• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

"Cheapest yet great 2D quality" card?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Illah

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2002
Location
San Francisco
I'm looking for a cheap card (like $50 or less) that has gread image quality for work. It's only for desktop apps and photoshop, but I want it crystal clear so I don't strain my eyes.

Must do well at 1600x1200!

Thanks!

--Illah
 
Any video card made in the last 4 years is going to have virtually identical image quality. 1600x1200 isn't a strain for any video card to do, so don't sweat it and go with either of the above reccomendations. :)
 
find a matrox g400 on ebay, should be under $50 and will look 100% better than any other card. Big deal its a few years old, it still looks better in 2d than anyone else.
 
2d imagine quality is ruled by matrox hands down. ati and nvidia combined cant top their cards in 2d ha ha. get a g450 if your on a budget;

G450 32 mb agp dual head $89 on pricewatch. you can get them for less with half the memory, but 2d image quality needs memory.

you can look higher at a g550 which will have more ram. 64 megs i think. they are like $99 and of course, a radeon 8500 will fit the bill too. they can be found for less i think.
 
Yeah, I also miss the great Matrox image quality in Windows since one is forced to use the ATI/Geforce products for gaming...

It would have been a great combo to have a Matrox card with a 3dfx card, but all the quality got ruined by the loop-through process. :bang head
So I had to reattach it each time...

My last Matrox card was a Millennium II, but if the image quality of the recent products is still as good as at that time, I´d go with a matrox card for DTP...
 
Oh god.. *misses the good ol' Milennium days*... I also had the G400 to test its OpenGL capability... got own3d by my first Rage 128 Pro though...

Yes.. for 2D, anything Matrox will fit the bill.

-Frank
 
Agreed with all this. I wish Matrox actually kept up with ATi and nVidia in terms of 3d quality, would probably be running a Matrox card rather than my 9800 Pro, as I went through both the Millenium II and the G400. At least ATi's 2D quality is good enough that I can't complain too much....
 
hands down its matrox, nothing can beat the g400/ parhelias for text and 2d image work.

and in case you want to go triple display (hey, who knows??) the parhelia is your goto cardfor some extra dinero.
 
What is it about Matrox cards taht makes them so good in 2D? What about their performance marks them as being better than other cards in that respect?

FrL-
 
Image filtering, sharpness, and clarity of image. They've done hard work on 2D for ages.. if you have the monitor to show off their capabilities... then you need not choose any other.

If you look on the card itself, there are more filters in place between the chip and the monitor connection than any other vid card out there... I'm not an expert, but I know that from reading it makes a huge difference. I've owned one and can honestly say its hard to make 2D look better, but somehow they do it...

-Frank
 
>What is it about Matrox cards that makes them so good in 2D?

I had a Millenium 2 PCI card with 4MB of WGRAM and it ruled at 2D.

I remember reading a Anandtech article about the Pharhelia (and Matrox's cards in general).

Read Annandtech's Review of the Pharhelia: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=1620&p=1


Here is a link to page 8 where he explains the image quality.....

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=1620&p=8

-- snip -------------------

Matrox has always been held in high-regard for the excellent analog output of their graphics cards. Although many G400 users have since moved on to faster performing graphics cards, most of them miss the crisp display output of their beloved cards. In fact, the only users that don't are those lucky enough to have DVI displays that deal with a digital signal from the GPU where quality is not lost. But for the vast majority of users, analog displays are still an unfortunate reality.

We've explained in previous articles why the analog signal output is generally poor at higher resolutions but Matrox has done some of their own testing to help explain exactly what the limitations of competing graphics cards are.

When the video output signal leaves the RAMDAC it is sent through a series of low-pass filters. As their name implies, a low-pass filter allows low frequency voltages to pass through the filter while preventing higher frequencies from getting through. These filters accomplish two things: 1) they help meet FCC regulations by making sure that only the necessary frequencies get through the VGA output, and 2) they make certain that higher frequency signals do not adversely affect the lower frequency signals that actually matter.

A low-pass filter is generally made up of passive components such as resistors, capacitors and inductors. Because of this a low-pass filter cannot amplify a signal, it can only act as a gatekeeper - allowing certain frequencies to pass and restricting others.


An ideal frequency response curve

The highest frequency that can pass through a low-pass filter is known as the cutoff frequency. Unfortunately a simple low-pass filter isn't perfect; if you set a cutoff frequency at 400MHz you will get frequencies higher than 400MHz passing through. There are two ways of combating this; you can either set the cutoff frequency slightly under the actual frequency you want to cut off at or you can use a higher order filter.

The simplest (and cheapest) is the first approach, setting the cutoff frequency a bit lower than you actually want to cut off at. This results in the following phenomenon in comparison to the ideal frequency response shown above:



The more expensive approach is to use a higher order filter. The order of a filter is directly determined by the components that make up a filter. Without getting into the actual requirements for filters of various orders (it is determined by the (j*w) terms in your transfer function - Vout/Vin) just think of it this way, the more of a certain type of passive component you have in a specific configuration, the higher the order of the circuit.

The benefit of a higher order filter is that the dropoff after hitting the cutoff frequency is much steeper. This means that less of the frequencies you don't want getting through actually make it through the filter. It's a much more elegant approach yet it is more expensive since you have to use more PCB space and more inductors and capacitors.

--------------------------------
and snip from page 9 http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=1620&p=9
----------------------------------
Parhelia's Secret - 5th Order Filters

Most GeForce3/4 cards use a 3rd order filter on the analog outputs. If you're performing the modding trick you're actually reducing the order of the filter from a 3rd order filter down to a 2nd order filter, causing the following phenomenon:


The 3rd order filter has a steeper slope, but a similarly designed 2nd order filter can actually let more frequencies in

In this case, the move down to a 2nd order filter actually helps since you're letting more of the higher frequencies (at higher resolutions) through without changing the cutoff frequency.


The plethora of inductors and capacitors shown above make up the Parhelia's 5th order filters

The Parhelia-512 cards themselves will be outfitted with carefully designed 5th order low-pass filters on the outputs. This will dramatically improve image quality at higher resolutions, especially those closer to the cutoff frequency. Below is an example of how a 5th order filter can compare to the hypothetical 2nd/3rd order filters shown above:
-------------------------------------

The only problem is you will need to shop around for a cheap pharhelia card but if you want quality this is the king of bragging rights in 2D image quality period.
 
Update: Since last posting I had to chance to trade in my work 128MB Geforce FX 5200 for a 32MB Matrox G450 Dual head card.

The Geforce FX was 8x AGP with 128mb and the G450 only is 4x AGP and 32MB ram but the image quality on the Matrox is great.

G450-Dual.jpg
 
How much of a difference can you notice? I can't picture my 2d work being any clearer. Are there any side-by-side comparisions or something anywhere?
 
Back