PCI vs. AGP

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I've recently been building-up systems from old components. Some
have PCI video cards, others AGP. These systems are used for
computation, not for gaming, so there's no 3D graphics or
animation in use. I find that the systems with PCI video cards
consistently give clearer, sharper images of documents and line
drawings than those with AGP, even on the same monitor at the same
resolution. Is this a universal trait, that PCI is inherently
better at 2D graphics than AGP, or is it just that I happen to
have some "good" old PCI cards and some "bad" old AGP cards?

Thanks,
Greg

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <r1uu605ia7di40durfqrfhv6u7vpb047nj@4ax.com>,
Bank-to-Turn@mchsi.com says...
> I've recently been building-up systems from old components. Some
> have PCI video cards, others AGP. These systems are used for
> computation, not for gaming, so there's no 3D graphics or
> animation in use. I find that the systems with PCI video cards
> consistently give clearer, sharper images of documents and line
> drawings than those with AGP, even on the same monitor at the same
> resolution. Is this a universal trait, that PCI is inherently
> better at 2D graphics than AGP, or is it just that I happen to
> have some "good" old PCI cards and some "bad" old AGP cards?
>

The latter option... unless you happen to have a card
that comes in both flavors PCI and AGP, use the exact
same rev of the video drivers, you're probably comparing
apples and oranges.

A lot of 3D gaming cards aren't that good at 2D work.
Used to be what Matrox sold itself on (maybe they still
do?), that their cards were superior at 2D crispness and
only so-so for gaming.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Thanks for the answers. At least one of the systems that I just
built contains a brand-new motherboard with integrated NVidia AGP
graphics, but it is perhaps the worst of the bunch in terms of
image sharpness. The sharpest card that I have, by far, is an old
PCI Matrox Millennium II. I have compared all of the graphics
cards with an Iiyama Vision Master Pro 17 monitor, which is
commendably sharp.

Greg

 

[somebody]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 20:55:43 GMT, Greg Berchin
<Bank-to-Turn@mchsi.com> wrote:

>Thanks for the answers. At least one of the systems that I just
>built contains a brand-new motherboard with integrated NVidia AGP
>graphics, but it is perhaps the worst of the bunch in terms of
>image sharpness. The sharpest card that I have, by far, is an old
>PCI Matrox Millennium II. I have compared all of the graphics
>cards with an Iiyama Vision Master Pro 17 monitor, which is
>commendably sharp.

I'd like to make an additional comment. Both Monitors and graphics
cards will be less sharp on higher pixelclocks. To compare videocards
fairly, they should be on the same refresh rate and resolution.

ancra




P.S.
(In general, nVidia certainly doesn't have any problem with lack of
sharpness, so I would blame the integrated solution.
I've had a bunch of Matrox cards over the years. All superb.
But both my nVidia Ti 4600, and my 4280 are at least as sharp, if not
sharper, than my MG400 and MG550. On my best CRT monitor (Mazellan),
the 4280 is 'perfectly' sharp, identical to a LCD display, even if you
wont believe it, each pixel a perfect little square even at 1600X1200.
Even on size 10pt font, every 7 has a jagged aliased staircase for a
leg. As I write this, I just reset the display to 1600X1200 to verify
this again, and true enough, that 7 as well as the V is jagged!

I like the colors better on Matrox though, but you don't _have_ to buy
Matrox to get a sharp display. (you're guaranteed it though...))

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 03:49:04 +0200, somebody@some.domain wrote:

>>I'd like to make an additional comment. Both Monitors and graphics
>>cards will be less sharp on higher pixelclocks. To compare videocards
>>fairly, they should be on the same refresh rate and resolution.

The Millennium II is sharper at 85 Hz than any of the other cards
at 70-75 Hz, at the same resolution.

Greg

 

[somebody]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 15:18:39 GMT, Greg Berchin
<Bank-to-Turn@mchsi.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 03:49:04 +0200, somebody@some.domain wrote:
>
>>>I'd like to make an additional comment. Both Monitors and graphics
>>>cards will be less sharp on higher pixelclocks. To compare videocards
>>>fairly, they should be on the same refresh rate and resolution.
>
>The Millennium II is sharper at 85 Hz than any of the other cards
>at 70-75 Hz, at the same resolution.

- Oh, I'm sure! If Matrox ever made a less than stirling card, in
this regard, it must have been an awful long time ago.

ancra