Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

2D vs 3D Performance in Today's Video Cards?

Posted by Cliff on from the two-steps-forward... dept.

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?"

7 of 71 comments (clear)

  1. Matrox is an outlier by the+quick+brown+fox · · Score: 5, Interesting
    No, Matrox was just always way out in front in terms of 2D image quality. That was their chief advantage for a while, after everyone else surpassed them in performance.

    I have the impression that within the last 12 or 18 months, 2D image quality has become a priority (maybe a prerequisite) among enthusiasts again. In any case, I recently got an nVidia FX 5200 card (I think the vendor is eVGA) and the quality is superb on my 19" Sony Trinitron--better than the Matrox G400 I used to use.

  2. Use an LCD for crisp 2D. by Tom7 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Switch to LCD and DVI. The monitor cable you use to connect to your card, if analog, can also make quite a big difference.

    Also, "definite" is not spelled with an 'a.' Think, "finite."

    1. Re:Use an LCD for crisp 2D. by PapaZit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're right: it's weird, but the difference that I saw was not subtle. It was "unwatchable" vs. "good". Some things that I can think of:

      -Crappy DVI cable

      -Analog VGA is boring, well-known, and well-tested. It's easy to make hardware that cleans up a VGA signal. Perhaps the monitor cleans up the VGA signal, but passes through the DVI signal unadultered.

      -VGA (like most analog tech) degrades more gracefully. A few missed or altered bits in the DVI signal cause more obvious artifacts.

      --
      Forward, retransmit, or republish anything I say here. Just don't misquote me.
    2. Re:Use an LCD for crisp 2D. by 4of12 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't understand how this is possible. With DVI, the graphics card should not affect the picture quality.

      Don't forget that a DVI-I connector can piggyback a DVI-A, you know, analog signal that used to be a VGA.

      The DVI-D digital part is what you want from your video card and being interpreted by your monitor.

      That was one chunklet of information that I needed to learn in my migration to DVI.

      The other important chunk of information was that The One Cool Number was no longer RAMDAC frequency. (I used to run a Viewsonic P815.)

      Now you want a video card capable of high frequency TMDS to be able to drive high resolution digital monitors.

      Perhaps these days more video cards can support high resolutions easily, but a couple of years ago I had to carefully look at the video cards to see if they could drive my Samsung 240T (1920x1200).

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
  3. Matrox has great 2D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    when i bought a vid card for my last system, i wasn't really interested in playing games. Most of my stuff just relies on 2D. So I dropped 125$ on a Matrox G550. That card had decent 3D and unbelievable 2D. I have since sold that system and the recipient has the same results. Matrox makes fantastic 2D .. and I hope they continue. Perhaps they should even enter the mobile market and make some great looking laptops.

  4. That's quite the norm. by Gadzinka · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Your observations are quite correct. Today's videocards are total crap when it comes to picture quality.

    There is only one manufacturer with very good picture quality and bearable price -- Matrox. But they are either very slow when it comes to 3D graphics (g400/450/550) or quite expensive (Parhelia). And not too fast either.

    ATI (the ATI brand, not the OEM products like powercolor etc) is a little bit worse, but still bearable.

    All NVidia cards are total crap, no matter if you chose several years old or top of the line for $400.

    I think the consumers are guilty, because they buy more FPS ignoring actual picture quality. Vendors just give people what they want.

    Robert

    PS. I still use Matrox G400DH because I spend >12h/d in front of the monitor. I swaped Matrox G450 for it because it has better supported tvout under Linux, so my workstation doubles as multimedia center connected to my tv-set.

    --
    Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
  5. Refresh Rate? by djohnsto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Dan