Nvidia Video Cards' Output Quality.

[Hans]

Any difference in 2D output? You be the judge.

Test machine:

A normal AMD Rig.
Compaq S9500 Monitor, running 1280*1024*32 Bit colour, 85 Hz.

[Hans]

PixelView GF4 Ti-4200

[Hans]

ChainTech GF4 Ti-4200

[Hans]

Leadtek GF2 Ti

[GriffiN]

Doesn't really seem it with the first two. Pic sizes are a little different, and the PixelViews' colour seems a bit lighter when you just compare those two, but alongside all three - PixelView is best. *shrug*

Plain Ti is poop. ;):D

[KingJackal]

1280?? 1280??

Yeah - well like THAT's gonna stress a RAMDAC :rolleyes:

C'mon - at least use 1600x1200 - preferably 2048x1536 ( hard to get monitors for that though :( ).

And use an ATi/Matrox card as a standard. I've never noticed any issue with modern cards way down at res' like 1280. Not until you start talking about cards like 8MB i740's vs. 16MB TNT's and the like.

However, I DO notice the difference between cheap nVIDIA GeForce4's and ATi Radeon's in 1600x1200x32@75Hz. I'm sure if my monitor was better and could try the god res' ( 2048x1536x32@80+Hz *drools* ), then putting in a better card would be like putting on glasses.

BTW, this is not intended as a your-monitor-is-not-1337 flame ;).

[swiftynz]

so KJ, what you are saying is that at any res at or below 1280x1024, the difference in image quality between graphics cards is zero?

ie it would be impossible to tell the difference between say a Matrox parnhelia and a Powercolour GF2mx @ 1280x1024?! :eek: :confused:

[KingJackal]

I was referring mainly to cheap GeForce4 cards - as I've tried both a Chaintech MX440 and a Chaintech Ti4600 recently ( and my Radeon 7500 beats both ;) ). The Ti was better, but not by much.

On the other hand - my 8MB i740 is as blurry as hell in 1280x1024@60Hz :rolleyes:

My old Leadtek MX was sweet as running 1280x1024@75Hz, but not as sharp as the Radeon at 1600.

....I've never tried anything like a Pine/Eagle/Powercolor card. Wonder why.... :D :p

Output quality should only be an issue if you've got a big monitor. But then again - if you're buying a Ti4600 and you've got a 15" monitor, you're WASTING MONEY. Of course, if you're a normal gamer with a 17", image output quality is a very small issue. It's hard to tell in games.

Acid testing for 2D output quality? Crank the res real high on a 19"+ monitor, and try and spend a [H]ard few hours in eXcel ;)

But to answer your question:
A Matrox Parhelia and a GeForce2 MX probably wouldn't differ @ 1024 res. You simply DONT..... NEED..... quality RAMDACs down there!

[mird-OC]

get yer hand off it KJ :)

1280 is perfectly fine for comparing nvidia cards as that's where the quality issues are first noticeable. why you're mentioning the RAMDAC i don't know - considering Hans is obviously stressing the difference in filters.

anyway, it's hard to tell with pictures... you need to see it for yourself to really tell the difference.

[Maverick]

LOL!

Gotta go with MirdOC on this one. Hans attempt is noble, but hardly a scientific way to test the cards 2D IQ. You want exactly the same gamma settings, same distance from camera to monitor, same ambient lighting conditions, extremely high res high quality image from the camera, freshly degaussed monitor, etc etc. There could also be differences in whether the card and monitor have had time to "warm up" sufficiently. It is highly likely that the limitation could well be the quality of the monitor and any interference -quality of cabling, location of electro-mag objects nearby etc. rather than graphics card itself.

Damn hard to test except subjectively in the flesh.

[KingJackal]

Originally posted by mird-OC
1280 is perfectly fine for comparing nvidia cards as that's where the quality issues are first noticeable. why you're mentioning the RAMDAC i don't know - considering Hans is obviously stressing the difference in filters.
Err - doh! Always talking about RAMDACs when I mean filters, ignore that :rolleyes:

But I've found that the higher the res, the more obvious the difference. At 1280 I could tell the difference between a bad nVIDIA card and my ATi card, but at 1600 I could tell the difference between those cards AND a better nVIDIA card. It's just that it seemed for me that the more bandwidth I was using, the more obvious the differences were - obviously larger patches of signal were getting distorted.

:confused:
I dunno - 1280 just doesn't throw as much artifacts out when I tried.
:confused:

[Geek4Life]

Rather interesting.

Would be good if the photos had been taken on a tripod so as to be exactly same position.