Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A note on the 2D performance of various cards

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A note on the 2D performance of various cards

    Hi! Many people have been complaining in this forum about the poor 2D image quality of various cards. Mostly those powered by nVidia chipsets. I know you don't like nVidia but I think you should be fair to them. It's not the quality of their chipsets that stinks, it's mostly the fault of the manufacturers. I have had tens of nVidia cards on my hands and, indeed, on most of them image degraded visibly above 1024x768. At 1280x1024 (which is the highest res. acceptable on my sony monitor) most were displaying annoyingly poor images. Yet I've had some excellent nVidia cards as well. By the far the best were those manufactured by Gigabyte (a TNT2 660Plus and a GeForce2 MX). They are excellent even at 1600x1200 (so far as I can tell). Creative cards were acceptable (I've tried a GF DDR and an Ultra), while the two Leadtek cards I've seen were less adequate (GF256) and above-average (GF2 MX).
    Asus A7V, Duron 600@900, 192MB PC133@100, G200, Guillemot MUSE, etc.

  • #3
    As this is the Matrox Hardware forum, and this topic is about non-Matrox cards, this thread is relocated to the General Hardware/Software forum...
    Core2 Duo E7500 2.93, Asus P5Q Pro Turbo, 4gig 1066 DDR2, 1gig Asus ENGTS250, SB X-Fi Gamer ,WD Caviar Black 1tb, Plextor PX-880SA, Dual Samsung 2494s

    Comment

    Working...
    X