image quality of the millenium 1

[az]

well... i just own a millennium 1 with 4mb wram (retail board, i hope.. how can i find out?)..

since it's my only video card (i have stressed this often enough here, i think ) and i plan on buying a new pc this summer, i'd want to know what to expect from newer cards compared to mine (in terms of 2d image quality)

my monitor is an iiyama vision master pro 17 with a diamondtron .25 (i think) tube which i think i'm gonna keep.. i mostly run at 1027x768x32@85Hz (less hurts my eyes), have tried 1152 but it's a little too blurred, i think due to my monitor and because i don't use the bnc connectors it has..

now how good is the mil1's image quality, how much better/worse are matrox's new cards and how do the newer nvidia/powerVR ones (i don't like ati ) compare (to the g4x0 and the mil1), and am i going to see the improved quality or will my monitor suck it all away? and would i want to use a bnc cable?

thank you for your help

AZ

[EDIT]edited the post to de-confuse it a little[/EDIT]

[This message has been edited by az (edited 02 April 2001).]

[FrankDC]

At that resolution you have nothing to worry about. Current cards can handle 1024x768 with no image quality problems. But if you're planning to upgrade your monitor steer clear of Nvidia, especially the GF2 series (MX/GTS/etc). 2D quality begins to suffer at higher resolutions, how much it suffers depends on the card. Also you probably won't see any difference with BNC cable unless you're running at 1600x1200 or higher.

[az]

thanx

but what can i theroretically expect of a g4x0 in terms of image quality compared to my mil1?

and since my dsub cable is just about to give up (i get shadows all over the screen that definately come from the cabling) i'll get myself a new cable anyway, so should i get a bnc one?

thanks (and apologies for the typo in the topic)

AZ

[ALBPM]

If you can afford the BNC cable get it. I have noticed a difference at 1024 x 768. The image is a bit sharper and has more contrast and the colors are a bit brighter.

Paul

[az]

thank you

so you basically say that the monitor is more important to picture quality than the graphics card, just because graphics cards have overall better signals than most cheap/medium priced monitors can display? or are there cards out there that would give me a noticeably worse picture than my millennium even on my monitor?

AZ

[cjolley]

Matrox = Make an OK monitor look good, good monitor excellent
3DFX = Monitor quality is the determining factor
NVidia = Your monitor is likely to look worse than it is.
chuck

[az]

thanks

anyone know about kyro II image quality?

AZ

[Nuno]

Maybe Matrox > ATI > Kyro/Voodoo > Nvidia should be in the proper order.

[az]

and i still got a question... has image quality made any progress in the past 5 years? does vcq² really improve image quality or is it rather marketing? would i see a difference between my mil1 and a g400 in 1600? (not that i could afford a monitor that could display that resolution reasonably well - my 17" can, but then i can't see anything anymore - just pure curiosity)

AZ

[FrankDC]

In 2D? Not that I can tell. As a matter of fact my Millenium I looks a tad better at 1600x1200 than my G400 Max (just a bit).

There was a debate here months ago talking about the difference between cards with external and internal DACs, even though Gurm and others disagreed I'm still convinced the externals produce a slightly better image.

[MK]

az - I have the same monitor than you (Iiyama Vision Master Pro 400 / A701GT) and I can give you the advice to STAY AWAY from NVidia cards. I tried one and sold it after 3 weeks ...

MK



------------------
Celeron II 860 MHz + Golden Orb
256 MB PC133 Crucial 7E (CAS2)
G400 16MB @ PD 5.52 + TGL
20 GB IBM on HPT U-ATA100 RAID
Iiyama Vision Master Pro 400

[FrankDC]

You won't (or at least you shouldn't ) see any difference between a Millenium I and G400/450 at 1024x768.

As far as cables, if you need a new one you might as well get BNC. Paul is right about it producing a higher contrast image, although it's usually more noticeable at higher resolutions.

[ALBPM]

After using the G400, G400 MAX and the G450 I'd have to say that the G450 has the better image of the three but lacks the 3D speed of the G400's.

Paul

[Rags]

Then there's me, I prefer the image quality of the G400...go figure

Rags

[az]

thank you all


AZ