Are We Losing Out in Today's Game-Benchmark-Obsessed Graphics Market?
It wasn't all that long ago that graphics cards' 2D performance was an integral part of PC design and discussion. The Matrox Millennium II and Tseng Labs ET4000/6000 ruled the earth, with some competition from various ATI cards. Enthusiasts and business users alike eagerly debated which graphics chip delivered the greatest resolutions and color depths and the best image clarity and overall performance. Those were heady days -- before the dark times of the 3D Empire.
I'm as big a fan as anyone of the enhanced capabilities and performance provided by the newest 3D hardware, but I'm starting to think they've come at a real cost. Once the 3D revolution started gaining steam, the 2D performance and quality of any given graphics card became far less important (at least outside of the CAD workstation arena). No longer were PC shoppers comparing RAMDAC speeds or 2D benchmarks, but testing 3D games to see which card came out on top. The consensus seemed to be that the 3D accelerators all offered more than enough performance for basic 2D duties, so why worry about something so unimportant?
Before examining this burning question, ask yourself where you spend the majority of your computing time. Is it with 3D games -- or those mostly mythical "3D's not just for games" business applications we've been hearing about for years -- or in basic Windows and office-suite tasks? Unless you're a kid on school vacation or a game-addicted adult on the dole, I imagine it's the latter. Personally, my PC is utilized in just about every possible way, from basic business and graphic jobs to DVD, CD, and MP3 playback and the obligatory gaming diversions. But even so, the majority of my time is spent in a decidedly 2D environment.
So if 2D graphics are far more prevalent than 3D in daily computing tasks, why is so much emphasis placed on 3D performance? It comes back to that urban legend about how every current card has ample power for 2D applications. This sounds all right if you're only interested in reading the impressively high resolutions and color depths listed in spec sheets, but when cards are actually put to the 2D test, differences become quite apparent.
My current graphics card is a very capable Nvidia GeForce2 Ultra-based model, which I use quite comfortably at either 1,280 by 1,024 or 1,600 by 1,200 resolution on a 19-inch, flat-screen monitor. I've also tested many a video card in my time, finding some (such as the Matrox G400) with slightly better 2D but tradeoffs in the 3D area.
When my new ATI Radeon 8500 review card arrived recently, I noticed exceptional 2D image quality and performance, along with excellent 3D results. After the initial benchmarking was completed, I installed the Radeon as my main display for compatibility and driver testing. I was amazed to see the same stellar results there as well -- and inspired to think hard about the 2D capabilities of other graphics cards.
I should note that in no way is the GeForce2 Ultra (or GeForce3) a poor 2D performer, but the Radeon 8500 proved superior at higher resolutions. Performing tasks such as manipulating or scrolling through large images or even a worksheet full of Excel graphs was noticeably smoother with the ATI card, and 2D image and text clarity is a bit better -- especially at 1,600 by 1,200 or higher.
Nor were basic Windows tasks the only beneficiaries: DVD playback was excellent, and performance in 2D role-playing or strategy games was also faster. That last point is one of my pet peeves when comparing powerhouse PCs -- sure, you can run a 3D shooter at 200-plus frames per second, but just try getting an ultra-smooth frame rate when the action heats up in Baldur's Gate or Age of Empires II.
When Looking Good Is Overlooked
I spoke to ATI regarding these findings and received some interesting information: Apparently, the Radeon 8500 features a 400MHz RAMDAC, capable of exceeding the bandwidth specifications of current monitors, which along with its other features makes it perhaps the most powerful 2D solution on the market.
But when I attempted to find out more about its 2D architecture, it became clear that the topic didn't rank very high on ATI's marketing list of marketing. After repeatedly trying to turn the conversation to the 2D aspects of the 8500, I found myself being asked about 3D performance again and again.
I can't really blame ATI, as 3D performance and features are what sell video cards nowadays. Having an advantage in 2D speed and clarity may get some buyers interested in the Radeon 8500, but it won't get the big headlines or make for prime box quotes. Worse, it could seem like backhanded praise; we've all read reviews that praise a card for "exceptional image quality," while noting that it turned 3D Studio or Quake III Arena into a slide show.
The difference in this case is that, in addition to its superb 2D, the Radeon 8500 is also a powerful 3D performer that puts pressure on even Nvidia's highest-end GeForce3 Ti 500. The key is balance between all components of PC video: While the vast majority of users (myself included) wouldn't find fault with the 2D quality of a current GeForce, the 3D-centric obsession of the graphics industry is becoming disturbing.
Three-dimensional Web and business applications are slowly growing, and most of us like to relax with a game now and then. But at least some emphasis should be placed on improving systems' bread-and-butter 2D performance. Consider this not so much a harangue on current products as a question about where R&D dollars will be spent in the future -- looking at blurry text at 1,600 by 1,200 is not a tradeoff I'm willing to make, no matter how great Aquanox or Max Payne look.
IE 7
Firefox 2.0
