PDA

View Full Version : Still having problems with nVidia 2D


Pages : [1] 2

Typedef Enum
08-06-03, 03:14 AM
I just want to make a point I was hoping didn't have to be made...I have to remind myself that it's 2003, and some things haven't changed.

For a project that I'm working on, I needed to grab a new PCI video card. I was dead set on getting the VisionTek 9100 PCI card, but I ended up getting the PNY FX 5200 board. I knew it was bad idea at the time, especially since the dumb thing had no DVI capability.

To make a long story short, I was beside myself when I saw the output on my LCD screen. To put things into perspective, I've got a 9800 Pro that drives a Dell 2000FP (DVI) and a Dell 1900FP (Analog port). The 1900FP that's hooked up to the 9800 sits right beside my second 1900FP that's hooked up to the 5200 FX.

...So, you grab a given window and slide it right between the one LCD that's being driven by the 9800 Analog port and compare it to the other LCD driven by the 52000. That's the test.

And if that wasn't bad enough...I then swapped the LCD from the primary to the seconday connector...To say it looked 10x worse than what I saw above is an understatement.

At any rate, I was very much hoping that the whole "nVidia's 2D sucks" deal was a thing of the past. Unfortunately, I was proven wrong. Granted, I know that if it had a DVI connector, all would have probably been OK...But when doing a side-by-side comparison, you quickly realize just how bad things still are, all these years later.

I'll update this thread once I exchange this POS with the VisionTek 9100 PCI card tomorrow.

ChrisRay
08-06-03, 03:27 AM
So you converted an analog signal to a DVI signal and did not expect huge quality loss??

I dunno. I have never noticed "terribly" 2d quality from all Nvidia cards. some look good. Some look bad.

Tho I had the exact oposite exp as I had a PNY Geforce 4 Ti 4200 and it looked better than my MSI or Visiontek geforce 2 MX cards

And sure as heck didnt look any worse than my ATI card.

bkswaney
08-06-03, 03:38 AM
Sorry to hear that.

My 5800U looks just as good as my 9800 to me.

Smokey
08-06-03, 04:00 AM
All my cards have had fine 2d, maybe thier low end cards suck?

ChrisRay
08-06-03, 04:20 AM
Originally posted by Smokey
All my cards have had fine 2d, maybe thier low end cards suck?

Its possible that 3rd party manufacturers would use very crappy RFI filters on there low end products to save cash on a low end product

bkswaney
08-06-03, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by ChrisRay
Its possible that 3rd party manufacturers would use very crappy RFI filters on there low end products to save cash on a low end product

That suxs. There 2d and 3d suxs. ? They should at least use the same filters even on low end cards. Good 2d is a must.

ChrisRay
08-06-03, 04:30 AM
Originally posted by bkswaney
That suxs. There 2d and 3d suxs. ? They should at least use the same filters even on low end cards. Good 2d is a must.

I cant speak for certain thats What is happening. But its entirely a possibility. I believe Nvidia gives its 3rd party designers too much freedom in this aspect.

Johnmcl7
08-06-03, 06:03 AM
What are the good and what are the bad brands then? We've got quite a spread of Gf3 and GF4 Ti's at work, and they're noticably worse than the Radeon cards I use (on Sony G500/520 monitors)

John

Nisse
08-06-03, 08:14 AM
All I can say about this matter is that my new MSI FX 5600 got a very noticable better 2D Image Quality than the Radeon 9000 from Sapphire I used before.

In 1024*768 at least, fonts are much cripser and colors are brighter... well it just looks good :) That's also the opinion of my girlfriend btw (who is not too familiar with computers and recognized it from 'scratch').

So might be its not just a subjective pov from me.

Socos
08-06-03, 09:34 AM
I thought [N] was controlling all the production.. Why would they slip in substandard 2d filters???

DOH!!:confused:

DivotMaker
08-06-03, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by Socos
I thought [N] was controlling all the production.. Why would they slip in substandard 2d filters???

DOH!!:confused:

Controlling production initially on 5900 Ultras....

Sazar
08-06-03, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Nisse
All I can say about this matter is that my new MSI FX 5600 got a very noticable better 2D Image Quality than the Radeon 9000 from Sapphire I used before.

In 1024*768 at least, fonts are much cripser and colors are brighter... well it just looks good :) That's also the opinion of my girlfriend btw (who is not too familiar with computers and recognized it from 'scratch').

So might be its not just a subjective pov from me.

well.. msi happens to be one of the 'good' brands :)

besides... your product seems a little higher end than the 5200 wot ?

@ our work place we too have a nice spread of card... unfortunately... they are mostly old... lol (tnt2 era) and look like crud...

our newer ones look a little better... but nothing like teh 2d @ home that I have...

for reference... my 7000 and 9700pro look fairly similar in 2d iq... though the 9700pro IS better/sharper/clearer... but the delta ain't that big...

The Baron
08-06-03, 10:46 AM
My NV25U engineering sample and Soltek 5200 had, as far as I can tell, exactly the same 2D quality to the 9600 Pro I'm using now.

extreme_dB
08-06-03, 11:06 AM
Sorry for stating the obvious but 2d quality differences might only be noticeable at high resolution/refresh rates (1600x1200+) and/or on good monitors. Just something to keep in mind. :)

windwaver
08-06-03, 11:07 AM
Well, I feel that my 5900 looks excatly the same with my 9500Pro. nVidia used to be behind in 2D, but I think that no longer holds true.

ringu61
08-06-03, 11:42 AM
U used to have a ATi Radeon 9800 np but then I decided to sell it to my friend then I got myself a Leadtek GeForce FX5900 A350 TDH 128MB AGP8X. clocked at 510/985 now ^^
I feel that my FX5900 on 2D is a bit crispy then my ATi Radeon 9800 np.

Rogozhin
08-06-03, 12:26 PM
None of my nvidia cards held a candle to my two ati cards

the nvidia cards were from vendors-leadtek, gainward, msi, visiontek-tnt2 to geforce 4ti4400.

rogo

Solomon
08-06-03, 05:15 PM
You have to run at a higher resolution to notice if the 2D sucks. As what Typed has. He has a LCD with the native resolution at 1600x1200. I'm not sure about his 19" though. I don't think manufacturers change any aspect of the reference design. Their are two many competitors to risk a change in something in todays economy.

I bet if you compare all the values of the caps and resistors that make up the filtering process are all the same. It's nVidia's fault if the 2D is bad, IMO. They are the ones that design the reference that everyone follows.

Typed this has not changed since the days of the GeForce 256 and earlier. nVidia never seemed to study or grab the concept of a crisp 2D display. This is why Matrox is still in the game. Matrox ownz 2D quality. ATi isn't any better, but they are a step above in terms of quality over nVidia.

I feel for ya Typed. I had dual display and I just couldn't stand not playing games on the Matrox Parhelia so I ditched it and got a 9800 Pro and I still couldn't stand the analog quality over the DVI. But what can ya do? Until ATi and nVidia get their head's out of their brown eye's and design a complete dual DVI solution with good 2D filtering. They will never succeed in the business sector.

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com

Unit01
08-06-03, 05:45 PM
holy smoke that must be the biggest sig i've seen yet :o

Ruined
08-06-03, 06:04 PM
As documented by many reviews, the GeForce FX5200 has much lower 2D quality than the FX5600 and FX5900, and the FX5200 only has a 350mhz RAMDAC while the FX5600 and FX5900 have 400mhz RAMDACs. Try your same experiment with an FX5600 or FX5900 and you will likely get a much different outcome.

ChrisRay
08-06-03, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Ruined
As documented by many reviews, the GeForce FX5200 has much lower 2D quality than the FX5600 and FX5900, and the FX5200 only has a 350mhz RAMDAC while the FX5600 and FX5900 have 400mhz RAMDACs. Try your same experiment with an FX5600 or FX5900 and you will likely get a much different outcome.


The ramdac itself doesnt affect quality tho. It effects maximum resolutions ect. However I still firmly believe that these cards are using cheaper RFI components to save cost.

He shoulda bought a card with DVI IMO.

Johnmcl7
08-06-03, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by Sazar
well.. msi happens to be one of the 'good' brands :)

besides... your product seems a little higher end than the 5200 wot ?

@ our work place we too have a nice spread of card... unfortunately... they are mostly old... lol (tnt2 era) and look like crud...

our newer ones look a little better... but nothing like teh 2d @ home that I have...

for reference... my 7000 and 9700pro look fairly similar in 2d iq... though the 9700pro IS better/sharper/clearer... but the delta ain't that big...

It's an MSI GF3 Ti200 I use in my work machine (my ahem, *gaming* maching), my other one is a P2 400 with a Radeon 7000 (sadly not any good for gaming) and the Radeon 7000 is noticably better, overall it's much sharper. The other machine has a Gainward GF4 Ti4200, it's not as bad as the GF3, but it's not as good as the 7000 either.

John

Ruined
08-06-03, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by ChrisRay
The ramdac itself doesnt affect quality tho. It effects maximum resolutions ect. However I still firmly believe that these cards are using cheaper RFI components to save cost.

Yeh I know, but many would consider refresh rate a major player in 2d quality. But as I mentioned, I read at least one review where the reviewer stated the FX5200 looked notably inferior to the rest of the FX family. Nvidia likely just skimped on parts on the FX5200 to save money and sell it for less. My MSI FX5900 looks beautiful on my Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070SB 22" @ 1024x768x32bitx150hz... I know, I'm supposed to run it in a higher res - what can I say, I like big icons :). Apparently this monitor can do 2048x1536x32bitx85hz but I haven't actually tried it.

ChrisRay
08-06-03, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Ruined
Yeh I know, but many would consider refresh rate a major player in 2d quality. But as I mentioned, I read at least one review where the reviewer stated the FX5200 looked notably inferior to the rest of the FX family. Nvidia likely just skimped on parts on the FX5200 to save money and sell it for less. My MSI FX5900 looks beautiful on my Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070SB 22" @ 1024x768x32bitx150hz... I know, I'm supposed to run it in a higher res - what can I say, I like big icons :). Apparently this monitor can do 2048x1536x32bitx85hz but I haven't actually tried it.

Like I said. Honestly it would not surprise me. The FX 5200 is still based off its big brother counterpart. Nvidia is obviously doing everything it can to turn a profit off this chip.

Lezmaka
08-06-03, 07:17 PM
Is it the chip that has bad 2d, or is it the card?

For the 5200, nvidia makes the chip, not the card. Doesn't the reference design dictate the layout of the various components used, not the quality of those components?