Creeping said:
=|[ Rob Stow's ]|= wrote:
Depends on how you define "excellent 2D performance".
Matrox excels at this. The image clarity and colour fidelity
produced by Matrox cards is unbeatable.
NVidia sucks at this. If you find it hard on your eyes
to work all day long on a monitor driven by an nVidia
card, switch to a Matrox card and the fonts will be
rendered much more crisply, lines will be much less fuzzy,
etc.
Im not sure, but that sounds rather odd to me. Isnt the communication
between the card and the monitor digital?
Depends on the card and the monitor. Typically a CRT takes
an analog signal and an LCD takes a digital signal, but there
are many exceptions, including
- digital CRTs. They take a digital signal from the video
card and then internally convert to analog before displaying.
- analog LCDs. They take an analog signal from the video card
and then internally convert to digital before displaying.
- CRTs with both digital and analog inputs.
- LCDs with both digital and analog inputs.
How could a card make a monitor render lines more crisply?
In the case of a CRT, at some point the digital signal in
the video card's memory has to be converted to an analog signal
that the monitor can display. This is done by a chip called
a RAMDAC - RAM stands for, well, RAM. DAC is digital-to-analog
converter.
Not all RAMDACs are created equal - some do a much better job
than others. For any given digital data stream there is just
one ideal analog waveform - and some RAMDACs do a better job of
approximating that ideal waveform than others.
The quality of a RAMDAC affects more than just lines - it
affects the accuracy of any shape you might display on a CRT.
The crispness of fonts is also strongly affected by the quality
of the RAMDAC. It also affects the colour fidelity of the image.
And if you are doing something where colour fidelity is
very important, you are using a CRT and not an LCD. The
colour fidelity of LCDs is gradually improving, but it still
can't compete with a good CRT.
What about TFTs ? I can understand some
prefering certain colour balances , but without understanding this fully -
think that sounds false.
While comparing, sure your not noticing differences such as the default
refresh rate changing ??
Who uses the defaults ?
Defaults are a great way to get the least out of your monitor.
I spend a heck of a lot of time staring at screen, and turn the resolution
down if anythings fuzzy, and keep good eyesight by taking in distant
scenery when I can.
You really should try a Matrox G550, P650, P750, or a Parhelia.
If you have a good monitor that /can/ display a good signal
clearly, then a Matrox card can give it the signal it needs.
Nobody who uses a Matrox will ever voluntarily stoop to using
something else again.
Anyway, Id be greatful if anyone could hazard how that can work - sounds a
little to me like the old stories of some extremely expensive CD players
extracting nicer sounding digital than some slightly less expensive
players.
And they do. A couple of major factors that the good CD players
do better than the el-cheapo brands:
1.) Dealing with flaws - suchs as scratches - in the CD.
2.) At some point the digital data stream from the CD has to be
converted to the analog signal needed by the speakers. Again,
a RAMDAC is used and not all RAMDACs are created equal.
