Ok the reason I ask which video card is better is...
I was using ATI All in Wonder 128 for my projection, I like this card because as its name implies there's all-in-one 3D card, TV tuner and Capture card. Everything works out fine, projection ok.
Then I tried using nVidia GEForce MX 200, and I don't know if its just me, but the picture looks better.
Are my eyes deceiving me or is it true using a GeForce card is better then ATI ? Somehow everything looks sharper and clearer.
Any comments....
I was using ATI All in Wonder 128 for my projection, I like this card because as its name implies there's all-in-one 3D card, TV tuner and Capture card. Everything works out fine, projection ok.
Then I tried using nVidia GEForce MX 200, and I don't know if its just me, but the picture looks better.
Are my eyes deceiving me or is it true using a GeForce card is better then ATI ? Somehow everything looks sharper and clearer.
Any comments....
no...ATI has the lead for now with their 9700 but Nvidia will come out with the "FX" whcih will beat or match the 9700 this is very common no one will stay on top for ever theres always something better every 6 months to a year.
are you talking about the Geforce 4 mx 200? if so...then its crap for its price, get a 9500 which is a watered down version of the 9700.If u want all in one...its gonna cost you more.
my 2 cent
are you talking about the Geforce 4 mx 200? if so...then its crap for its price, get a 9500 which is a watered down version of the 9700.If u want all in one...its gonna cost you more.
my 2 cent
I think that the picture difference that you are noticing is because of the different generations of the cards.
An All in Wonder 128 is pretty old.. I think these were released about the same time as the Rage Fury which was designed to compete with the TNT or TNT2.. about 2 generations older than the Geforce 2 MX card.
ATI has historically had better TV Out than geforce cards. There is most likely no need to go for a latest generation card though. To do so and just use it for projecting movies would be very stupid.
If you want to keep what you currently have then use the TV out that looks better. If you feel that a more powerful graphics engine is needed then look at the ATI AIW 7500 or 8500 solutions. They should be pretty decent, and I believe that the 7500 is a PCI card aimed at the sub $150 market.
Neg D.. that comment was not really even worth 2 cents. I think you should be charged 2 cents for that answer. He was asking about 2 seperate cards, not the current Nvidia/ ATI situation. He said that he ALREADY had a Geforce 2 MX 200 and so it does not matter that it is not the greatest, it is better than the ATI 9500 that he DOES NOT have.
I think that you need to learn to read the entire post before deciding that he must upgrade to the latest and greatest... if he is only using it for projecting DVDs and TV at a low 640x resolution then it would make absolutely no sense to spend any money whatsoever as both of those cards are MORE than capable of doing the task. I repeat, to upgrade in that situation would be stupid, worthless, and a waste of money.
An All in Wonder 128 is pretty old.. I think these were released about the same time as the Rage Fury which was designed to compete with the TNT or TNT2.. about 2 generations older than the Geforce 2 MX card.
ATI has historically had better TV Out than geforce cards. There is most likely no need to go for a latest generation card though. To do so and just use it for projecting movies would be very stupid.
If you want to keep what you currently have then use the TV out that looks better. If you feel that a more powerful graphics engine is needed then look at the ATI AIW 7500 or 8500 solutions. They should be pretty decent, and I believe that the 7500 is a PCI card aimed at the sub $150 market.
Neg D.. that comment was not really even worth 2 cents. I think you should be charged 2 cents for that answer. He was asking about 2 seperate cards, not the current Nvidia/ ATI situation. He said that he ALREADY had a Geforce 2 MX 200 and so it does not matter that it is not the greatest, it is better than the ATI 9500 that he DOES NOT have.
I think that you need to learn to read the entire post before deciding that he must upgrade to the latest and greatest... if he is only using it for projecting DVDs and TV at a low 640x resolution then it would make absolutely no sense to spend any money whatsoever as both of those cards are MORE than capable of doing the task. I repeat, to upgrade in that situation would be stupid, worthless, and a waste of money.
Crash said:
Mx 200 better than 9500? that must be a typo..
It was my opinion are you blind? my opinion is neither right nor wrong its up to him to do what he wishes with it.
its BETTER to buy a good card for all purposes than to buy a bad one just for for movies, later on he might want to play games and hes gonna have to buy another card.and the newer cards have special features for movies as well as other apps.
stop judging my posts what makes your opinion better than mine
why dont you grow up🙄
...
Negative design, ati does have the lead with the newest 8500 all in wonder, and will continue to do so even after the NV3X series are released. this is because nvidia simply offers chipsets for 3rd parties, whereas ATI does both, and on the same token, all the new nvidia chipsets will feature is a more compact design, with faster gpu's and more memory, which do not necessarily translate into a better quality picture, just a higher resolution 3d model, and textures. In our case, for projection purposes, the ATI all-in-wonder is far better suited as it features a remote, with multiple accessories and i/o's. I definitely recommend sticking with the ati, or u[grading to a current model. my father has the 8500 with all the goodies, and it rocks, even fro 3d applications. you can use the remote through many rooms as it's RF.
Good luck. I am actually planning on getting an NV30 in a couple of months as i'm a 3d gaming nut!
Negative design, ati does have the lead with the newest 8500 all in wonder, and will continue to do so even after the NV3X series are released. this is because nvidia simply offers chipsets for 3rd parties, whereas ATI does both, and on the same token, all the new nvidia chipsets will feature is a more compact design, with faster gpu's and more memory, which do not necessarily translate into a better quality picture, just a higher resolution 3d model, and textures. In our case, for projection purposes, the ATI all-in-wonder is far better suited as it features a remote, with multiple accessories and i/o's. I definitely recommend sticking with the ati, or u[grading to a current model. my father has the 8500 with all the goodies, and it rocks, even fro 3d applications. you can use the remote through many rooms as it's RF.
Good luck. I am actually planning on getting an NV30 in a couple of months as i'm a 3d gaming nut!
Actually the GeForceFX 5800(Ultra) will only be made by nVidia directly, with whole cards OEMed to other companies. The NV31/34 will just be chip sales, while the NV30 cards will be made by nVidia. If you're looking for a video in/out card with a TV tuner, then there is the Radeon VE AIW, 8500 AIW and the 9700 AIW. The 9700 AIW can output to a HDTV directly even, while the 9700 Pro/8500 need an adaptor. If you're looking to improve 2D quality off of your current card you can probably just clip the low pass filter. The 9700 AIW also does hardware assisted MPEG2 encoding, but that may not be relavent to you.
For DVD Playback, I find that ATI is better to significantly better.
While MPEG playback is purely mathematical and scaling is easy, the conversion from interlaced to progressive scan, 3/2 pull down, etc. is not. To that end, ATI is better in my estimation than NVIDIA.
I also find that ATI has rock solid clocks. This is very important for LCD displays where the image is sampled. It is not as important with CRT displays.
Alvaius
While MPEG playback is purely mathematical and scaling is easy, the conversion from interlaced to progressive scan, 3/2 pull down, etc. is not. To that end, ATI is better in my estimation than NVIDIA.
I also find that ATI has rock solid clocks. This is very important for LCD displays where the image is sampled. It is not as important with CRT displays.
Alvaius
There ya go great attitude ,SweetRobot
I still have my 8500 from 1 and a half years ago and its STILL great i plan to upgrade next year when Nv fx comes out and the 9700 will be cheaper.
BEST place to get vidcards (that i know of) www.pricewatch.com
Regards
Jimmy
I still have my 8500 from 1 and a half years ago and its STILL great i plan to upgrade next year when Nv fx comes out and the 9700 will be cheaper.
BEST place to get vidcards (that i know of) www.pricewatch.com
Regards
Jimmy
Actually it was NOT a typo. Since he already owns the one then it is better in his situation. Out of context it is not a true statement, please, please, please do not take things out of context like that.
my eyes are not deceiving me, I checked again using both cards and the projection using nVidia's actually look really sharp, while the ATI look kind of washout.
the black from nVidia is "blacker" than Ati.
Could it be because of the detonator driver for the nVidia that is making it clearer and sharper, as it has a lot more settings than ATI?
the black from nVidia is "blacker" than Ati.
Could it be because of the detonator driver for the nVidia that is making it clearer and sharper, as it has a lot more settings than ATI?
Are you using VGA out or TV out? Also what are you gonna be using this card for, gaming, DVD, watching TV, recording TV?
If you can tell us what you would like to do we can give you some help with it.
Also what are your system specs?
If you can tell us what you would like to do we can give you some help with it.
Also what are your system specs?
moses, nvidia is leasing chipsets on the nv3x's- especially to TSMC, and potentially MS for xbox successsor.
I'm using the VGA out. The computer is a 1Ghz Intel PC, with 256 ram and 40gb hdd. I'm using powerDVD for the DVD playback.
I use this PC and projector to watch DVD only.
waste of bulb if I use it for gaming and watching tv.
I use this PC and projector to watch DVD only.
waste of bulb if I use it for gaming and watching tv.
GeForce bashing... so boring.
Guys,
These arguments about ATi/nVidia (did I get the caps right? 😉 ) seem to crop up all the time.
IME, for movie playback, all these wizzy 3D features mean absolutely nothing. The most important criteria is the output DAC that converts the digital signal to VGA/TV.
In fact, I've had an original Matrox Millennium playing back DivX flawlessly. It does still have a superbly clear video output, but no additional features whatsoever, including video overlay. So the work was done entirely in CPU, which is **** easy these days.
In my case, using s-video, I found that a GeForce MX400 card with BT869 was far superior to a MX400 with Chrontel 7007A tv encoder. Oh, and I have UNDERCLOCKED one of the cards to minimum speed in order to get away with a fanless heatsink and no heat.
So it is probably fair to say that the MX200 can output a better quality signal. It all depends on the implementation.
Arnie
Guys,
These arguments about ATi/nVidia (did I get the caps right? 😉 ) seem to crop up all the time.
IME, for movie playback, all these wizzy 3D features mean absolutely nothing. The most important criteria is the output DAC that converts the digital signal to VGA/TV.
In fact, I've had an original Matrox Millennium playing back DivX flawlessly. It does still have a superbly clear video output, but no additional features whatsoever, including video overlay. So the work was done entirely in CPU, which is **** easy these days.
In my case, using s-video, I found that a GeForce MX400 card with BT869 was far superior to a MX400 with Chrontel 7007A tv encoder. Oh, and I have UNDERCLOCKED one of the cards to minimum speed in order to get away with a fanless heatsink and no heat.
So it is probably fair to say that the MX200 can output a better quality signal. It all depends on the implementation.
Arnie
when you say "far superior" do you mean the DVD playback on the screen or projector is more clearer? So each card does makes a difference, that answer my question.
I agree with you that for video playback (not 3D gaming) all cards produce same results.
I'm not bias towards nVidia nor Ati, I just see that nVidia produce better "blacks" than Ati.... must triple check again.
I agree with you that for video playback (not 3D gaming) all cards produce same results.
I'm not bias towards nVidia nor Ati, I just see that nVidia produce better "blacks" than Ati.... must triple check again.
your Nvidia plays better blacks because your Nvidia card is newer than the Ati card you have.If you had the MOST current of any of these cards you would see a better image than with both of what you have now.
Well now that I know your systems specs I would highly check out the radeon line of cards.
7500 and 8500 are great cards for dvd playback, 9000's are under 100 bucks on ebay rite now, 7500 are only 50 bucks.
For DVD playing nothing can beat ATI(not fanboy either) they have some of the highest quality dacs for their cards, everyone over at the avsforum uses them for their HTPC's. The achilles heel though is their drivers sometimes.
7500 and 8500 are great cards for dvd playback, 9000's are under 100 bucks on ebay rite now, 7500 are only 50 bucks.
For DVD playing nothing can beat ATI(not fanboy either) they have some of the highest quality dacs for their cards, everyone over at the avsforum uses them for their HTPC's. The achilles heel though is their drivers sometimes.
ATi were known for their bad drivers... that is the past they are updating their new "CATALYST" drivers frequently now.
Negative Design said:
grra,......gaahhhh. must resist posting.
Fine, here goes. Even though the C drivers have been updating for awhile their still is problems. They are nothing like they were before but they are not up to nvidia quality
*edit* check out the avsforum for what I mean and I am in no way not recomending the ATI video card either. They are fantastic cards with excellent DVD playback, if you just want to play DVD's you really shouldn't have a problem.
Negative Design said:
Newest does not necessarily mean best... the Millennium card I used was made in 1995, but it outputs a fantastic 2D picture.
It's in the quality of the DAC and filters used on the board.
The different black levels could be something as trivial as brightness/contrast/gamma settings.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.