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
|
|||
|
|||
radeon 7500 vs 8500 video quality
Hi,
I recently decided to try a dual video card solution for 2 monitors rather than having both connected to my 8500 AGP. I found there was a lot of interference to the secondary monitor on the 8500 and it wouldn't take custom resolution settings from Powerstrip. So I added a Powercolor Radeon 7500 PCI card and it solved those problems. I was also surprised that suddenly my PVR application (WinDVR) can now record or timeshift at any setting without losing audio sync. I guess the dual display mode on the 8500 made that harder for some reason... On the downside, it seems like text on the 7500 is a little fuzzier than it was on the 8500. Obviously there's a huge difference in 3D performance, but I assumed the RAMDAC wouldn't have changed much from the 7500 to the 8500. Is this incorrect? Is this a model specific issue, a PCI issue, or a Powercolor vs. ATI issue? (My 8500 is an ATI.) Thanks, Ric |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Ric wrote:
On the downside, it seems like text on the 7500 is a little fuzzier than it was on the 8500. Obviously there's a huge difference in 3D performance, but I assumed the RAMDAC wouldn't have changed much from the 7500 to the 8500. Is this incorrect? Is this a model specific issue, a PCI issue, or a Powercolor vs. ATI issue? (My 8500 is an ATI.) I *think* the 7500 uses more on-board functions, while the 8500 has on-chip functions. This means that all the filters and stuff are 'guaranteed' quality for the 8500, whereas in the case of the 7500, you have to be lucky the manufacturer didnt save too much money by using ****ty equipment, like the filters. And i have heard that Powercolor has a bad rep on that point... Thomas |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I don't think the 8500 has anything more 'on-chip' which is 'onboard' on the
7500 - the hardware features missing on the 7500 merely go through the CPU instead. However the quality of the electronics going from the framebuffers to the monitor connections are likely to vary across cards and brands. I have a Powercolor 9000 Pro, and the image quality I think is slightly worse than on my original ATi Radeon 64MB VIVO. "Thomas" wrote in message news:OMicb.51605$tK5.6002924@zonnet-reader-1... Ric wrote: On the downside, it seems like text on the 7500 is a little fuzzier than it was on the 8500. Obviously there's a huge difference in 3D performance, but I assumed the RAMDAC wouldn't have changed much from the 7500 to the 8500. Is this incorrect? Is this a model specific issue, a PCI issue, or a Powercolor vs. ATI issue? (My 8500 is an ATI.) I *think* the 7500 uses more on-board functions, while the 8500 has on-chip functions. This means that all the filters and stuff are 'guaranteed' quality for the 8500, whereas in the case of the 7500, you have to be lucky the manufacturer didnt save too much money by using ****ty equipment, like the filters. And i have heard that Powercolor has a bad rep on that point... Thomas --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 01/09/2003 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Wish I had thought to ask before buying. Would have shelled out the extra
bucks on the ATI card for a crisper display. Oh well... At least things are working smoothly... Ric "Andy Cunningham" wrote in message ... I don't think the 8500 has anything more 'on-chip' which is 'onboard' on the 7500 - the hardware features missing on the 7500 merely go through the CPU instead. However the quality of the electronics going from the framebuffers to the monitor connections are likely to vary across cards and brands. I have a Powercolor 9000 Pro, and the image quality I think is slightly worse than on my original ATi Radeon 64MB VIVO. "Thomas" wrote in message news:OMicb.51605$tK5.6002924@zonnet-reader-1... Ric wrote: On the downside, it seems like text on the 7500 is a little fuzzier than it was on the 8500. Obviously there's a huge difference in 3D performance, but I assumed the RAMDAC wouldn't have changed much from the 7500 to the 8500. Is this incorrect? Is this a model specific issue, a PCI issue, or a Powercolor vs. ATI issue? (My 8500 is an ATI.) I *think* the 7500 uses more on-board functions, while the 8500 has on-chip functions. This means that all the filters and stuff are 'guaranteed' quality for the 8500, whereas in the case of the 7500, you have to be lucky the manufacturer didnt save too much money by using ****ty equipment, like the filters. And i have heard that Powercolor has a bad rep on that point... Thomas --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 01/09/2003 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Another question: how does the OS (XP) and applications deal with hardware
enhanced features when there are 2 video cards. If I move a window between displays, will it still use all the hardware features of the other hard? What happens with a window that split between both displays? Thanks, Ric "Andy Cunningham" wrote in message ... I don't think the 8500 has anything more 'on-chip' which is 'onboard' on the 7500 - the hardware features missing on the 7500 merely go through the CPU instead. However the quality of the electronics going from the framebuffers to the monitor connections are likely to vary across cards and brands. I have a Powercolor 9000 Pro, and the image quality I think is slightly worse than on my original ATi Radeon 64MB VIVO. "Thomas" wrote in message news:OMicb.51605$tK5.6002924@zonnet-reader-1... Ric wrote: On the downside, it seems like text on the 7500 is a little fuzzier than it was on the 8500. Obviously there's a huge difference in 3D performance, but I assumed the RAMDAC wouldn't have changed much from the 7500 to the 8500. Is this incorrect? Is this a model specific issue, a PCI issue, or a Powercolor vs. ATI issue? (My 8500 is an ATI.) I *think* the 7500 uses more on-board functions, while the 8500 has on-chip functions. This means that all the filters and stuff are 'guaranteed' quality for the 8500, whereas in the case of the 7500, you have to be lucky the manufacturer didnt save too much money by using ****ty equipment, like the filters. And i have heard that Powercolor has a bad rep on that point... Thomas --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 01/09/2003 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I run two video cards, Radeon and Xpert. I think you'll find there's
limitations using both hardware overlay (video uses this) and directx (dx normally only uses primary display). OpenGl more or less demands dual-monitors be disabled regardless of how it's done although I think Matrox may have this problem worked out with their latest. Ric wrote: Another question: how does the OS (XP) and applications deal with hardware enhanced features when there are 2 video cards. If I move a window between displays, will it still use all the hardware features of the other hard? What happens with a window that split between both displays? Thanks, Ric "Andy Cunningham" wrote in message ... I don't think the 8500 has anything more 'on-chip' which is 'onboard' on the 7500 - the hardware features missing on the 7500 merely go through the CPU instead. However the quality of the electronics going from the framebuffers to the monitor connections are likely to vary across cards and brands. I have a Powercolor 9000 Pro, and the image quality I think is slightly worse than on my original ATi Radeon 64MB VIVO. "Thomas" wrote in message news:OMicb.51605$tK5.6002924@zonnet-reader-1... Ric wrote: On the downside, it seems like text on the 7500 is a little fuzzier than it was on the 8500. Obviously there's a huge difference in 3D performance, but I assumed the RAMDAC wouldn't have changed much from the 7500 to the 8500. Is this incorrect? Is this a model specific issue, a PCI issue, or a Powercolor vs. ATI issue? (My 8500 is an ATI.) I *think* the 7500 uses more on-board functions, while the 8500 has on-chip functions. This means that all the filters and stuff are 'guaranteed' quality for the 8500, whereas in the case of the 7500, you have to be lucky the manufacturer didnt save too much money by using ****ty equipment, like the filters. And i have heard that Powercolor has a bad rep on that point... Thomas --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 01/09/2003 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
So, for example, I use an application for 3D viewing of molecules which uses
OpenGL for 3D rendering. The program runs in a window, not full screen. If I drag the window from the primary to the secondary adapter it loses hardware acceleration? Does having the second display in any way adversely affect the acceleration on the primary display? I've been playing with having the transparency effect of hydravision turned on and transparent windows definitely move faster on the 8500 driven monitor than on the 7500 driven monitor (although even on the 8500 it seems a little slow). If I have a window split between the 2 and move it up and down the 7500 half lags behind the 8500 half. Overlay, on the other hand, doesn't seem to work on both monitors at the same time. I can drag an overlay window to either one and it works, but if it's split, I only see the overlay on the monitor where the majority of the window resides. The part of the window on the other monitor only shows black. Thanks, Ric "pjp" wrote in message ... I run two video cards, Radeon and Xpert. I think you'll find there's limitations using both hardware overlay (video uses this) and directx (dx normally only uses primary display). OpenGl more or less demands dual-monitors be disabled regardless of how it's done although I think Matrox may have this problem worked out with their latest. Ric wrote: Another question: how does the OS (XP) and applications deal with hardware enhanced features when there are 2 video cards. If I move a window between displays, will it still use all the hardware features of the other hard? What happens with a window that split between both displays? Thanks, Ric "Andy Cunningham" wrote in message ... I don't think the 8500 has anything more 'on-chip' which is 'onboard' on the 7500 - the hardware features missing on the 7500 merely go through the CPU instead. However the quality of the electronics going from the framebuffers to the monitor connections are likely to vary across cards and brands. I have a Powercolor 9000 Pro, and the image quality I think is slightly worse than on my original ATi Radeon 64MB VIVO. "Thomas" wrote in message news:OMicb.51605$tK5.6002924@zonnet-reader-1... Ric wrote: On the downside, it seems like text on the 7500 is a little fuzzier than it was on the 8500. Obviously there's a huge difference in 3D performance, but I assumed the RAMDAC wouldn't have changed much from the 7500 to the 8500. Is this incorrect? Is this a model specific issue, a PCI issue, or a Powercolor vs. ATI issue? (My 8500 is an ATI.) I *think* the 7500 uses more on-board functions, while the 8500 has on-chip functions. This means that all the filters and stuff are 'guaranteed' quality for the 8500, whereas in the case of the 7500, you have to be lucky the manufacturer didnt save too much money by using ****ty equipment, like the filters. And i have heard that Powercolor has a bad rep on that point... Thomas --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 01/09/2003 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Your reply tells me feature set is very card and os specific
I never run OpenGl programs in a window but know every one of them I have including Quake III Arena and the like simply terminate back to my desktop if I don't first disable secondary display(s). Same thing when I had my prior Matrox G550 running in "dual-head" mode. I would assume that when your OpenGl window gets dragged onto the 2nd display it's running software mode but ... who knows or how to determine same for sure I can't tell you??? My biggest problem is Xpert's driver doesn't "notice" the Radeon's VIVO features and hence some options "disappear" from the display's custom dialog boxs, e.g. specifically I loose the dialog with the TV OUT enable-disable button. I have easy work arounds for it. Wether or not I can watch accelerated video on the second display or spanning across both seems very software player specific. Some do it, some don't for me. Note in my case it's a 19" primary (at 1280x1024) and a 15" secondary (at 1024x768) and most of the time the 2nd display only has toolbars and or download status boxes and the like on it so I haven't done extensive testing. Ric wrote: So, for example, I use an application for 3D viewing of molecules which uses OpenGL for 3D rendering. The program runs in a window, not full screen. If I drag the window from the primary to the secondary adapter it loses hardware acceleration? Does having the second display in any way adversely affect the acceleration on the primary display? I've been playing with having the transparency effect of hydravision turned on and transparent windows definitely move faster on the 8500 driven monitor than on the 7500 driven monitor (although even on the 8500 it seems a little slow). If I have a window split between the 2 and move it up and down the 7500 half lags behind the 8500 half. Overlay, on the other hand, doesn't seem to work on both monitors at the same time. I can drag an overlay window to either one and it works, but if it's split, I only see the overlay on the monitor where the majority of the window resides. The part of the window on the other monitor only shows black. Thanks, Ric "pjp" wrote in message ... I run two video cards, Radeon and Xpert. I think you'll find there's limitations using both hardware overlay (video uses this) and directx (dx normally only uses primary display). OpenGl more or less demands dual-monitors be disabled regardless of how it's done although I think Matrox may have this problem worked out with their latest. Ric wrote: Another question: how does the OS (XP) and applications deal with hardware enhanced features when there are 2 video cards. If I move a window between displays, will it still use all the hardware features of the other hard? What happens with a window that split between both displays? Thanks, Ric "Andy Cunningham" wrote in message ... I don't think the 8500 has anything more 'on-chip' which is 'onboard' on the 7500 - the hardware features missing on the 7500 merely go through the CPU instead. However the quality of the electronics going from the framebuffers to the monitor connections are likely to vary across cards and brands. I have a Powercolor 9000 Pro, and the image quality I think is slightly worse than on my original ATi Radeon 64MB VIVO. "Thomas" wrote in message news:OMicb.51605$tK5.6002924@zonnet-reader-1... Ric wrote: On the downside, it seems like text on the 7500 is a little fuzzier than it was on the 8500. Obviously there's a huge difference in 3D performance, but I assumed the RAMDAC wouldn't have changed much from the 7500 to the 8500. Is this incorrect? Is this a model specific issue, a PCI issue, or a Powercolor vs. ATI issue? (My 8500 is an ATI.) I *think* the 7500 uses more on-board functions, while the 8500 has on-chip functions. This means that all the filters and stuff are 'guaranteed' quality for the 8500, whereas in the case of the 7500, you have to be lucky the manufacturer didnt save too much money by using ****ty equipment, like the filters. And i have heard that Powercolor has a bad rep on that point... Thomas --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 01/09/2003 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"pjp" wrote in message ... Your reply tells me feature set is very card and os specific I never run OpenGl programs in a window but know every one of them I have including Quake III Arena and the like simply terminate back to my desktop if I don't first disable secondary display(s). Same thing when I had my prior Matrox G550 running in "dual-head" mode. I would assume that when your OpenGl window gets dragged onto the 2nd display it's running software mode but ... who knows or how to determine same for sure I can't tell you??? Well, I experimented a bit loading a large molecule into the viewer and on the primary display rotating it is much faster than on the secondary display. Hard to tell if that's because the 7500 is much slower than the 8500 or if it's software mode. However, with the window split between both monitors the rotation speed on both monitors was the same, and the same as if the window was fully on the secondary display, so I'm guessing that if any part of the window is on the secondary display the program switches to software only rendering, and if the window is fully in the primary display hardware acceleration kicks in. Not that this is a big deal. I don't really have any need for 3d acceleration on the secondary display, which I use only for 2D applications and video (although a dual display game would be pretty cool. In fact, with my 2 card setup now, I could have 4 monitors going for a full emersive experience...) My biggest problem is Xpert's driver doesn't "notice" the Radeon's VIVO features and hence some options "disappear" from the display's custom dialog boxs, e.g. specifically I loose the dialog with the TV OUT enable-disable button. I have easy work arounds for it. Wether or not I can watch accelerated video on the second display or spanning across both seems very software player specific. Some do it, some don't for me. Note in my case it's a 19" primary (at 1280x1024) and a 15" secondary (at 1024x768) and most of the time the 2nd display only has toolbars and or download status boxes and the like on it so I haven't done extensive testing. I've got a 19 and a 22. There another 19 sitting in the next room that I just sold. I've been fighting the temptation to stick the spare 19 on the other side of my 22, giving up what's left of the meager desk space. I do use the 19 for video or TV frequently while doing other work on the 22, so the video acceleration there is nice to have. From what I can tell, overlay is one or the other but you can move a window between the 2 and the overlay will follow. I think when you can split the window between the 2 overlay is not being used. Some applications, though will only seem to output to the primary display. I may yet set up an old 15" I have lying around as a 3rd display purely as a video monitor. I wonder if I'd damage anything by having it sit on top of one of the other monitors? My VCR currently lives on top of my 22, which I think is somewhat precarious in that the 22 seems to vent a lot of heat from the top grill, which is probably slowly cooking the back end of my VCR. Whenever I've had to pull cables from the back the metal is pretty warm... Mind you, between DVD and DVR I don't really use tape much anymore. Still, I find my VCR's tuner does a better job than my TV Wonder. Ric |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A7N8X-VM Radeon 9600XT - No video - No beep | bmonteen | Asus Motherboards | 1 | February 10th 04 12:53 AM |
Video card for Asus CUSL2 | Kamal | Asus Motherboards | 2 | January 28th 04 07:03 PM |
AIW 8500 128MB Video Displayed on TV | AIWonder Boy | Ati Videocards | 0 | August 15th 03 04:45 AM |
Looking for a videocard/CPU/misc. parts, any suggestions? | Cyde Weys | General | 9 | July 12th 03 12:14 AM |
Problem w/ Radeon 8500 LE and ECS K7S5A | LesGratuites.com | Ati Videocards | 3 | June 30th 03 10:24 AM |