A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

2D performance ATI compared to Matrox



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 3rd 04, 12:51 PM
Jo Vermeulen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 3rd 04, 06:04 PM
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 3rd 04, 07:40 PM
Jean
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"On the contrary, the ATI Radeon 9200 card is very good in 3D


You must be joking !!!!


  #4  
Old January 3rd 04, 10:08 PM
kony
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 3rd 04, 10:57 PM
robin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 3rd 04, 11:34 PM
Jo Vermeulen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 3rd 04, 11:46 PM
Jo Vermeulen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 4th 04, 02:47 AM
Tod
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 4th 04, 02:20 PM
Jo Vermeulen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 5th 04, 02:21 PM
chrisv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Vidieo Performance issues Mike Seltenright General 5 December 18th 03 09:04 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.