Matrox G550 vs Radeon 8500

My question is would I see a significant improvement in text?
"jayson" <robjayson RemoveThis @hotsnail.com> wrote in message
news:imv6a1hpvfjhpj80e4j9d6v2uks16e86ot@4ax.com...
 > On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 07:59:38 -0500, "Tony Pacc" <tpacc RemoveThis @execpc.com>
 > wrote:
 >
  > >Hi, I am currently using a ATI Radeon 8500 on an older Dell P3 1000mgh
  > >Pentium,I'm not into games ,so I am wondering if I would get better 2 D
  > >performance with the G550,I using a Samsung 930B flat panel with digital
  > >output,I am basically looking at better text performance.Thanks
  > >
 > I would try the ATI since you already have it, and it has dvi support.
 > I like Matrox for 2D, so I've only owned Matrox cards. You could
 > probably get the 8500 on ebay for less than $40.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Matrox G550 vs Radeon 8500 

Tony Pacc wrote:
 > My question is would I see a significant improvement in text?
 > "jayson" <robjayson RemoveThis @hotsnail.com> wrote in message
 > news:imv6a1hpvfjhpj80e4j9d6v2uks16e86ot@4ax.com...
 >
  >>On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 07:59:38 -0500, "Tony Pacc" <tpacc RemoveThis @execpc.com>
  >>wrote:
  >>
  >>
   >>>Hi, I am currently using a ATI Radeon 8500 on an older Dell P3 1000mgh
   >>>Pentium,I'm not into games ,so I am wondering if I would get better 2 D
   >>>performance with the G550,I using a Samsung 930B flat panel with digital
   >>>output,I am basically looking at better text performance.Thanks
   >>>
  >>
  >>I would try the ATI since you already have it, and it has dvi support.
  >>I like Matrox for 2D, so I've only owned Matrox cards. You could
  >>probably get the 8500 on ebay for less than $40.
 >

In a word ... yes.
Matrox is the notorious "leader" in 2d rendering/display ... while ATI
concerns itself primarily, with 3d performance.

--
Convert & Proud Adopter of ...
Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 & my new favorite Browser ... FireFox 1.0
get on board at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.mozilla.org//" target="_blank">http://www.mozilla.org//</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Matrox G550 vs Radeon 8500 

iamnotme wrote:

 > Tony Pacc wrote:
  >> My question is would I see a significant improvement in text?
  >> "jayson" <robjayson.RemoveThis@hotsnail.com> wrote in message
  >> news:imv6a1hpvfjhpj80e4j9d6v2uks16e86ot@4ax.com...
  >>
   >>>On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 07:59:38 -0500, "Tony Pacc" <tpacc.RemoveThis@execpc.com>
   >>>wrote:
   >>>
   >>>
   >>>>Hi, I am currently using a ATI Radeon 8500 on an older Dell P3 1000mgh
   >>>>Pentium,I'm not into games ,so I am wondering if I would get better 2 D
   >>>>performance with the G550,I using a Samsung 930B flat panel with digital
   >>>>output,I am basically looking at better text performance.Thanks
   >>>>
   >>>
   >>>I would try the ATI since you already have it, and it has dvi support.
   >>>I like Matrox for 2D, so I've only owned Matrox cards. You could
   >>>probably get the 8500 on ebay for less than $40.
  >>
 >
 > In a word ... yes.
 > Matrox is the notorious "leader" in 2d rendering/display ... while ATI
 > concerns itself primarily, with 3d performance.

If he sees a _significant_ improvement in text by going from a Radeon 8500
to a G550 then his radeon was broken. There may be some slight difference
that an expert on text rendering might be able to detect with a magnifier
or instruments, but there is none perceptible to the average user.

The notion that there is some huge difference in text quality between Matrox
and other boards is pure hyperbole.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Matrox G550 vs Radeon 8500 

I've used a Matrox G400 and an ATI 9100 (really a renamed 8500).
The ATI 8500 will give about 90% as good 2D as the Matrox G400/G550.
So it's not worth spending the money.
As a matter of fact, the 8500 architecture is newer then the G400/G450/G550.
So driver support and 3D will be better (not trying to knock Matrox).

If you really wanted the best 2D you would need to get a Matrix Parhelia


"iamnotme" <iamnot DeleteThis @home.now> wrote in message
news:k2%oe.1588936$6l.951285@pd7tw2no...
 > Tony Pacc wrote:
  >> My question is would I see a significant improvement in text?
  >> "jayson" <robjayson DeleteThis @hotsnail.com> wrote in message
  >> news:imv6a1hpvfjhpj80e4j9d6v2uks16e86ot@4ax.com...
  >>
   >>>On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 07:59:38 -0500, "Tony Pacc" <tpacc DeleteThis @execpc.com>
   >>>wrote:
   >>>
   >>>
   >>>>Hi, I am currently using a ATI Radeon 8500 on an older Dell P3 1000mgh
   >>>>Pentium,I'm not into games ,so I am wondering if I would get better 2 D
   >>>>performance with the G550,I using a Samsung 930B flat panel with digital
   >>>>output,I am basically looking at better text performance.Thanks
   >>>>
   >>>
   >>>I would try the ATI since you already have it, and it has dvi support.
   >>>I like Matrox for 2D, so I've only owned Matrox cards. You could
   >>>probably get the 8500 on ebay for less than $40.
  >>
 >
 > In a word ... yes.
 > Matrox is the notorious "leader" in 2d rendering/display ... while ATI
 > concerns itself primarily, with 3d performance.
 >
 > --
 > Convert & Proud Adopter of ...
 > Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 & my new favorite Browser ... FireFox 1.0
<font color=purple> > get on board at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.mozilla.org//</font" target="_blank">http://www.mozilla.org//</font</a>><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Matrox G550 vs Radeon 8500 

No much improvement

"Tony Pacc" <tpacc.RemoveThis@execpc.com> wrote in message
news:11a8lihc4q3gbd3@corp.supernews.com...
 > My question is would I see a significant improvement in text?
 > "jayson" <robjayson.RemoveThis@hotsnail.com> wrote in message
 > news:imv6a1hpvfjhpj80e4j9d6v2uks16e86ot@4ax.com...
  >> On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 07:59:38 -0500, "Tony Pacc" <tpacc.RemoveThis@execpc.com>
  >> wrote:
  >>
   >> >Hi, I am currently using a ATI Radeon 8500 on an older Dell P3 1000mgh
   >> >Pentium,I'm not into games ,so I am wondering if I would get better 2 D
   >> >performance with the G550,I using a Samsung 930B flat panel with digital
   >> >output,I am basically looking at better text performance.Thanks
   >> >
  >> I would try the ATI since you already have it, and it has dvi support.
  >> I like Matrox for 2D, so I've only owned Matrox cards. You could
  >> probably get the 8500 on ebay for less than $40.
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Matrox G550 vs Radeon 8500 

Matrox has usually had better 2D then other cards.
ATI was second, Nvidia was third.
But the "others" have gotten better.

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet RemoveThis @snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:d82h1c01eku@news4.newsguy.com...
 > iamnotme wrote:
 >
  >> Tony Pacc wrote:
   >>> My question is would I see a significant improvement in text?
   >>> "jayson" <robjayson RemoveThis @hotsnail.com> wrote in message
   >>> news:imv6a1hpvfjhpj80e4j9d6v2uks16e86ot@4ax.com...
   >>>
   >>>>On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 07:59:38 -0500, "Tony Pacc" <tpacc RemoveThis @execpc.com>
   >>>>wrote:
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>>>Hi, I am currently using a ATI Radeon 8500 on an older Dell P3 1000mgh
   >>>>>Pentium,I'm not into games ,so I am wondering if I would get better 2 D
   >>>>>performance with the G550,I using a Samsung 930B flat panel with
   >>>>>digital
   >>>>>output,I am basically looking at better text performance.Thanks
   >>>>>
   >>>>
   >>>>I would try the ATI since you already have it, and it has dvi support.
   >>>>I like Matrox for 2D, so I've only owned Matrox cards. You could
   >>>>probably get the 8500 on ebay for less than $40.
   >>>
  >>
  >> In a word ... yes.
  >> Matrox is the notorious "leader" in 2d rendering/display ... while ATI
  >> concerns itself primarily, with 3d performance.
 >
 > If he sees a _significant_ improvement in text by going from a Radeon 8500
 > to a G550 then his radeon was broken. There may be some slight difference
 > that an expert on text rendering might be able to detect with a magnifier
 > or instruments, but there is none perceptible to the average user.
 >
 > The notion that there is some huge difference in text quality between
 > Matrox
 > and other boards is pure hyperbole.
 >
 > --
 > --John
 > to email, dial "usenet" and validate
 > (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Matrox G550 vs Radeon 8500 

"Tony Pacc" <tpacc.RemoveThis@execpc.com> wrote:

 >My question is would I see a significant improvement in text?

No, I use Matrox G400MAX, G550, P650 and Radeon 7500, 8500, 9600 and on the
same monitor these is IMHO no discernable difference in text or colour
quality.

Best regards

Andy<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Matrox G550 vs Radeon 8500 

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 09:46:33 +0200, "Andy@nospam.co.uk"
<me RemoveThis @privacy.net> wrote:

 >"Tony Pacc" <tpacc RemoveThis @execpc.com> wrote:
 >
  >>My question is would I see a significant improvement in text?
 >
 >No, I use Matrox G400MAX, G550, P650 and Radeon 7500, 8500, 9600 and on the
 >same monitor these is IMHO no discernable difference in text or colour
 >quality.
 >
 >Best regards
 >
 >Andy

If you are seeking after a maximum text quality, go LCD and DVI. At
native resolution, a dot above "i" is one pixel. No less, no more, no
in-between and completely flicker-free.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Matrox G550 vs Radeon 8500 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Matrox G550 vs Radeon 8500 

george1234 wrote:

 > On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 17:41:05 +0200, Edi Zubovic <edi.zubovic[rem
 > this]@ri.htnet.hr> wrote:
 >
 >
  >>If you are seeking after a maximum text quality, go LCD and DVI. At
  >>native resolution, a dot above "i" is one pixel. No less, no more, no
  >>in-between and completely flicker-free.
 >
 > that is not my experience. i did this with a syntax olevia 30" LCD and
 > and ATI dvi output. Text looked awful
 >
 > I much prefer a CRT

So lets see, you tried to display text on a crap TV and it looked bad and so
LCDs with DVI are necessarily inferior to CRTs? I bet you weren't running
it at its native resolution either.

Now try a real monitor.

 > --G

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Matrox G550 vs Radeon 8500 

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 15:24:45 -0400, george1234
<george1234pds.RemoveThis@excite.com> wrote:

 >On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 17:41:05 +0200, Edi Zubovic <edi.zubovic[rem
 >this]@ri.htnet.hr> wrote:
 >
 >
  >>If you are seeking after a maximum text quality, go LCD and DVI. At
  >>native resolution, a dot above "i" is one pixel. No less, no more, no
  >>in-between and completely flicker-free.
 >
 >that is not my experience. i did this with a syntax olevia 30" LCD and
 >and ATI dvi output. Text looked awful
 >
 >I much prefer a CRT
 >
 >--G
 >
But was it at the native resolution (it must have been huge) and could
the ATI handle it?

I have no problems whatsoever regarding text and 2D with a Matrox
Parhelia 128 DVI connected to a Samsung Syncmaster 213T @1600 x 1200,
normal (i. not "large") desktop fonts. This is the "native" resoution
for the 213t.
It is important that the resolution matches that "native" one,
specified by the manufacturer. Otherwise, yes, text does look awful.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Matrox G550 vs Radeon 8500 

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 22:17:42 +0200, Edi Zubovic <edi.zubovic[rem
this]@ri.htnet.hr> wrote:

--------------8<----------------------
  >>
  >>that is not my experience. i did this with a syntax olevia 30" LCD and
  >>and ATI dvi output. Text looked awful

Oops -- but this is a LCD TV, not a monitor... can't say much here,
sorry.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

  >>I much prefer a CRT
  >>
  >>--G
  >>
 >But was it at the native resolution (it must have been huge) and could
 >the ATI handle it?
 >
 >I have no problems whatsoever regarding text and 2D with a Matrox
 >Parhelia 128 DVI connected to a Samsung Syncmaster 213T @1600 x 1200,
 >normal (i. not "large") desktop fonts. This is the "native" resoution
 >for the 213t.
 >It is important that the resolution matches that "native" one,
 >specified by the manufacturer. Otherwise, yes, text does look awful.
 >
 >Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Matrox G550 vs Radeon 8500 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Matrox G550 vs Radeon 8500