View Single Post
  #2  
Old July 2nd 03, 02:35 AM
KSlater
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Get something from Nvida then. I still like them better then ATI and only
use ATI if I want the TV tuner.

"Don Lindbergh" wrote in message
.. .
I have a Matrox Millenium G400 MAX and am very happy with the quality of

the
TV and PC 2D output. I'm currently using a ViewSonic G790 19" monitor and
run 1152x864 True Color (32 bit).

I have a need for video in and so am looking at the Matrox Marvel G450.

I'm not a big gamer, but would be interested in the extra performance an
NVIDIA based or ATI Radeon card with video in/out would offer over the
Marvel G450 for around the same price ($200 street). I don't really need

a
TV tuner.

I'm interested in comments from people who've actually used/compared any
such TV I/O capable NVIDIA based or ATI Radeon cards to either the Matrox
Marvel G450 or the Millenium G400 Max, specifically regarding the quality

of
the video output and the comparative functionality of things like the

Matrox
dualhead modes and DVD Max modes. I very much like being able to drive a

TV
monitor simultaneously with a PC monitor from my Matrox G400 Max and have
any video image sent fullscreen to the TV (ie the Matrox DVD Max feature).
Taking Asus as an example, do either/both Asus NVIDIA models with TV

in/out
and ATI models with same have this functionality? Does it work as well as
the Matrox stuff does? 2D quality is important to me as well, but I'd be
willing to take a relatively small hit in quality on that to gain
siginificant 3D performance.

I found the below relevant post. Agree/disagree?

thanks for any comments,

--Don
don{at}donlindbergh{dot}com

==
From: steve )
Subject: Matrox 2D image quality so much better?


View this article only
Newsgroups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox
Date: 2003-02-22 15:23:49 PST



As a longtime Matrox user who switched to ATI Radeons (7500, 8500,
9000) for a year or so, I find that the ASUS and Leadtek NVIDIA
GeForce4 cards offer the highest quality 2D; their superiority to ATI
is especially evident as you increase the refresh rate: text displayed
through ATI cards tends to become darker and fuzzier at higher
frequencies while text put through GeForce4 cards seems to get a
little darker but also more sharp.

The cards I've experienced this with are Leadtek A180-DDR-TDH and ASUS
V9180-TD and V9280-TD.

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:22:41 +1100, "Cliff"
wrote:

Hi all,

I consistently read that Matrox 2D image quality is so much better than
other cards...but in what way?

I've been using the G400Max for the past 3 years. The image quality is
okay, but it doesn't seem anything exceptional. In fact, I've always
wondered if it was a monitor (LG Flatron 795 Ft Plus) problem - text just
doesn't seem as razor sharp as I would expect. Without a second monitor,
it's hard to verify where the problems lies.

Anyway, just curious to know what aspects of image quality to look for

when
comparing other cards.

Also, has there been much improvement in 2D image quality over the past 3
years. I tend to assume that all the development has gone into the 3D
gaming side.

Thanks in advance, Cliff