Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes the 2D quality of Matrox better then other ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What makes the 2D quality of Matrox better then other ?

    See topic.
    I know, a weak point in the nVidia TNT2/GF designs are the crappy filters.
    What about Matrox ?

  • #2
    I believe it is the "Tender Loving Care(R)" that every Matrox employee puts into a chip
    Meet Jasmine.
    flickr.com/photos/pace3000

    Comment


    • #3
      Better engineering and better components.

      Some resistors have a +-5% tolerance, some have a +-1% tolerance. Some are laser cut to be dead on.

      Guess which ones different manufacturers use?

      Ali

      Comment


      • #4
        As far as I know, the only components used after the RAMDAC signal is a lowpass filter for each color (RGB) (RF filtering)
        What kind of components are they using, it's certainly SMD. But from which company ? Perhaps it is a matter of tolerance, or even matched components, but are there certain characteristics for components which makes them very good for image purposes ?
        Is the MATROX RF filter a little bit more advanced comparing to NVidia ?

        Comment


        • #5
          Mainly its a higher quality DAC on the Matrox boards... hence better edge rates and less jutter which translates to crisper images.
          The output stage can influence this quite a bit depending on the filter and peaking circuit (if any) design.

          Comment


          • #6
            CAn someone pass me a link for a 2D article ?

            Comment


            • #7
              Are you an Nvidia employee looking for tips, eh?

              Illusion[Spirit]
              www.spiritclan.co.uk

              Comment


              • #8
                If you are an Nvidia employee... I will tell you the secret...

                Its Cheese... that's right Cheese... just a chunk of marble cheese is rubbed on the leads of the parts to coat the solder joint allowing for a better weld with less signal degeneration.



                Betcha didn't know that

                ------------------
                Canadian... Hell Ya!!!
                AMD Phenom 9650, 8GB, 4x1TB, 2x22 DVD-RW, 2x9600GT, 23.6' ASUS, Vista Ultimate
                AMD X2 7750, 4GB, 1x1TB 2x500, 1x22 DVD-RW, 1x8500GT, 22" Acer, OS X 10.5.8
                Acer 6930G, T6400, 4GB, 500GB, 16", Vista Premium
                Lenovo Ideapad S10e, 2GB, 500GB, 10", OS X 10.5.8

                Comment


                • #9
                  But do all manufacturers (other than Matrox) use the same crap components ?

                  i.e. Are there any GeForce 3 cards out there that have acceptable 2D ? Or are they all the same.

                  I love the quality of my Matrox 2D (G400Max) but don't know if I can wait much longer for a replacement for the 3D.

                  Ian.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    [feels insulted]
                    NO I am not a @#$@# NV engineer !!!!
                    [/feels insulted]

                    I am just someone with special interests in the 2D/3D image quality. And I am still wondering what the big difference is. It is hard to find any info about that isue, since every site is talking about 3D features but is forgetting the image quality on basic environments.
                    My opinion is, quality starts in the roots and not at line 2567 of your spec list. It is nice to have lot's of goodies but that is not what I am looking for. You have to combine features with image quality and acceptable speed to make a quality card.

                    So, once again, who can pass me the Matrox secret ?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by ianb:
                      But do all manufacturers (other than Matrox) use the same crap components ?

                      i.e. Are there any GeForce 3 cards out there that have acceptable 2D ? Or are they all the same.

                      </font>
                      I talked to Hercules (The Netherlands) and they told me the Hercules GF3 is a pure NV reference design. Which means no modifications has been made. According to several previews the image Quality is pretty good, but don't ask me, which standard they use for such a statement.

                      I also discussed the GF2MX series of Hercules and they told me, there are some changes in the voltage section (better overclocking, different RAM) , which also provides a better image quality comparing to Asus for example. But the nasty isues for NV reference designs are starting at resolutions over 1024x768@85Hz. It has something to do with the available videobandwidth. It looks like the videobandwidth is approx. cut in half when you're looking at the maximum RAMDAC speed.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I have read on several reviews of the GF3, that the image quality is exactly the same as it has been for many moons now. Once you get in the high resolutions, you are demoted to basic Nvidia loss of quality.

                        Dave

                        ------------------
                        What if the Hokey Pokey is what it's all about?
                        Ladies and gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and slide on the ice.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Slashhead,

                          if you want some good reading on the subject, I recommend you to look here.
                          It´s in german, but that should be no problem for a dutch.
                          I haven´t seen anything better on 2D-quality.

                          rubank



                          [This message has been edited by rubank (edited 17 April 2001).]

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            You do understand I was joking m8 :E

                            I use humour as a defense mechanism for my lack of technical competence
                            Illusion[Spirit]
                            www.spiritclan.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by Illusion[Spirit]:
                              You do understand I was joking m8 :E

                              I use humour as a defense mechanism for my lack of technical competence
                              </font>
                              Of course I do, that's why i've set a smile on top of my reply as message Icon.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X