Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Matrox Millennium G450 Dual Head 32 MB




  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    852

    Default

    yea when it comes to 2D quality matrox are definantely first....followed distantly by nvidia...with ATI and kyro in between:cheers:
    Epox 8RDA+
    xp2100@ 2.46ghz (214x11.5)
    Radeon 9700 pro
    512mb corsair xms3200 5-3-2-2@214
    512k ADSL
    SLK-800 HSF
    SB Audigy + Ultrasone HFI650DVD
    modded case: 2x120mm,4x80mm
    40GB Seagate Barracuda 4
    Sony trinitron 17"
    Antec Trupower 380W
    3D mark2003 : 5050

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,599

    Default

    just for kicks... does anyone have a link of screenshots comparing the quality of various 2D performance?

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    366

    Default

    Zeradul, if you view a bunch of pics taken off different video cards of the same thing, then you will not see the relative image quality difference properly. IE if you view two pics of something, one froma matrox, one from a nVidia, and view them on a TNT2, you are not really going to see much difference, because your only viewing the image at the capability of the TNT2. So see the difference you need to have two systems set up next to eachother, one with each video card, viewing the same thing, then you will see how much better the matrox is in 2D

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chisholm
    yea when it comes to 2D quality matrox are definantely first....followed distantly by nvidia...with ATI and kyro in between:cheers:

    Actually ive heard, and read many times that ATI far surpasses nVidia in 2D quality and DVD playback

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,599

    Default

    Zeradul, if you view a bunch of pics taken off different video cards of the same thing, then you will not see the relative image quality difference properly
    Is that the case? I considered that but I believe that a screenshot would be an un-alterable example of how the vid cards display the key things, like window edges, and menus, etc. I do not know for sure, that is just an educated hunch.

    Actually ive heard, and read many times that ATI far surpasses nVidia in 2D quality
    Hehe.. that IS what he said... :D :D :thumb: :thumb:

    PS: As pure circumstance would have it, I was at a mini-lan today at my friend who is running a G550, and we did some comparing of the 2D quality, and we certainly couldn't see any difference. I have excellent eyes, but I will say that I do have a better monitor than both of his.

    My system:
    Elsa GF2 GTS 32 MB / Samsung Syncmaster 950P

    His:
    Matrox G550 / Compaq 17" (not sure of model) and an older Dell 15"

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    366

    Default

    hmm, monitor would probably have something to do with it. I think if you had two IDENTICAL systems except video card, and set them up next to eachother, and compared image quality, video playback, then you would see a difference, if you have an average 2D card with a nice sharp monitor, compared to a nice 2D card w/ an average monitor, i guess you wont see any difference

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    852

    Default

    lol yep nvidia definantely come last in 2D...although they seem to have fixed things a bit in the GF4 ti series:)
    Epox 8RDA+
    xp2100@ 2.46ghz (214x11.5)
    Radeon 9700 pro
    512mb corsair xms3200 5-3-2-2@214
    512k ADSL
    SLK-800 HSF
    SB Audigy + Ultrasone HFI650DVD
    modded case: 2x120mm,4x80mm
    40GB Seagate Barracuda 4
    Sony trinitron 17"
    Antec Trupower 380W
    3D mark2003 : 5050

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    New England Highlands, Australia
    Posts
    21,907

    Default

    Not all the older nVidia based cards had bad 2D it was just that some manufacturers used inferior quality parts in the cards assembly that gave them poor 2D quality. ;)
    <center>:cheers:</center>

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    852

    Default

    wow really?
    i thought the poor 2D image quality was caused by the GPU...not the other components of the video card...well looks liek i learnt something today:D
    Epox 8RDA+
    xp2100@ 2.46ghz (214x11.5)
    Radeon 9700 pro
    512mb corsair xms3200 5-3-2-2@214
    512k ADSL
    SLK-800 HSF
    SB Audigy + Ultrasone HFI650DVD
    modded case: 2x120mm,4x80mm
    40GB Seagate Barracuda 4
    Sony trinitron 17"
    Antec Trupower 380W
    3D mark2003 : 5050

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    New England Highlands, Australia
    Posts
    21,907

    Default

    Well a day in which ya learn something hasn't been wasted then. ;)
    <center>:cheers:</center>

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •