Sign in to follow this  
HisMajestyTheKing

Viper V550 or SiS 6326

Recommended Posts

I've got a Viper V550 (TNT2, 8 MB RAM, AGP) and a SiS 6326 (SiS 6326, 16 MB RAM, PCI). I'll use one of them in a desktop machine (for my mother in law) and I just need the one which generates the best 2D. She uses Office and internet. The monitor is a 15" which may or may not be upgraded to a 17" so max resolution would be 1024*768. Is there any difference between either card for pure 2D stuff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The viper550 was a well made card for it's time, I'd expect good 2D @1024x678. The SiS card is likely a cheaply made vid card for low low end computers... but it is newer... I'd exepect it to give slightly less 2D quality, but on a 15" I don't know if you'd be able to tell the difference.

The most efficient use of resources would be to put the SiS in a 2D only machine and put the 550 in a machine that might encounter 3D in a window or older 3D games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw, wasn't it the 770 that was a TNT2? I think what you have is the original TNT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
btw, wasn't it the 770 that was a TNT2?  I think what you have is the original TNT.

You're right. I used to own a Viper V550, and it was an original TNT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, i believe the 330 was a riva128 the 550 was a tnt and the 770 was a tnt2. i would guess that the sis has better 2d image quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Viper V330 = Riva 128 4MB or 8MB

Viper V550 = TNT 8MB or 16MB

Viper V770 = TNT2 16MB or 32MB

Viper V770 Ultra = TNT2 Ultra 32MB

So, I'm assuming you've got the regular TNT. I have had a lot of experience with all these video cards:

Viper V330 Riva 128 4MB

Creative Graphics Blaster Riva TNT 16MB

Viper V770 Ultra TNT2 Ultra 32MB

Stealth III S540 Savage4 32MB

Gainward GeForce 2 GTS 32MB

Gainward GeForce 4 Ti 64MB

I have to say that the Vipers have by far the worst 2D image quality of any of them.

As a matter of fact, for two years I had identical Hitachi 19" monitors on my system. One was hooked up to a V770 AGP, the other to a Stealth III PCI. The Viper had 2D text so much blurrier I found myself using the secondary screen for everything except games.

Now I've got a 22" NEC hooked up to two machines through a KVM switch. For a year, I had my main machine with a GeForce 2 and the other machine with the Viper. Switching machines was very noticable as it made the screen go slightly blurry.

I'm not saying it's horrible image quality. I doubt it would even be noticable on a 17" or smaller monitor running 1024x768. But I always left my desktop in 1600x1200. Image quality was OK, but the Vipers had noticably worse 2D than any other video card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing the two chips some more, the TNT would actually have better 2D performance, but I don't know if that's something that would be an issue. The TNT is a newer chip than the SiS 6326, and it's certainly better in 3D, but it also puts out a ton of heat and might not put out the best text. A lot of those cards had really cheap RAMDAC's.

Toms Hardware on the SiS 6326:

This slow and pretty unknown graphic chip produces a quite nice image quality.

Also, a Diamond Viper is the only card I've had just up and die on me, and I've heard of it happening to other people, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Running a TNT at 1600x1200 is really more than what it was made for. Sure the chip was designed for that res, but the DACs used at that time really weren't good enough for that res (most people ran @800x600 around the release of the TNT, 1024x768 was considered high, 1280x1024 was super high for a PC)

When running at 800x600 or 1024x768 on a 15" or 17" monitor I would think the TNT would do great. But I only had my viper 550, guillemot cougar (TNT2 m64), Generic TNT, ATi rage2c, matrox millenium, Matrox g400 dual head, Leadtek geforce3 Ti200, i845GE, and some older cirrus logic boards to compare...

Personally, for the short time I had the 550 (about a month) I thought the quality was fine. The Guillemot TNT2 had excellent quality at 1024x768(the res I ran it at). It was as clear or better than the ATi or Matrox cards. By far the worst was the intel onboard 845GE video... and by far the best is the Leadtek geforce3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

blakerwry:

You're trying to be sarcastic and condescending, but it's not really working. Are you claiming to have compared the TNT's side-by-side with other cards? I have.

I already said I doubt it would even be noticable on a 17" or smaller monitor running 1024x768.

He wanted to know which card would be best. All other things being equal he should probably choose the SiS card because it runs cooler and has better image quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've got a Viper V550 (TNT2, 8 MB RAM, AGP) and a SiS 6326 (SiS 6326, 16 MB RAM, PCI).  I'll use one of them in a desktop machine (for my mother in law) and I just need the one which generates the best 2D.  She uses Office and internet.  The monitor is a 15" which may or may not be upgraded to a 17" so max resolution would be 1024*768.  Is there any difference between either card for pure 2D stuff?

I have a SiS 6326 running in my parents computer, and I'd say the quality is pretty decent. At least, I can't discern too much difference at 1280x960 from a Voodoo3 running on the same monitor (a 20" Gateway Sony-tube) before the 6326 was swapped in. From the standpoint of performance, the SiS card feels slower at drawing the desktop than the Voodoo3, but I doubt your mother in law would care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, I have recently swapped in an SiS 6326 to act as stand in between having sold my GF3 and my ATi 9500 Pro arriving. At 1024x768 @85Hzm on a fairly ordinary 2.5 year-old 17in Diamondtron, the drop in image quality between the Elsa Gladiac 920 and the SiS card (actually a Diamond Speedstar A50) is very noticeable.

My 2p...

Calum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blakerwry:

You're trying to be sarcastic and condescending, but it's not really working.  Are you claiming to have compared the TNT's side-by-side with other cards?  I have.

I already said I doubt it would even be noticable on a 17" or smaller monitor running 1024x768.

He wanted to know which card would be best.  All other things being equal he should probably choose the SiS card because it runs cooler and has better image quality.

Im not being sarcastic at all.

I compared my matrox g400, millenium, Ati rage, TNT2, intel 845GE, and geforce 3 using the same monitor, same res, same refresh. I used this by swaping cards, using a KVM, and by running multiple cards in the same PC(as some of the cards are AGP and some are PCI)

I recently got to see a SiS video used in a system as well.

The SiS was used on an analog LCD and looked like poo when running at 1280x1024@60Hz... when i first looked at it someone had set it up to 1280x1024@75hz, this was even more poo like.

I'm not saying this is comparable to the previous test, but it doesn't impress me.

In my 1st test(from memory) I'd say the Ati, g400, millenium, and TNT2(guillemot) all had "comparable" image quality when used at 1024x768 on a high quality 17" NEC/Mitsubishi CRT. Personally, I think the g400 was not as sharp as the TNT2. The intel 845GE graphics are the worst be far and the geforce3 is clearly the sharpest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I think the g400 was not as sharp as the TNT2. The intel 845GE graphics are the worst be far and the geforce3 is clearly the sharpest.

Really? Compared to the G200/400 I thought the TNT2 crap as far as image quality goes. 845GE is rather good IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, i was really psyched about getting the g400 1) because it's matrox and 2) because it was dual head.

Can you imagine my disapointment when it was not even as sharp as my TNT2...

I guess it's just upto individual card differences. Maybe guillemot made excellent TNTs (it did cost upwards of $70 when I got it(remember it's an m64 verion), so the tnt2 was the newest thing out)

Is it possible that the motherboard manufacturer influences the quality of onboard video more than the chipset maker? it's a shuttle SB51G.. quality is acceptable, but it's not great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess I wont have to make a choice. A customer retired an old Siemens PII 350 with pretty much everything I need. PII 350, 64 MB RAM, Intel Pro100+, HCF modem, 32x LiteOn CDROM, Deskstar 60 GXP (must be a replacement drive) ATI Rage Pro Turbo/4 MB onboard. I upgraded to 256 MB RAM and the machine seems to be fast enough with Windows XP. XP even recognized the modem :)

The Rage Turbo seems to be a nice enough 2D card. I tried it on my 17" at 1024x768x32@85 Hz and I like what I'm seeing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I think the g400 was not as sharp as the TNT2. The intel 845GE graphics are the worst be far and the geforce3 is clearly the sharpest.

Really? Compared to the G200/400 I thought the TNT2 crap as far as image quality goes. 845GE is rather good IMO.

Woohoo, what misleading information. Matrox G2xx and G4xx/G5xx series have had the best image quality of all time, including the new Parhelia. The Parhelia has slightly worse image quality (2D sharpness) than the G-series cards, but still better (albeit only slightly) than any ATI or NVIDIA offerings. There was a recent test that compared image quality on modern video cards in a Finnish computer magazine, from which I have taken this information.

The best 2D-only cards are the Matrox G-series. TNT-chip based cards had quite poor image quality, ATI cards of that time were better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. I'm still sorry I sold my G200 and G400. Useless for games but the very best for drawing a pretty desktop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this