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?"

Comments

Well-documented over the years

[Ophidian P. Jones]

The money is in improving 3D quality. 2D isn't important to the average end-user any more.

Re:Well-documented over the years

[Brandybuck]

The average end-user is very concerned with 2D quality. Reading email, browsing the web, creating presentations, writing documentation, etc, etc. All are 2D applications.

The only people who care about 3D are gamers. They're a minority. A small minority. Much more significant are the non-gamer home users and businesses.

"Pretty" Sells

[JonoPlop]

Unfortunately, 3D is now the main consideration. People benchmark by 3D scores. Graphics card boxes show pictures of 3D games, and the company demos 3D applications of the card. This is simply because they look pretty; imagine showing a picture of a normal desktop on a 3D card, or just showing normal desktop 2D usage at a trade show demo - it wouldn't draw any attention.

Re:"Pretty" Sells

[ctr2sprt]

Er, no, it's not "simply because [3D] look[s] pretty." It's because 3D performance is what people want. I'm sure NVIDIA et al. could make cards that look better than that old Matrox, but I'm just as sure it would add $50 or so to the card's price. Most people, myself included, would just not be willing to pay for it. One solution would be to keep the card's cost constant by reducing 3D performance, shipping it with less RAM, etc., but I hope you can see why that wouldn't work.

This is not a case of graphics manufacturers tricking us helpless sheep via marketing. This is a case of gamers being the driving market for video cards, and 2D video quality is just not that important for gamers. The extensive marketing of 3D performance isn't the cause of the focus: the focus is the cause of the marketing.

DVI

[zsazsa]

You're not crazy. If you buy a Matrox Parhelia, it'll look a lot better on a CRT than a GeForce. GeForce boards' analog sections are made to lower quality specifications than Matroxes, hence the cheaper price. If you want crisp 2D on a CRT, you're going to have to pay, just like how you paid for your old Matrox -- I'm sure it wasn't cheap when it was new.

If you want crispness with GeForces (or Radeons), go DVI with an LCD monitor. Since it's all digital, there'll be no degradation.

Re:Apple CRTs, for comparison

[Fluffy the Cat]

its just digital, digital, digital right up until the images hit your eyes...

Uh. How is a cathode ray being steered by a magnetic field digital?