Sharp picture (2D-quality) Gf3/Gf4/Radeon 8500

[samwyse]

Any difference in the quality of the picture with GF3 or GF4 (Ti/MX)? I don't mean anti-aliasing or such, but sharp and clear text (some call it 2D-quality).

Is there a test for it? Usually they only look at the fps.

Is there any brands that are better in this area or is does it depend on the chip only?

I'm looking for a nVidia-card, but a Radeon 8500LE isn't totally out of the question either (I need Linux support).

 

[USpatriot]

The Radeon has far superior 2-d graphics... I would suggest that... much nicer...

 

[phsstpok]

I still think Radeon leads in visual clarity (this is a better word than "quality" because in my mind it applies to text quality, photograph quality, and 3D graphics before filtering. "Sharpness" also comes to mind). The Geforce4 cards are now very close in visual clarity. Any differences would likely only be seen, if at all, at resolutions of 1600x1200 and higher. Geforce3 cards vary quite a bit. Some are really bad and some are pretty good (sorry don't know specific models). None are as good as the Geforce4 or Radeon (in my opinion) since differences can be seen at as low as 1024x768 resolution with the Geforce3 cards.

Even though, I am a Radeon 8500 owner (it was cheap), I think a Geforce4 is a better choice for you. Higher performance, equal (or nearly equal) visual clarity, much better linux support (or so I hear, not being a linux user).

Of course if you want the best of both worlds, pick whatever card you want, and use a CRT for games and LCD flat panel for sharp, clear text. This is what I would do if I had the money. (I don't).

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by phsstpok on 07/11/02 11:29 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[samwyse]

What about the difference between Gf4 Ti and Gf4 MX? I know the technical difference, but would the sharpness be different?

 

[phsstpok]

The way I understand it. Early Geforce cards had poor visual quality for two reasons. 1) Poor RF filters, filters intended to prevent the video card from emitting Radio Frequency noise were of such low quality that they prevented quality signals from reaching the display. 2) A 350 Mhz RAMDAC was used which may cause issues at 1600x1200 resolution and definitely at higher resolutions (or so I'm told).

For the first problem, starting with the Geforce4 line, nVidia has supposedly imposed minimum quality standards among all nVidia partners, so no more cheap RF filters.

For the second issue, I think the entire Geforce4 line still uses a 350 Mhz RAMDAC, but problems with this are of a much lesser degree than the bad RF filters. (The ATI line uses a 400 Mhz primary RAMDAC but some of the cards only have a 280 Mhz RAMDAC for the secondary video port, not good).

If you are using only 1280x1024 or lower I doubt you will see any difference in the Radeon 8500, Geforce4 Ti, or Geforce4 MX series, not from a clarity standpoint.

If you are not sure then choose one and purchase it locally. Look at text and look at photographs. If you see something you don't like then return the card. Remember, at low resolution (1280x1024 or lower), "blurriness" is not inherent in any modern CRT (.26 dot-pitch or lower). If you're seeing this then you have a bad video cable connection or a bad video card.

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>

 

[samwyse]

I'm currently using a two year old 15-inch Hyundai monitor at 864x648 resolution, but I intend to buy a quality 19-inch monitor soon (and use higher resolutions).

So testing card quality isn't very reliable with this monitor. Linux supports Radeon 8500 (2D only). I could buy one and hope they make 3D work later, because I don't really need OpenGL that much now.

 

[phsstpok]

I see. Well, a Radeon 8500 or a Geforce4 Ti would be a better choice for high resolution. I'm not sure a Geforce4 MX can cope. I tend to doubt it can.

I hear there are third party 3D drivers for Linux and an 8500 but like I said I don't use Linux (yet).

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>

 

[juin]

Geforce 4 look to me like a Geforce 3.5 with a better heatsink.

The day i meet a goth queen that tell me Intel suck.I turn in a lemming to fill is need in hardware.

 

[UoMDeacon]

Well isn't that what nVidia meant the GF4s to be? They were just the usual 6 month revisions to the released core, while the NV30 should be an actual new development.

 

[Stick_e_Mouse]

check out my very similar thread <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=faq&notfound=1&code=1" target="_new">here</A>.

<b><font color=blue>Via chipsets, SiS chipsets -- all the same...all made in TAIWAN!