Help: Looking for a quality video card with support for HDTV

[Kailu_Lantis]

I'm making plans to buy a new PC within a month's time. What has me worried right now is the video card I should choose. I want to make sure the card is able to output a clean, hassle-free signal thru DVI to an HDTV (mostly likely with HDMI) which I also plan to acquire sometime this year.

Upon doing a little research, I've found Nvidia 6600+ series to be "recommended" because of their PureVideo de-interlacing technology, but that's about it. Most people insist that buying a standalone player is better, but that's impossible for me because I mainly watch R2s with the help of DVDsubber.

Perhaps I should settle for a cheap card for now and buy a good one once I have an HDTV set? There's so much going on right now with DVI, DVI with HDCP, HDMI, PC & TV compatibility that it's easy to get lost.

Oh, and while we're on the subject, what should I get for my display: One of those Viewsonic "gaming LCDs" with 3MS response time or a plain, yet robust, flat CRT? My main interest is image quality for movies (and games).

Thanks for your help!

[Ty]

99% of the graphics cards out there that claim to be HDCP compliant do NOT support it at the board level. My advice is to wait 6 months or more. Vista will drive the graphics card market to move in this direction naturally. There are a few nVidia cards that actually are compliant though since nVidia themselves have had board plans available, but they are few and far between.

[Mrdini]

[ QUOTE ]
Kailu_Lantis said:
Oh, and while we're on the subject, what should I get for my display: One of those Viewsonic "gaming LCDs" with 3MS response time or a plain, yet robust, flat CRT? My main interest is image quality for movies (and games).

Thanks for your help!

[/ QUOTE ]

Sue me, but if you have the space & strong arms, I'd say go for a CRT. Despite their size & looming obsolesce, they are currently the best that they will ever be - very good value for your money, in relation to LCDs.

[Skywise]

The problem with HDCP is actually many-fold because even if you do have a compliant card the rest of your computer won't be. That means that Blu-ray and HD-DVD playback won't work at full resolution (if the ICT is set) even if you do get windows Vista later. About the only advantage to getting a compliant card now is that you can keep on using it if you upgrade your computer later, but by then much better cards should be out there. I'd just ignore this part for now - DVI output without HDCP actually has less issues with big TV displays than ones with.

Deinterlacing wise ATI's x1000 series cards pretty much have Nvidia beat for anime. They're able to handle more funky cadence sequences, while Nvidia is slightly quicker to switch back to film mode for regular content. Nvidia also requires you to buy their PureVideo decoder package to get any benefit, while ATI's deinterlacing is integrated into their driver and so works with any DVD playback software that uses DXVA.

If you're going to be gaming on the system, I would recommend an X1600 XT (not pro) at the minimum, but preferrably a faster card.

[Pyocola]

[ QUOTE ]
Skywise said:
Deinterlacing wise ATI's x1000 series cards pretty much have Nvidia beat for anime. They're able to handle more funky cadence sequences, while Nvidia is slightly quicker to switch back to film mode for regular content.

[/ QUOTE ]
Have they released any major updates recently? In the last test between these that I read they tested some anime (I think Megazone 23 was mentioned) and the ATI decoder failed miserably.

[Nani]

[ QUOTE ]
Pyocola said:
[ QUOTE ]
Skywise said:
Deinterlacing wise ATI's x1000 series cards pretty much have Nvidia beat for anime. They're able to handle more funky cadence sequences, while Nvidia is slightly quicker to switch back to film mode for regular content.

[/ QUOTE ]
Have they released any major updates recently? In the last test between these that I read they tested some anime (I think Megazone 23 was mentioned) and the ATI decoder failed miserably.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes they did, right around Christmas. ATI is far better than nVidia's PureVideo at the moment. Do a search for review, there are tons and they all agree.

[Skywise]

The new deinterlacing wasn't enabled until Catalyst version 5.13 came out (which was in late december iirc), so if the test you read was done before that it's not really relevant to what the cards can really do.

As for MZ23 - if it's the ADV release I'm kind of skeptical to the source material. Their encoder does some funky things at times with cadences, to the point I think it's actually dropping some valid frames that could have been used to recreate the original 24FPS film. Whether that's really the case for MZ23 I have no idea - I've just seen it with some of their other releases. The R2 is a perfect 24fps progressive so it shouldn't be a problem for any card.

[Pyocola]

Hmm, I'm still not convinced, the tests I could find only tested the cadences in that HQV benchmark. The only test with some real-world connection was that same FiringSquad (http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_catalyst_5.13_video_quality/page10.asp) article I mentioned earlier, where the ATI apparently displayed a lot of feathering. Though maybe this will mean that nVidia will get off their butts and actually update the decoder for once. I hear they're planning on H.264 acceleration in PureVideo soon so maybe they'll do some other tweaks at the same time.

[Skywise]

ATI's no Faroudja really, so some feathering is to expected with difficult material. The real question is which is best on a PC, and ATI beats Nvidia hands down in that department.

EDIT: for a bit more info on the issues I mentioned earlier about HDCP, read Gary's posts in this AVS thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=648893&page=2&pp=30

[Ty]

[ QUOTE ]
Mrdini said:
[ QUOTE ]
Kailu_Lantis said:
Oh, and while we're on the subject, what should I get for my display: One of those Viewsonic "gaming LCDs" with 3MS response time or a plain, yet robust, flat CRT? My main interest is image quality for movies (and games).

Thanks for your help!

[/ QUOTE ]

Sue me, but if you have the space & strong arms, I'd say go for a CRT. Despite their size & looming obsolesce, they are currently the best that they will ever be - very good value for your money, in relation to LCDs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno. I'd put my SyncMaster 214T up against any CRT on the planet personally.

[Mrdini]

[ QUOTE ]
Xcalibur said:
[ QUOTE ]
Mrdini said:
[ QUOTE ]
Kailu_Lantis said:
Oh, and while we're on the subject, what should I get for my display: One of those Viewsonic "gaming LCDs" with 3MS response time or a plain, yet robust, flat CRT? My main interest is image quality for movies (and games).

Thanks for your help!

[/ QUOTE ]

Sue me, but if you have the space & strong arms, I'd say go for a CRT. Despite their size & looming obsolesce, they are currently the best that they will ever be - very good value for your money, in relation to LCDs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno. I'd put my SyncMaster 214T up against any CRT on the planet personally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I DID say "very good value forr your money in relation to LCDs."
The SyncMaster sells for around $600-$700 (can't be arsed to look for the "best price"). A 20" CRT sells for around $350-$450.

To be fair, as you look at bigger screens, the savings get less, & less, but still - $250 difference is quite significant.

[Ty]

[ QUOTE ]
Mrdini said:
[ QUOTE ]
Xcalibur said:
[ QUOTE ]
Mrdini said:
[ QUOTE ]
Kailu_Lantis said:
Oh, and while we're on the subject, what should I get for my display: One of those Viewsonic "gaming LCDs" with 3MS response time or a plain, yet robust, flat CRT? My main interest is image quality for movies (and games).

Thanks for your help!

[/ QUOTE ]

Sue me, but if you have the space & strong arms, I'd say go for a CRT. Despite their size & looming obsolesce, they are currently the best that they will ever be - very good value for your money, in relation to LCDs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno. I'd put my SyncMaster 214T up against any CRT on the planet personally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I DID say "very good value forr your money in relation to LCDs."
The SyncMaster sells for around $600-$700 (can't be arsed to look for the "best price"). A 20" CRT sells for around $350-$450.

To be fair, as you look at bigger screens, the savings get less, & less, but still - $250 difference is quite significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have good points. I was just implying that I'd personally take what I have over any CRT of similar size regardless of price difference. It's very worth the money IMO. This coming from someone who used to hate LCD. They've really come a long way.

[Mrdini]

[ QUOTE ]
Xcalibur said:
[ QUOTE ]
Mrdini said:
[ QUOTE ]
Xcalibur said:
[ QUOTE ]
Mrdini said:
[ QUOTE ]
Kailu_Lantis said:
Oh, and while we're on the subject, what should I get for my display: One of those Viewsonic "gaming LCDs" with 3MS response time or a plain, yet robust, flat CRT? My main interest is image quality for movies (and games).

Thanks for your help!

[/ QUOTE ]

Sue me, but if you have the space & strong arms, I'd say go for a CRT. Despite their size & looming obsolesce, they are currently the best that they will ever be - very good value for your money, in relation to LCDs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno. I'd put my SyncMaster 214T up against any CRT on the planet personally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I DID say "very good value forr your money in relation to LCDs."
The SyncMaster sells for around $600-$700 (can't be arsed to look for the "best price"). A 20" CRT sells for around $350-$450.

To be fair, as you look at bigger screens, the savings get less, & less, but still - $250 difference is quite significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have good points. I was just implying that I'd personally take what I have over any CRT of similar size regardless of price difference. It's very worth the money IMO. This coming from someone who used to hate LCD. They've really come a long way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. I'd probably take a LCD too, if I wanted to save space, or forsaw myself moving the monitor around a bit. But as long as I'm young, strong, & have plenty of desk space, well.... :D

[Skywise]

I don't know - at only 300cd/m2 it's a bit dim. I can't help but think that they're sacrificing brightness in order to get a much higher CR rating. Give me a Sony F520 CRT monitor any day and it'll kick that LCD's ass /images/graemlins/happy.gif. And that's not even a video monitor.

[Ty]

[ QUOTE ]
Skywise said:
I don't know - at only 300cd/m2 it's a bit dim. I can't help but think that they're sacrificing brightness in order to get a much higher CR rating. Give me a Sony F520 CRT monitor any day and it'll kick that LCD's ass /images/graemlins/happy.gif. And that's not even a video monitor.

[/ QUOTE ]

You bring up something that's been bugging me actually. I have often wondered if brightness ratings are not directly comparable to displays of different sizes. My 214T, which I'm looking at right now, is like staring at the sun it's so bright. It also has the most untinted pure neutral white I've ever seen on an LCD and the combination of the two just looks great.

Now, I've looked at a lot of LCD tv sets which boast brightness ratings between 500 cd/m2 and 800 cd/m2 and even plasmas that take this number above 1000 and I have yet to look at one that seems as bright as the monitor I'm typing this on. I've really driven the contrast and backlights up on some of them too. It's one of those inconsistent things that has me believing that the brightness rating may be almost as worthless as the CR number is these days.

FWIW, outside of a few of the widescreen models, 300 cd/m2 is at the very top end for LCD monitors. Most are between 220 and 300. /images/graemlins/happy.gif

[JeffDM]

[ QUOTE ]
Skywise said:
I don't know - at only 300cd/m2 it's a bit dim. I can't help but think that they're sacrificing brightness in order to get a much higher CR rating.

[/ QUOTE ]

GOOD. LCD panels are generally plenty bright enough anyways. Mine do not allow me to dim them enough for some circumstances, below a certain point, I can sometimes see the backlight flicker. Better to actually fix a problem than to provide headroom that generally isn't necessary.

[Sensuifu]

[ QUOTE ]
JeffDM said:
[ QUOTE ]
Skywise said:
I don't know - at only 300cd/m2 it's a bit dim. I can't help but think that they're sacrificing brightness in order to get a much higher CR rating.

[/ QUOTE ]

GOOD. LCD panels are generally plenty bright enough anyways. Mine do not allow me to dim them enough for some circumstances, below a certain point, I can sometimes see the backlight flicker. Better to actually fix a problem than to provide headroom that generally isn't necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

The brightness on a lot of LCDs does tend to be really bright, even after adjustments. My old Viewsonic had a fair CR, but the brightness (even set below 20%) washed out the picture. I thought it was the videocard but the LCD's brightness was the same across different setups. I had to use the videocards' controls to adjust the levels before getting a good picture.

The most recent LCD I purchased is rated at 300 cd/m2 with a CR of 500:1. It's bright at factory settings, but not nearly as bright as my other LCD that's rated at 270cd/m2 (CR of 400:1). The picture is fine, but then I had to adjust the black levels down to around 20% again. Still, my CRT is adjusted to 15.2% brightness with a contrast set at 80%, so even then my LCDs' brightness can't hold a candle to it. Even more obvious when I set the monitor to a torching mode like "SuperBright (Movie)". Heh, it's like shining a car's headlights in your face.

[Ty]

You'll harpoon me for this, but mine is at the factory defaults and I love it that way. I did some test pattern checks and the black and white levels are being represented accurately so I had no beef. The brightness controls on lots of LCD do seem to be very limited in their range of adjustment, but the Sammy's behaves like a CRT does and produces a very good adjustment range. It's pegged at 100 by default with contrast at 65 (anymore washes out highlights), but I found the image to lose contrast slightly as I turned the brightness down strangely enough so I left it pegged at 100 as it was.

[JeffDM]

[ QUOTE ]
Xcalibur said:
The brightness controls on lots of LCD do seem to be very limited in their range of adjustment, but the Sammy's behaves like a CRT does and produces a very good adjustment range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any idea if the 24 incher is like this?

[Ty]

[ QUOTE ]
JeffDM said:
[ QUOTE ]
Xcalibur said:
The brightness controls on lots of LCD do seem to be very limited in their range of adjustment, but the Sammy's behaves like a CRT does and produces a very good adjustment range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any idea if the 24 incher is like this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't confirm first hand, but they are sister models with the same software suite and were released at the same time so it's pretty likely.

[Kailu_Lantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Xcalibur said:
You have good points. I was just implying that I'd personally take what I have over any CRT of similar size regardless of price difference. It's very worth the money IMO. This coming from someone who used to hate LCD. They've really come a long way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you used to hate LCDs, perhaps you could recommend me a quality CRT? From what I've read most vendors have dropped their CRT monitor line except for a few like Viewsonic. Their G70fB (17") and G90fB (19") monitors are top rated but I would like to know what you think.
I don't mind if the model is bulky and/or heavy as long as the image quality is outstanding.

[Kailu_Lantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Skywise said:
Deinterlacing wise ATI's x1000 series cards pretty much have Nvidia beat for anime. They're able to handle more funky cadence sequences, while Nvidia is slightly quicker to switch back to film mode for regular content. Nvidia also requires you to buy their PureVideo decoder package to get any benefit, while ATI's deinterlacing is integrated into their driver and so works with any DVD playback software that uses DXVA. If you're going to be gaming on the system, I would recommend an X1600 XT (not pro) at the minimum, but preferrably a faster card.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't aware of this at all. Thanks for the information. If I were to exclude the gamimg requirement from the card I'm looking for, would any X1000 series card deliver the same deinterlacing results?
What's the matter with X1600 XT pro?

[Ty]

[ QUOTE ]
Kailu_Lantis said:
[ QUOTE ]
Xcalibur said:
You have good points. I was just implying that I'd personally take what I have over any CRT of similar size regardless of price difference. It's very worth the money IMO. This coming from someone who used to hate LCD. They've really come a long way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you used to hate LCDs, perhaps you could recommend me a quality CRT? From what I've read most vendors have dropped their CRT monitor line except for a few like Viewsonic. Their G70fB (17") and G90fB (19") monitors are top rated but I would like to know what you think.
I don't mind if the model is bulky and/or heavy as long as the image quality is outstanding.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Skywise and JeffDM are your guys here. I haven't really dug into information on new CRT sets in several years now. /images/graemlins/happy.gif

[Sensuifu]

[ QUOTE ]
Kailu_Lantis said:
[ QUOTE ]
Xcalibur said:
You have good points. I was just implying that I'd personally take what I have over any CRT of similar size regardless of price difference. It's very worth the money IMO. This coming from someone who used to hate LCD. They've really come a long way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you used to hate LCDs, perhaps you could recommend me a quality CRT? From what I've read most vendors have dropped their CRT monitor line except for a few like Viewsonic. Their G70fB (17") and G90fB (19") monitors are top rated but I would like to know what you think.
I don't mind if the model is bulky and/or heavy as long as the image quality is outstanding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Viewsonic CRTs are pretty good. Sony and NEC/Mitsubishi are good choices as well, although cost a little more. I used to have a Philips CRT, which was pretty nice, but it died on me right when the warranty expired (3yr). The SyncMaster series from Samsung have a few good offerings, though I think those two models you mentioned should do an excellent job for games and video. Text on the otherhand will be easier to read on a LCD.

[JeffDM]

[ QUOTE ]
Xcalibur said:
I think Skywise and JeffDM are your guys here. I haven't really dug into information on new CRT sets in several years now. /images/graemlins/happy.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't kept up with anything. Aside from desiring that 1080p 37" Sceptre, I am kind of in inertia mode. One CRT screen I do like is a Compaq P1220. As I don't keep track of everything, I can't say it is the best but it has been impressive. It is a 21" flat screen tube and can go up to 2048x1536 @85Hz if you cared to go that high. The colors, clarity, brigtness and contrast have been exceptional in my opinion.

[Skywise]

The pro is slower than the XT, and the price difference between the two is pretty small.

If you're not interested in gaming at all however there's the X1300 which is the cheapest X1000 series chip out there.

[Ty]

[ QUOTE ]
JeffDM said:
[ QUOTE ]
Xcalibur said:
I think Skywise and JeffDM are your guys here. I haven't really dug into information on new CRT sets in several years now. /images/graemlins/happy.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't kept up with anything. Aside from desiring that 1080p 37" Sceptre, I am kind of in inertia mode. One CRT screen I do like is a Compaq P1220. As I don't keep track of everything, I can't say it is the best but it has been impressive. It is a 21" flat screen tube and can do 2048x1536 @85Hz if you cared to go that high.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't blame me for giving you too much credit. /images/graemlins/wink.gif If I may inquire though, why are lusting after the 37" Sceptre when you could be lusting after the 42" Westinghouse 1080p like I am? /images/graemlins/catgirl0.gif

[Sensuifu]

[ QUOTE ]
JeffDM said:
[ QUOTE ]
Xcalibur said:
I think Skywise and JeffDM are your guys here. I haven't really dug into information on new CRT sets in several years now. /images/graemlins/happy.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't kept up with anything. Aside from desiring that 1080p 37" Sceptre, I am kind of in inertia mode. One CRT screen I do like is a Compaq P1220. As I don't keep track of everything, I can't say it is the best but it has been impressive. It is a 21" flat screen tube and can do 2048x1536 @85Hz if you cared to go that high.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that Compaq model uses a Mitsubishi Diamontron tube. I don't know if it uses the same tube on the Mitsubishi brand I'm using now, but generally NEC/Mitsubishi Diamondtrons are some of the best, if not the best CRTs for PC monitors. Thankfully CRTs, including the large ones like the Compaq mentioned are relatively cheap now. The downside is it might be a bit more difficult to find these specific models new.

[Kailu_Lantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Skywise said:
The pro is slower than the XT, and the price difference between the two is pretty small.

If you're not interested in gaming at all however there's the X1300 which is the cheapest X1000 series chip out there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did mention I was interested in a monitor for movie watching and games, but I should've been a it clearer. Most games I play on the PC are Nintendo ROMs, (SuperNES, GBA, etc.) reason why I'm not worried about a video card with powerful processing. It's far easier to let the Playstation or the Xbox handle tough games like GTA San Andreas or Knights of the Republic II. Thanks fof your advice.

[JeffDM]

[ QUOTE ]
Xcalibur said:
If I may inquire though, why are lusting after the 37" Sceptre when you could be lusting after the 42" Westinghouse 1080p like I am? /images/graemlins/catgirl0.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure, I think part of it is the cost and that it's a known quantity. The model you want doesn't seem to be available yet, if it is out, a bit too new to get a handle on how good it really is and what the drawbacks and quirks may be.

I am almost seriously considering the 37" for my workbench, of all places. I want it so I can clear some workbench space and push back the display a couple feet and still be able to use it pretty comfortably as a computer display from four feet away. For that use, 42" may be a bit too big. I'm open to waiting a bit though, I pretty much clearing a lot of my debt before making this kind of a buy.