Slashdot Mirror
2D vs 3D Performance in Today's Video Cards?
CliffH asks: "Has anyone else noticed a serious decline in 2D quality versus 3D quality in video cards? I routinely work on older systems right beside newer systems on the same monitor (Dell P1110) and it becomes blaringly obvious to me that 2D quality is starting to take a backseat to 3D quality. For example, my main system is a dual-boot Shuttle XPC SS51G with an added GeForce2MX 400 card in for the times I do want to play some games. A little, nasty, ready to be thrown away system I have on my bench at the moment is a K62-500 with my favorite card of all time, a Matrox Millenium II 4MB job in it. The 2D quality between the two is just shocking. Where the Matrox is nice, crisp, extremely easy to read at 1280x1024, the GeForce2 is kind of blurry, not as well defined, and the colors aren't as vibrant. I would be skeptical if this were the only newer card I have seen with the results, but it has gone through the GeForce line (last one I tested was an MSI branded 5900 Ultra) and a small handful of ATI Radeons with similar results. So, the question stands. Am I going nuts or has there been a definate tradeoff between 2D and 3D quality in recent years?"
To a large extent, 2D quality will depend on the quality of the digital/analog conversion on the graphics card. Traditionally, Matroxes were very good in this respect - I've no idea if this is still true, but given their target market I'd guess so. Nowadays, with large numbers of different companies making basically identical cards, one avenue for cost reduction (and so seeming more appealing than your competitors) is to use cheaper parts in this area, with corresponding reduction in quality. As a result, it's quite possible that one Radeon may have dreadful 2D quality while an almost identical looking card using the same chipset from another manufacturer may have decent 2D quality.
Of course, this all becomes much less of an issue once you start using DVI or some other purely digital connection (in laptops, the limiting factor in 2D quality is generally the screen)
The newer cards that you mentioned are mainly geared towards 3D performance because their biggest market (the gamers) want the utmost 3D performace they can get. If you want good 2D performance, you'd probably be better off buying the cards that are geared towards the workstation market (like nVidia's Quadro NVS line) instead of the gaming market. Also, as has been mentioned, DVI-capable cards and an LCD will give an improvement.
It sounds more like the problem is not 2D but basic signal quality. 2D refers to drawing boxes on screen without the coordinate transforms and shading involved in 3D. Clarity of text is more an issue with signal quailty between the video card and the display with the possible exception of some anti aliasing that helps smooth 3D graphics but blurs text. Quality of the analog drivers, using the correct signal levels, sheilded cables so that parts of the green signal don't become part of the red (or which ever combination) and termination on the signal many times severe ghosting can be seen with copies of images or text a few inches to the right of the image. There is no reason other than anti alias filtering that text will look any more blurry from a 3D card as compared to 2D. As clock rates get faster the quaility of the signal becomes a bigger issue and the standard connectors and cables should be improved but have basicly remained the same since the 80's. Is your monitor really capable of the refresh rates? Newer cards have improved update rates but those higher speeds are near the limits of older monitors.
Actually you are running into a (not so quite) well known issue with the GeForce cards that has been addressed here :
How to fix a fuzzy GeForce card
Get out your soldering iron and you can get a crystal clear display on your GF2 while voiding the warranty and pissing off the FCC at the same time.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
RTFP:
"I routinely work on older systems right beside newer systems on the same monitor (Dell P1110) and it becomes blaringly obvious"
(emphasis added)
"The 2D quality between the two is just shocking. Where the Matrox is nice, crisp, extremely easy to read at 1280x1024, the GeForce2 is kind of blurry, not as well defined, and the colors aren't as vibrant."
Geforce 2 cards were known for having cheap-o filters that weakened the analog signal to the monitor. It has nothing to do with 2d vs 3d quality, you bought a card with cheap parts in it. (I did too, that's why I know this.)
Recent Geforce Cards are a lot better. I have dual monitors running at 1600 by 1200, quite clear and readable.
"Derp de derp."
Across the board, over the last two years, 2D quality has largely gone up, on average. Yes, comparing a cheaply manufactured nVIDIA card (like an older GF2MX) to a really high-end older card (like a Matrox) and you'll get huge difference. Compare a more recent ATI-branded Radeon 9600 or a GeForce FX 5X00 from a good company (Gainward, Leadtek, PNY, etc.) to a Matrox Parhelia, and there's not a whole hell of a lot of difference. Both nVIDIA and ATI have upped the minimum standards the card manufacturers can use for quality of the caps on thier low-pass filters.
Besides, 2D output quality is going to be largely unimportant when we all finally switch to DVI.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Newer video cards have upped the RAMDAC speed to around 350MHz. That Matrox card probably only supports 200MHz or so. So the question is: what whas the refresh rate at 1280x1024? Decreasing the refresh rate often increases the sharpness. Also, as noted elsewhere, a lot of the GeForce line is pretty bad for 2D quality.
Haven't you got that backwards? All else being equal, a faster RAMDAC will mean a sharper picture. The higher the frequencies, the closer you can simulate sharp corners. The same way (but going the other way) that sampling at low freqeuncies gives a poor waveform.
But you still need quality components and engineering to avoid squandering that advantage. And a lot of video cards do a worse job with a 350MHz RAMDAC than old Matrox cards could do with a 220MHz (from memory) one.
While it is better, a faster RAMDAC usually can't substitute for a crappier one.
Ahh, I finally realized how you're thinking ... unfortunately, it's wrong. ;) A RAMDAC is a digital to analog converter, therefore it does NOT sample the way you're thinking of it. It will take each pixel, convert the rgb digital values to an analog voltage and drive the signals out the VGA cable. As the refresh rate increases, these voltages representing individual pixels have to change quicker, increasing the frequency. A faster RAMDAC can therefore drive a higher frequency signal over the cable. However, the freqency of the signal to the monitor is only dependent on resolution and refresh rate, not the maximum speed of the RAMDAC. A higher speed RAMDAC will let you increase the resolution and refresh rate, not (necessarily) increase quality of lower bandwidth modes.
Dan
FYI, ATI branded cards are made by Sapphire Technology, and are pretty much identical to the Sapphire branded cards. The ATI ones just get a different (inferior) cooler, and get put in a different box with a different software bundle.
Try switching the cables around. I had the same problem and assumed it was just the crappy card in the other PC, but it turned out to be the cable.
Although after swapping, the machine with the Matrox card in it was still a better picture, but the difference was nowhere near as distinct.
My nVidia MX440 cards are as good as the Matrox G400 cards. I had problems with the Matrox cards dying. Two are sitting on my desk now.
This looks like the best 2D video card deal now: eVGA.com MX440. I use the same chipset from other nVidia manufacturers, but I'm getting ready to order eVGA.
The key issue is RAMDAC speed, which is 350 MHz for the MX440. That's high enough for crisp 1600 x 1200.