GF3 Ti200 2D & Color Quality

[Cosmo3]

I have been looking at the GF3 Ti200 cards but wonder if the 2D and color quality is as good as my ATI Radion DDR card. They look like nice cards but I don't play games alot and I like good quality 2D and color. Please let me know if any of the Ti200 cards have the 2D and color quality of my card and what is the best brand to get or should I just stay with my ATI card? I have a XP1700+ system overclocked with 512 memory if that makes any diference.

 

[MilkPowderR]

Do u have a Radeon 64mb DDR? Since you're into 2D apps, stick with your current card. Yours has the highest, clearest, and cleanest 2D quality including DVD's and Photo editing. GeForce2 & 3 series are for 3D gaming.

 

[MrGrim]

The Leadtek GeForce3 TDH series have the best 2D quality ever according to FiringSquad.

 

[Zeph]

The short answer is NO don't get the GeForce3 Ti200 if you are really concerned about 2D Quality.
I'll elaborate. A couple years ago I went out and got myself (at an insane price, I admit) the best 19in CRT monitor there was, the Sony GDM-F400 with a .22mm stripe pitch. The first card I had with it was an Asus GeForce which was an absolute joke in all aspects of 2D---which I realized when I put in my Voodoo5 5500, which was very good indeed. Still the edges of the screen were often a little fuzzy and the whites were sometimes "dusty" and uneven looking--but it was a great card. Several months ago I replaced my Voodoo with a Matrox G450 (since I wasn't playing many games anymore) and I can tell you that will NEVER come out of my main system. Fantastic clarity, deep rich colors and sharp across the entire screen. My resolution is 1280 x 1024. Of course the Matrox is a joke in Gaming now-a-days, I think I got a score of about 400 in 3D Mark 2001 (Pentium III 1.0GHz/384MB RAM/Intel i815). I don't own a Radeon but I threw a friends's in and the 2D was about equal to that of the Voodoo5...yet not quite near the level of the Matrox.
So...recently I threw together a gaming system for myself which includes a PNY GeForce3 Ti200. Using the same monitor I can tell you this is a great Gaming card and even on a PIII 733 manages over 5000 on 3D Mark2001--and boy is that "nature" test something to see. I can also tell you that after looking at the Matrox card the 2D on this card really blows (which is OK with me, it's only for games). I would say that the 2D is better than my first GeForce card yet noticeably worse than my Voodoo5 card and laughable next to the Matrox G450. I don't know the link, but one hardware site reviewer actually took the time to review the 2D on a bunch of Ti Cards and basically came to the conclusion that they all looked about the same, but possibly the VisionTek (or LeadTek) card looked the best.

As an aside:
Interestingly enough, when I installed Empire Earth on my G450 system, the game would simply not let me use 32Bit color...it doesn't even give me a choice...on the Ti200 it does let me use 32bit as well as Transform and lighting. Either way, I can barely see a difference between the two. Also, I can honestly say that the AA method of the Voodoo5 is still far superior to the nVidia....it's still too bad 3dfx is gone...they had great products.

e

 

[MilkPowderR]

Even my 3+ yr old K6-2 with built-in ATI (I forgot what model it was) 8MB Video that puts out much better 2D quality than my current CL GF2 GTS!!!!! That is a shame for the nVidia.

 

[chizow]

Well, I've been tinkering with a VisTek GF3 Ti200 that will be a gift come X-mas since Sunday (BB deal). I was using a V5 5500 PCI for well over a year. In all honesty, I have to say the GF3 has impressed me with its 2D clarity from all the horror stories I read here, but its 2D color is still lacking. The colors seem a bit washed out even in 32-bit color. Overall, my V5 still has better 2d than the GF3, but I saw the "nature" test in 3dmark2k1 for the first time, and of course, it rages in 3D apps and games. The speed in 3D games is extremely impressive.

Chiz

 

[RDP]

Turn on digital vibrance to fix pale colors with a GeForce 3. That simple.

 

[chizow]

I have, still not that big a difference. I've tweaked pretty much every setting available, even loaded the 3deep proggy that came with my V5 (which made colors look even better btw), and it still falls short.

Chiz

 

[Leon]

3Deep works with GF3? Hmmm, I'll give it a try myself.

 

[Cocytus]

RDP.....agreed. It was enough for me.

Then again, I'm no pro.

 

[jcmkk]

It has a lot to do with your monitor size. The bigger your monitor and the higher the resolution that you run your desktop at, then it is gonna look worst.

 

[TBC]

"I would say that the 2D is better than my first GeForce card yet noticeably worse than my Voodoo5"


I used to use a Voodoo5 and it does have better 2d than even the new Geforce3 cards do. I would say the 2d in the Voodoo5 is better than the Radeon 8500 also. Although I wouldn't say there is a huge difference betwen them all, just somewhat noticable.

I now have a Geforce3 Ti200 card (Gainward). The 2d is ok, just not as good as the Voodoo5 it replaced. I also tried out a Visiontek Geforce3 Ti200 card which was my brothers, and I would say its just as good as the Gainward is for sharpness.

As you can see I have gone through several cards, Matrox, Voodoo5, then I upgraded to the Radeon 8500 for a short time, but returned it due to so many bugs, and now I have the Gainward Geforce3 Ti200 which I'll probably keep.

 

[Clevor]

A rarity: most the posts on this thread seem right on.

I have a couple of G400 MAXs, a G450 PCI, Radeon VIVO, Geforce2 Ultra, and Voodoo5. I tried a Leadtek Ti 500 for 6 hours and gave up (unstable in my system).

The Matrox has the best DEFAULT color saturation and vibrancy, both in 2D and 3D. Sharpness is maybe a tad less than the Radeon.

However with the Geforce Ti, they have bumped up the default color and vibrancy close to the Matrox, plus you can use Digital Vibrance Control to bump it up even further, but this is overkill. I don't know if they did this starting with the Geforce3 series, since I've never seen that card, but the default Ti colors in 2D and 3D look more vibrant than the Geforce2 Ultra. 'Course I can bump the desktop brightness, gamma, and contrast to look just as good.

However for 2D sharpness, contrast, and clarity, you still can't beat the Matrox cards. The Leadtek Ti 500 is nowhere near as good, and I was told the FS card had special RF filters in it. The Leadtek still has a bit of ghosting at 1600x1200. I would say the order is this as far as 2D: G400 MAX, G450/550, Radeon VIVO, Voodoo5, Ti 500, and the non-Hercules Geforce2s are way back. Maybe the Ti 500 is on a par with the Voodoo5, but the Voodoo5 has no ghosting problem.

BTW, I have two Hercules Geforce2 cards and the 2D color and contrast is very very acceptable, using Detonators 11.0 and after. The 2D is really not half bad at 1600x1200, considering the speed of the Ultra. I am getting the Asus 8200-T5 Ti 500 when the price drops a little, only because of all the features. I don't expect the 2D at 1600x1200 to be that good. Otherwise I'd opt for the Hercules, assuming the 2D will at least be as good as on their Geforce2 cards. However the Hercules cards are priced at a premium.

I having seen any Gainward cards so I don't know if they are as good as people say. Some people have also knocked the Hercules 2D. But I run all these cards on the same monitor, a Nokia 446XPro. I think the quality of a monitor has a lot to do with 2D quality when you get to 1600x1200.

 

[Clevor]

I might add that when I check for 2D quality, I don't just look at a 1024x768 or 1280x1024 desktop! I check at 1600x1200 and the highest refresh rate the card and my monitor will accept (usually 85 mhz). I open up an Arial Bold text document in Word, and on a white background, I check the text at different font sizes from 500 to 100. I look for crisp edges, blurriness, text bleeding, and if there is any ghosting.

I don't think you can get any better than the G400 MAX, maybe equal. Now Matrox is coming out with a killer 3D card next year, but I really doubt they can sustain the 2D quality of the G400 MAX on it. Most the MAXs were originally made in Ireland. And Matrox afficiandos have been complaining about the G450 and G550 not being as good as the original G400, perhpas because the cards are now being imported elsewhere.

 

[cockeyed]

I recently bought the Visiontek GF3 Ti200 to replace a Voodoo4. I also had a Radeon LE for awhile. I use a 19" NEC FP950 monitor (Diamondtron flat tube) which I set up using Nokia monitor adjustment software. I'am mostly a 2D user with a few games and I'am very picky when it comes to picture quality. IMO, my Ti200 has slightly better 2D than my Voodoo4 and Radeon which were both very good. The Voodoo4, Radeon and GF3 Ti200 all had good color saturation on my monitor. With my Ti200 I run the Vibrance control on LOW with the darkness dropped down a tad and the picture looks about as perfect as can be. I run at 1152x864@85HZ but I also tested it at 1600x1200 and the 2D was still excellent. I was hesitant to get the GF3 Ti200 because of everything I heard about 2D quality with the GeForce2. I got the Best Buy deal for $100 dollars so I took a chance and have not been disappointed. I can't explain why some people are not happy with the GF3 quality, but in my case it is excellent in 2d (sharp and solid black) and 3d, with excellent color saturation. Of the 3 cards I've owned, I would rate them for picture quality: #1- Visiontek GF3 Ti200, #2- Voodoo4, #3 Radeon LE.

 

[Ajay]

I'll reply with some info on the Gainward GF3 (due in today or tommorrow). I chose the Gainward GF3 over any of the Ti line because there seemed to be more variation in peoples comments concerning the new Ti series. I telecommute one day a week and do programming at home as well as playing some games - so 2D quality has always been important to me. I've used (work or home) the Mill II, G200, G400, Elsa GF2 (returned this one), Radeon DDR and SRD all on 19-21" aperture grill monitors. The G400 has the best in color saturation, the Radeon is pretty close. Sharpness on the Radeon was a bit better than my G400, but different drivers produce different results. Anyway, I'll setup the Gainward on my Sony G400 (19") and post results after using Clevor's procedure.

-AJ

 

[Ajay]

OK, this isn't about the Ti series, but is about a geforce card which has been given high marks for 2D quality.

I recieved my Gainward Geforce3 PowerPack !!!. I removed the A/V daughter card, I won't be using it anyway. I've tried the 21.83 and 23.10 Drivers for XP (Pro). The 23.10s gave the best performance and the best 2D quality. Right now I'm getting ~7100 3DMark2001 marks, but I haven't tried any tweaks yet. My tests were run with a 19" Sony G400. The 2D quality is acceptable, not as good as my Radeon. At 1600x1200x32 (75Hz, driver won't let me pick 85Hz which my monitor supports, don't know why) I noticed that fine text was less sharp than the Radeon and elarged fonts showed evidence of, what I'd call, bleeding. At 1280x1024X32 (@85Hz, again, below the max supported by my monitor) fine text looked good and enlarged fonts showed almost no bleeding. Color saturation isn't as good as with the Radeon, playing around the the Digital Vibrance control helped (I have it set to low). If I set DV higher, certian colors are over saturated and looked cartoonish. Overall as a general impression, I like the Radeon much better for 2D work. But the Gainward GF3 is leaps and bounds above the Elsa GF2 I had about a year ago and the GF3s image quality is acceptable.

3D (games) performance is a totally different story. I can play Tribes2 at 1600x1200x32 (everything maxed) and get smooth game play! I haven't tried any other games yet, but this OpenGL game is just outstanding with the GF3, I can't believe the difference in performance.

As it stands, I'm not sure that I will keep the card. I would just go with an 8500, but the XP drivers still seem problematic - plus a number of people have had specific problems with Tribes2. Having waited 6 months to get good Win2k drivers for the Radeon, only to be tossed back into the gutter once I got XP, I'm leary of ATI. I'll try tweaking the GF3 a bit more decide over the next week whether to keep it, or plunge into driver hell with a R8500.

-AJ

 

[Cosmo3]

Thanks for your input I will keep watching for more post from you. I am not doing anything for a couple of weeks yet so let me know if the 2d gets to a aceptible level. Oh I run 1024 X 768 on my monitor so let me know if it is ok at that resolution.

 

[Ajay]

Cosmo3,

Tough to say how good 1024x768 are on my system. I have a 19" monitor and everything is huge at that resolution. That said, large fonts look a bit cleaner. Small fonts look about the same as they did @ 1280x1024. Color saturation seemed worse, which I didnt' expect.

-AJ

 

[Jen]

I also would like to know the quality of picture on a 17 inch monitior.


Jen

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

My GF3 Ti200 has nice 2d quality. I've turned into a mostly 2d user lately, and I am quite happy with this card.

 

[ssrgp0]

Ok, nobody has asked this question yet so I might as well want to know from you 2D experts here. Is there any different in terms of sharpness, color, & quality in 2D if you have a DVI TFT monitor connecting to the a different brand of DVI output video card? I know the DVI connection process don't need to convert from digital to analog & digital back to analog signals. What are your thoughts and input?

 

[Ausone]

Visiontek GF3 Ti200 may also have an acceptable 2D quality, both in sharpness and color quality. Although I don't have this card, I had Visiontek GF2 Ultra which had quite a good 2D image quality, when there is no rolling lines present. In terms of sharpness of linear images like text, it matched Voodoo3 2000 and had slightly less vibrant color than the latter. I was using Sony CPD200fs then.

Even compared to Matrox G550 that I have now, GF2 Ultra didn't fare so badly. I am now using Sony G420S and this comparison is made with this monitor. The difference is not like night and day if you compare momentary images for a short duration of time. The text is slightly sharper with G550 at 1280x960 and more noticeably so at 1600x1200. Color quality is also somewhat better with G550, but the difference is not so great. Unless you are a graphic artist or DTP worker, you won't be dissatisfied with 2D IQ of Visiontek GF2 Ultra or GF3 Ti200, assuming the latter has similar image quality as GF2U, particularly if you run your monitor at 1024x768. One big problem with GF2U is rolling lines at certain resolutions and refresh rates, but this seems to have been fixed with GF3 series.

However, a big difference emerges when you keep looking at your monitor for a long time. What seems to be a slight or not-so-significant difference seems to turn out to be great in terms of its impact on your eyes. I don't get as tired with Matrox G550 as I did with Visiontek GF2Ultra even if I keep working with my computer for hours.

If you spend a lot of time with your computer and don't mind much about gaming, I'd suggest getting Matrox G550 for your health. Also if you want your computer to be quiet, definitely get G550 as it has no fan. Actually, you could play some games with G550 at lower resolutions, too. I don't know how Radeon fares in this ergonomic aspect, but I've heard it's really loud, if you have an otherwise quiet box.

 

[alluu]

On an LCD 2D between an 8500 and ti200, there isn't much of a difference. Digital vibrance does help.

 

[Ajay]

<< I also would like to know the quality of picture on a 17 inch monitior.

Jen >>



My brother has the VisionTek Ti200 and it looks good on his 17" Samsung Dynaflat.

-AJ