View Single Post
  #8  
Old July 31st 03, 06:45 AM
Ron Merts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

We noticed a definite improvement in 2D resolution and quality with the FX
5200 (Ultra and non-Ultra), FX 5800 (non-Ultra) and FX 5900 cards over the
GeForce4 cards - the 5200 Performance, well it's pretty much universally
accepted that this entry level card can't compete with a GF4 Ti card. As
for picture quality I have seen an FX 5900 (non-Ultra) right next to an ATi
Radeon 9700 Pro and to be honest I don't notice much difference. The ATi
display was a little brighter, but adjusting the gamma in the FX card to 1.2
from 1.0 fixed that. What was most important to me and the wife was
stability and reliability. The ATi drivers are good one release then
unreliable the next; but the nVidia ones seem to be consistantly good - as
long as you don't plunge into betas which range from excellent to mediocre.
Face it, at frame rates over 120fps all you get is bragging rights
(according to Intel and video production people anything over 80fps is
bragging rights as the human eye is not capable of detecting the difference
at rates over 80fps).

I will agree with an earlier post, the Matrox Millennium 400 and 500 series
cards produced fantastic clarity and brightness in 2D mode; but the FX cards
from nVidia are at least as good and have much better 3D speed. I don't
have anything from Matrox later than a 450 to compare with, so as for their
new cards, someone else is going to have to step up.

Ron

"Default" wrote in message
...
Thanks for the replies people, keep em coming in. Also, if you've come
across any online reviews that would be helpful too.
Cheers


"Default" wrote in message
...
Hi all,

Interested to know which set of cards now have the better image (and

video)
quality, nV or ATi?
Came across a guy who says his Quadro looks better on screen than a

9800P.
Can this be true?

Views much appreciated!