Warlord wrote on 2020-09-14, 06:06:

Thanks for the test, but I can't trust the results. For reasons. I mean If i have a broken or shitty version of a card, I just don't test it. I can probably find a bad 5200 and there are many of low cost variants, with some bad picture and be like 5200 is a 7.

Id only trust these results if multiple cards of different vendors were tested per chip and then put the best one on this list and results from bad cards were thrown out.

I understand your point, but in general, i dont have several video cards of the same model. At least for TnT 2 you can trust IBM one, both looks exactly the same and they looks good. For most video cards i cant say. But one thing is sure, in general, FX series and Voodoo 3 video cards have the best picture quality if you find a good one with a good brand. I'm not the first to say that FX series and voodoo 3 video cards have wonderful picture quality, you can trust that. I can say the same thing for Radeon video cards. I tested 2 Radeon 9250 by Ati and both looks wonderful even the radeon 9000. Except for the side-scroller problem in 2d games.

Hurray! I got my Banshee 3dfx video card working perfectly. We change a few others caps, it seems one near the gpu core unit was not soldered correctly and we clean the vga port, there was some rust in it. No more blur picture, no more yellow tint.

Now for the 3dfx Voodoo Banshee.
I would put it right after Radeon 9000 and 9200 and Ati rage 128 pro for picture quality. Its still have a better picture than my geforce 2 mx200. But the voodoo 3 and Radeon and Ati video card have very slightly a better sharpness and brightness and color. But the difference is very slight, but i still find better the voodoo 3 and Ati video cards for picture quality. So it should go to number 4. before Geforce 2 mx200.

I just tested too:

4 Ati rage 128 ( all Ati brand)
2 Ati rage 128 pro ( all Ati brand)
2 Ati rage 128 Ultra ( 1 Ati brand, 1 Sapphire Brand)

I tested all of them. Both of them have very similar picture quality, i dont see much difference between them, i was surprised. Its even better than Radeon 9200 and 9250, because they have sharper picture and better brightness and colors , but its still a slight difference. It was not easy to find the sharper picture between voodoo3 and Ati rage 128 video cards. I will let win the voodoo 3 but its maybe similar or exactly the same. Voodoo 3 brightness and colors too are similar to Ati rage 128. But all Ati rage 128 video cards suffer from side-scrolling problem. Its sad for me because i love their picture quality, but i play a lot of dos side-scrolling games. So all Ati rage 128 video cards would be in number 3. before radeon video cards and just after the voodoo 3. By the way, i'm sorry, but i'm not impress of my 2 matrox millenium video cards, so i can't give them a better rank. A last thing, finally i think most of my tnt2 have better picture than my Geforce 2 mx200. A few of them or worst than my geforce 2 mx 200. Today i just got a new agp tnt2 32mb and it looks better than my geforce 2 mx200. But any geforce 1,2,3,4,5 or tnt2 video cards will give you a very good picture. If you didnt read it, read my last video cards ranks post i made a few days ago. Thanks and have a great day !

Enjoyed reading this thread.

My recollection of image quality back in the days of analog output, there were occasional underlying architectural decisions that had a large impact ( Talking to you, Riva 128! ) , but largely the image quality depended on the choice of ramdac and the quality of the low pass filters. https://www.anandtech.com/show/934/6 Seems like aging capacitors and crystals could affect these things.

Chip manufacturers (ATI & Matrox), that made their own boards usually did their best to insure a consistently high quality image, but boards produced by OEM's using third party chips (Nvidia, S3) occasionally produced a boards with a "cost optimized solution". And if we are taking about low end boards, you can replace "occasionally" with "quite often". So it's possible that you got a good 5200, but a bad S3 trio. Other people might have good S3 and a bad 5200.

I also suspect that there might be some variation in the analog to digital conversion in a modern LCD monitors that may favor some VGA signals over others.

So sorry if I missed it, but any chance you list the OEM manufacturer of your Nvidia cards and the make and model of your monitor?