that an expert on text rendering might be able to detect with
a magnifier or instruments, but there is none perceptible to the average
user.

The notion that there is some huge difference in text quality between
Matrox and other boards is pure hyperbole.

Wait. I'm using a superb Sony 19" lcd attached to a G400 (VGA) and an ATI
(DVI).

What model ATI and how old is it?

There *is* a noticeable difference: the former, 5 years old card,
has a better output.

Running at native res on the DVI? You should have one dot per pixel--the
video board should be producing no artifacts at all. If it is then
something is broken.

OTOH, if you use a standard monitor like the ones people buy everyday, you
won't notice any difference, as they are pure crap anyway, designed for
games.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

The Real Slim Shady wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 00:47:55 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:


If he sees a _significant_ improvement in text by going from a Radeon
8500
to a G550 then his radeon was broken. There may be some slight
difference that an expert on text rendering might be able to detect
with a magnifier or instruments, but there is none perceptible to the
average user.

The notion that there is some huge difference in text quality between
Matrox and other boards is pure hyperbole.

Wait. I'm using a superb Sony 19" lcd attached to a G400 (VGA) and an
ATI (DVI).

What model ATI and how old is it?

2004 vintage. 9600.
There *is* a noticeable difference: the former, 5 years old card, has a
better output.

Running at native res on the DVI? You should have one dot per pixel--the
video board should be producing no artifacts at all. If it is then
something is broken.

Of course it's native resolution.
This what you claim is called "wishful thinking". Nothing is broken, it's
just their output is simply not comparable to matrox quality. Nvidia and
ati are designed for games. No one cares if their output looks weird when
you shoot around at unreal tournament. Now try to make some real work and
pretend to have real colors on a real monitor. You need a different card.

I see. So to display black text on a white background you need "real
colors".

What you are reporting is called "anecdotal evidence" and further, since you
knew which was which, a certain amount of placebo effect. You want Matrox
to look better so you find something that leads you to believe that what
you are seeing is "better". If it makes you happy go for it, but when you
start selling other people Matrox boards because of this vast difference in
text quality and the find out what all they can't do with those boards and
find out that they can't tell the difference in output between those boards
and their friends ATI and nvidia boards then they will stop listening to
your advice.

OTOH, if you use a standard monitor like the ones people buy
everyday,
you won't notice any difference, as they are pure crap anyway, designed
for games.
And the former is the second part of the equation.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:

What you are reporting is called "anecdotal evidence" and further,
since you knew which was which, a certain amount of placebo effect.
You want Matrox to look better so you find something that leads you
to believe that what you are seeing is "better". If it makes you
happy go for it, but when you start selling other people Matrox
boards because of this vast difference in text quality and the find
out what all they can't do with those boards and find out that they
can't tell the difference in output between those boards and their
friends ATI and nvidia boards then they will stop listening to your
advice.

Sorry for breaking in here, but what I find is that there's a lot of
things I could do with my *Matrox* card that I simply can't do with the
nVidia (or ATI). Hardware text anti-aliasing? Forget it. Independent
or hardware-accellerated overlays? Sorry, nope. Get used to TV that is
1-2 seconds delayed even with a top nVidia card. Two monitors in
independent mode plus a TV? Forget it -- you have to clone then. 10
bits per colour, at least? No, 255 greys or greens is all you get.

Face it -- the nVidia/ATI cards are made for gamers, and they do an
*excellent* job for that. If frame rate and the latest DX features is
what you want, they *rock*. But for things like video or Photoshop
work, give me a Matrox Parhelia any day.

--
*Art

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 07:59:38 -0500, "Tony Pacc"
wrote:

Hi, I am currently using a ATI Radeon 8500 on an older Dell P3 1000mgh
Pentium,I'm not into games ,so I am wondering if I would get better 2 D
performance with the G550,I using a Samsung 930B flat panel with digital
output,I am basically looking at better text performance.Thanks


I've never had good luck with any ATI video cards when attempting to
use them with either of 2 LCD monitors (3 cards tested). All of the
ATI cards showed instability to varying degrees, and this has never
been a problem with the G450 or G550. In my present setup I need a
digital hookup to eliminate ghosting, so am using an offbrand non-ATI
that works great.