Super7 Video Accelerator Comparison - Part 1: High End Gaming Solutions (June 99)
by Anand Lal Shimpi on June 28, 1999 6:56 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
2D Image Quality & Performance Comparison
Four years ago, 2D performance was a big deal as the latest batch of 3D accelerators barely deserved the label 3D in their titles. Back then companies like S3, Matrox, and Number Nine were what hardware enthusiasts like yourselves were drooling at, there were no TNT2 Ultras or Voodoo3 3000s to lose sleep over, just pure unadulterated 2D performance.
Since then, the 2D performance issue was quick to die as improved technology and architecture lead to the quick demise of the question "what 2D card is the fastest?" among gamers. While 2D performance is still a topic of discussion among the high end graphics professionals, the desktop 2D market is at a point where virtually any current generation accelerator will do just fine.
While the 2D performance of all current generation products is virtually identical, the respective image quality isn't. 2D image quality is a factor that still remains ignored by most manufacturers, simply because addressing the problem would mean spending time and money on something that the competition isn't doing. The first misconception about 2D image quality that seems to be the general train of thought is that a faster RAMDAC means a sharper 2D image.
As taken from the AnandTech Number Nine Revolution IV Review, here's a quick primer on the controversy behind 2D image quality:
Since its release, NVIDIA's TNT chipset has become a little more than a 2D/3D card for gamers. It seems as if the TNT is being crammed down everyone's throat, even if they have no intention of touching a frame of Quake 2 or even picking up the crowbar in Half-Life. Now, the TNT is a fairly affordable graphics solution considering it is a 2D/3D combo card, and its success is good news for NVIDIA. Being a successful chipset isn't a bad thing, where the TNT does get a bad reputation is when someone with a 21" monitor unravels the TNT's dark secret and tries to run their card at 1600 x 1200 x 32bpp at a high refresh rate under Windows. Look around the newsgroups, ask TNT owners, or try it for yourself, the TNT as well as many other 2D/3D combo cards don't provide the best 2D image quality when it comes to driving large monitors (i.e. 21") at high resolutions. The most common occurrence being that when viewing black text on a white background (or vise versa), the characters will begin to seem a bit fuzzy, and, especially after hours of staring at the screen, your eyes will begin to feel the wrath of a poorly constructed card.
Keep in mind that this scenario only really affects those with larger monitors running at resolutions above 1024 x 768 (most likely above 1280 x 1024). The assumption being made here by most manufacturers is that their customers won't use their products for professional purposes (i.e. intensive image editing, publishing, etc...) and as long as their 2D quality and performance is top notch at resolutions under 1280 x 1024 at refresh rates under 75Hz (which most users do tend to stay under, simply due to monitor sizes refresh rate limitations), they'll be perfectly fine. This holds true in a great percentage of the cases, which is why you'll hear people saying that the 2D image quality on the TNT or on the Savage3D is "top-notch" or "beautiful." However, when you happen to push your TNT card to the limits at 1600 x 1200, or when you give the Savage3D a run for its money at the same resolution, and you see some "fuzzy" text, it's quite difficult to believe that just about every single TNT/Savage3D owner out there could be wrong in saying that the 2D image quality is astounding...but in your case, they are.
The reason behind this is simple, in order to cut costs, the amount of filters placed between the analog VGA output on your video card and the RAMDAC are cut down to the bare minimum. This sacrifice is made simply because of the assumption made above. The RAMDAC on a video card is the device that converts the digital signal from the local graphics memory (RAM) and converts it into an analog signal for the monitor using a Digital Analog Converter (DAC) since most displays are in fact analog devices, with the exception of a relative few digital LCD displays (not all LCD displays are digital, in fact, most are analog as well). The speed of the RAMDAC is a defining factor in how crisp the 2D quality of your video card is.
Since most of these cards will be used for 3D games, and since there isn't a next-generation 2D/3D combo card out there capable of running any 3D game at 1600 x 1200 in a high performing fashion, most manufacturers figure that it's better to keep costs low and satisfy a greater percentage of the population than increase the costs to satisfy a smaller percentage. That is the unfortunate truth, however if you're a gamer, using a 15" or maybe even a 17" monitor, chances are that you'd rather pay $130 for a card that suits your needs instead of paying $160 for a card that suits your needs as well as your neighbor with a 21" monitor. At the same time, if you put yourself in the shoes of your neighbor with the 21" monitor, chances are that your neighbor would rather pay $160 for a card that does everything they need it to do rather than pay $130 for a card of noticeably lesser quality.
So why the trend to push faster RAMDACs? Well, as mentioned before, there isn't a 2D/3D combo card capable of running 3D games at 1600 x 1200 in a high performing fashion...but the current crop of cards are getting there. With frame rates of around 30 fps, 1600 x 1200 is now a possibility although not much of a playable one most of the time. For that reason, manufacturers had to bump up the speeds of their RAMDACs to support higher, more comfortable refresh rates at resolutions above the once unheard of 1024 x 768 resolution for games.
It all depends on your perspective as a consumer, and instead of allowing users to have two options (a professional and a home use version) most manufacturers will go after the "one-size fits all" market and hope to succeed. In terms of 2D quality, at resolutions up to 1280 x 1024 the G400, Permedia3, Savage4, TNT2, and Voodoo3 are generally the same. While some cards are worse than others, the differences between the cards are minimal, however once you pass 1280 x 1024 things quickly become more divided. The G400 and Permedia3 quickly take the lead at resolutions of 1600 x 1200 and greater, followed by a toss up between Savage4, TNT2, and Voodoo3 cards. Keep in mind that each card, even if they are made by the same manufacturer and are seemingly identical, can have a completely different level of 2D image quality. Generally cards that follow reference designs set by the manufacturer have superior 2D image quality to those that follow a proprietary design, as the amount of filters placed between the RAMDAC and VGA-out is not controlled/suggested by the chip manufacturer in the case of a non-reference design.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
0 Comments
View All Comments