[OT] Dual DVI Card

I post here because there seems to be a higher quality user. I need advice
or recommendations on a good dual dvi video card. 2d/text quality and
symmetry is most important.

tia

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:34:36 GMT, "RL" <RLaing_remove_remove_@cfl.rr.com>
wrote:

>I post here because there seems to be a higher quality user. I need advice
>or recommendations on a good dual dvi video card. 2d/text quality and
>symmetry is most important.

http://www.matrox.com/mga/products/parhelia/256mb.cfm

I've been using a Parhelia 256 (AGP) for almost a year. I use it to drive
three RGB 21" monitors, but you can use it to drive a pair of DVI devices, or
a dual-DVI device. Very nice feature set, very *very* good display quality,
works great with XP Pro...

If that's a little rich, Matrox may still have the answer for you:

http://www.matrox.com/mga/products/m...eries/p750.cfm

cheers

/daytripper

The Parhelia (128mb unit $349) is under consideration as is the P750 ($212)
neither supports dx9. I see Nvidia based dual dvi cards for sub $200 that
do support dx9. Asus 5600 is one. I just wonder if the 2d quality of
Matrox product far exceeds the performance/value of the Nvidia product. I
have 2 19" Samsung 191t's running in portrait mode on one system using a
ti4200 by PNY. I have another system with 1 191t using an Ati Radeon 9000.
The Ati using the DVI output seems to look better than the same model
monitor on the DVI port of the Ti4200. The problem is there are visible
difference on all 3 191t monitors. Since I do not play games I tend to lean
toward the p750. It does have symmetrical dual dvi. I can say this for
sure digital beats analog hands down when you get into 19' territory with
LCD's.



"daytripper" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:34:36 GMT, "RL" <RLaing_remove_remove_@cfl.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I post here because there seems to be a higher quality user. I need
advice
> >or recommendations on a good dual dvi video card. 2d/text quality and
> >symmetry is most important.
>
> http://www.matrox.com/mga/products/parhelia/256mb.cfm
>
> I've been using a Parhelia 256 (AGP) for almost a year. I use it to drive
> three RGB 21" monitors, but you can use it to drive a pair of DVI devices,
or
> a dual-DVI device. Very nice feature set, very *very* good display
quality,
> works great with XP Pro...
>
> If that's a little rich, Matrox may still have the answer for you:
>
> http://www.matrox.com/mga/products/m...eries/p750.cfm
>
> cheers
>
> /daytripper
>

"RL" <RLaing_remove_remove_@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:gM6Hb.82351$ om...
> The Parhelia (128mb unit $349) is under consideration as is the P750
($212)
> neither supports dx9. I see Nvidia based dual dvi cards for sub $200 that
> do support dx9. Asus 5600 is one. I just wonder if the 2d quality of
> Matrox product far exceeds the performance/value of the Nvidia product. I
> have 2 19" Samsung 191t's running in portrait mode on one system using a
> ti4200 by PNY. I have another system with 1 191t using an Ati Radeon
9000.
> The Ati using the DVI output seems to look better than the same model
> monitor on the DVI port of the Ti4200. The problem is there are visible
> difference on all 3 191t monitors. Since I do not play games I tend to
lean
> toward the p750. It does have symmetrical dual dvi. I can say this for
> sure digital beats analog hands down when you get into 19' territory with
> LCD's.

My 2 cents. If I were you I would go with the P750, for the price you're not
going to find a better value for 2D applications. I very much prefer Matrox
graphics products for systems where 3D gaming is not a priority, the 2D
graphics quality is unbeatable. Kills the ATI Radeon 9000 I have in my
system.

Carlo

RL wrote:

> I post here because there seems to be a higher quality user. I need advice
> or recommendations on a good dual dvi video card. 2d/text quality and
> symmetry is most important.

I would think that, when using the DVI output, all cards look alike, or
so similar that the differences are undetectable. This would not
necessarily be the case with the analog output, though.

--
Mike Smith

Carlo Razzeto wrote:
>
> My 2 cents. If I were you I would go with the P750, for the price you're not
> going to find a better value for 2D applications. I very much prefer Matrox
> graphics products for systems where 3D gaming is not a priority, the 2D
> graphics quality is unbeatable. Kills the ATI Radeon 9000 I have in my
> system.

Is that when using the DVI output, or the analog output? I really can't
imagine the output of two different DVI cards being all that different
in quality.

--
Mike Smith

There certainly seems to be a wide price range in dual DVI cards. Each
manufacturer seems to have a consumer line and a pro line. Nvida based
cards have Quadro. Ati based cards have FireGL.

It stands to reason that digital to digital should be the same on all cards
but yet.......I wonder. That is why I'm looking for input. The real
players are Nvidia, ATI, 3D Labs and Martox. I do not care about video out
or in. I do not care about ever needing analog. No one that I can find
makes a simple dual DVI. They all have RAMDACS which I understand to be the
difference in quality. I don't need no stinking RAMDAC. Could someone
step-up to the bar and set me straight.

TIA


"Mike Smith" <> wrote in message
news:...
> RL wrote:
>
> > I post here because there seems to be a higher quality user. I need
advice
> > or recommendations on a good dual dvi video card. 2d/text quality and
> > symmetry is most important.
>
> I would think that, when using the DVI output, all cards look alike, or
> so similar that the differences are undetectable. This would not
> necessarily be the case with the analog output, though.
>
> --
> Mike Smith
>
>

"Mike Smith" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Carlo Razzeto wrote:


>> My 2 cents. If I were you I would go with the P750, for the price you're
>> not
>> going to find a better value for 2D applications. I very much prefer
>> Matrox
>> graphics products for systems where 3D gaming is not a priority, the 2D
>> graphics quality is unbeatable. Kills the ATI Radeon 9000 I have in my
>> system.

> Is that when using the DVI output, or the analog output? I really can't
> imagine the output of two different DVI cards being all that different in
> quality.


You wouldn't think so, but the truth is (strangely enough) otherwise.
Windows is not a dumb system where the OS tells the graphics card where to
put each pixel and the graphics driver just sets the specified pixel to the
specified color.

DS

David Schwartz wrote:

> "Mike Smith" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>
>>Carlo Razzeto wrote:
>
>
>
>>>My 2 cents. If I were you I would go with the P750, for the price you're
>>>not
>>>going to find a better value for 2D applications. I very much prefer
>>>Matrox
>>>graphics products for systems where 3D gaming is not a priority, the 2D
>>>graphics quality is unbeatable. Kills the ATI Radeon 9000 I have in my
>>>system.
>
>
>>Is that when using the DVI output, or the analog output? I really can't
>>imagine the output of two different DVI cards being all that different in
>>quality.
>
> You wouldn't think so, but the truth is (strangely enough) otherwise.
> Windows is not a dumb system where the OS tells the graphics card where to
> put each pixel and the graphics driver just sets the specified pixel to the
> specified color.

I assumed that by "graphics quality" he meant display quality; i.e. the
alignment and sharpness of the pixels on the LCD display. With a
digital output, this should vary very little from card to card. Of
course the *rendering* quality can vary, but even there, in a strictly
2D environment, how much difference can there be?

--
Mike Smith

"Mike Smith" <> wrote in message
news:...
>> You wouldn't think so, but the truth is (strangely enough) otherwise.
>> Windows is not a dumb system where the OS tells the graphics card where
>> to put each pixel and the graphics driver just sets the specified pixel
>> to the specified color.

> I assumed that by "graphics quality" he meant display quality; i.e. the
> alignment and sharpness of the pixels on the LCD display.

With a DVI interface, this should be precisely the same for every
graphics card that supports your display's ideal graphics mode.

> With a digital output, this should vary very little from card to card. Of
> course the *rendering* quality can vary, but even there, in a strictly 2D
> environment, how much difference can there be?


If you don't believe me, ask anyone with a Parhelia card to turn off
Matrox Glyph Antialiasing.

DS