1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Recommendation for best card for both 3D and 2D?

Discussion in 'Matrox' started by enigma, Dec 16, 2003.

  1. enigma

    enigma Guest

    I'm looking for a card that can handle 3D decently (flight sims and
    most recent kids games like Harry Potter are the most intensive it
    will be used for), but also would like to do video editing. Is there
    one that can do both well? If not, is an alternative to put one in the
    AGP slot and another in the PCI slot? TIA!
     
    enigma, Dec 16, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. enigma

    J.Clarke Guest

    On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:18:03 GMT
    enigma <> wrote:

    > I'm looking for a card that can handle 3D decently (flight sims and
    > most recent kids games like Harry Potter are the most intensive it
    > will be used for), but also would like to do video editing. Is there
    > one that can do both well? If not, is an alternative to put one in the
    > AGP slot and another in the PCI slot? TIA!


    Just about any random video board works fine for video editing--it's
    simply not all that demanding. For flight sims do you mean the latest
    version of Microsoft Flight Simulator and the like? If so, an ATI
    Radeon 9500 or higher or an nvidia GeforceFX 5700, 5900, or
    5950 will do fine for you. If you're talking about older versions of
    Microsoft Flight Simulator and other games of that vintage and you're on
    a budget then a Geforce Ti4200 would be a good bet.

    If you need analog video capture one of the ATI All-in-wonder boards
    will work but you'd do better to go with a separate capture
    board--Matrox has several of those but they are intended for the
    professional market and they are not cheap. If possible, use a digital
    source and capture via Firewire.


    --
    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J.Clarke, Dec 16, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. enigma

    KJ Guest

    If you can swing the expense, the Matrox Parhelia series is EXCELLENT for 2D
    & video editing, and had good 3D performance (though not as fast as the
    newer ATi's or nVidia on 3D cards). MUCH more stable than the ATi products,
    and much "cleaner" than the nVidia products from my experience.

    "enigma" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm looking for a card that can handle 3D decently (flight sims and
    > most recent kids games like Harry Potter are the most intensive it
    > will be used for), but also would like to do video editing. Is there
    > one that can do both well? If not, is an alternative to put one in the
    > AGP slot and another in the PCI slot? TIA!
    >
     
    KJ, Dec 16, 2003
    #3
  4. enigma

    Rick Guest

    3D performance on the Parhelia series and other current Matrox
    products is pathetic compared to current products from ATI and
    Nvidia. Matrox is three generations behind in that technology.

    For video editing, forget about an all-in-one video card solution
    (most are exercises in compromise) and get a separate video
    capture card. E.g. Canopus' ADVC-100 is very highly regarded
    and not expensive.

    2D image quality isn't an issue among the three manufacturers,
    they all use comparable RAMDACs and output filters. The
    Parhelia will provide slightly better 2D output at resolutions
    above 1600x1200, otherwise you won't see any difference
    between controllers from the three major manufacturers.

    Rick

    "KJ" <> wrote in message news:5XCDb.83487$%...
    > If you can swing the expense, the Matrox Parhelia series is EXCELLENT for 2D
    > & video editing, and had good 3D performance (though not as fast as the
    > newer ATi's or nVidia on 3D cards). MUCH more stable than the ATi products,
    > and much "cleaner" than the nVidia products from my experience.
    >
    > "enigma" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > I'm looking for a card that can handle 3D decently (flight sims and
    > > most recent kids games like Harry Potter are the most intensive it
    > > will be used for), but also would like to do video editing. Is there
    > > one that can do both well? If not, is an alternative to put one in the
    > > AGP slot and another in the PCI slot? TIA!
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Rick, Dec 16, 2003
    #4
  5. enigma

    Tod Guest

    I had a Matrox G400
    then went to a Voodoo 5
    tried two different ATI 9100s
    then a Nvidia 5200
    went back to a Sapphire ATI 9100 128MB

    2D is at least 90% as good as a Matrox
    Hopefully I will get an ATI 9600 Pro for Christmas
    So go 9100 for about $75
    or ATI 9600SE for about $85 (speed crippled with 64 bit memory pathway,
    200mhz DDR)
    or ATI 9600 Pro $140 (full 128 bit memory pathway that runs faster at
    300mhz)



    "enigma" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm looking for a card that can handle 3D decently (flight sims and
    > most recent kids games like Harry Potter are the most intensive it
    > will be used for), but also would like to do video editing. Is there
    > one that can do both well? If not, is an alternative to put one in the
    > AGP slot and another in the PCI slot? TIA!
     
    Tod, Dec 17, 2003
    #5
  6. enigma

    Paul Smith Guest

    Rick wrote:
    > 2D image quality isn't an issue among the three manufacturers,
    > they all use comparable RAMDACs and output filters. The
    > Parhelia will provide slightly better 2D output at resolutions
    > above 1600x1200, otherwise you won't see any difference
    > between controllers from the three major manufacturers.


    I've heard this, and also that with DVI there is no difference
    whatsoever. But what about multi-monitor support? Are Matrox still the
    best for this or have the other manufacturers caught up? I want to use
    two identical 17" TFT screens at 1280x1024. Asus have a nVidia 5600
    board with dual-DVI so it's a choice between that and the Matrox P650.

    Paul
     
    Paul Smith, Dec 17, 2003
    #6
  7. enigma

    Arthur Hagen Guest

    Paul Smith <> wrote:
    >
    > I've heard this, and also that with DVI there is no difference
    > whatsoever. But what about multi-monitor support? Are Matrox still the
    > best for this or have the other manufacturers caught up? I want to use
    > two identical 17" TFT screens at 1280x1024. Asus have a nVidia 5600
    > board with dual-DVI so it's a choice between that and the Matrox P650.


    The only thing I can think of that might be an issue is that the V9560
    VideoSuite (which I assume you're talking about) has only one RAMDAC, while
    some other dual-DVI-I cards like the Parhelia has two. Also, it's uncertain
    whether dual DVI-I can be used at the same time as the other features like
    TV out -- with a single RAMDAC, that's doubtful.
    Other than that, there's big differences in the dual-head support programs
    for offerings from different manufacturers. Matrox is pretty good, as
    multi-monitor support is a prime market for them, while nVidia really has
    multi-head as a tertiary market at most. That said, with two identical
    monitors running digital, there should be less problems overall anyhow. You
    may not get a "copy" mode (show the same on both monitors), and if the
    monitors differ slightly in manufacturing, you may not be able to adjust
    individual ICC profiles for color/brightness correction.
    Otherwise, don't worry too much about the brand in this case.

    Regards,
    --
    *Art
     
    Arthur Hagen, Dec 17, 2003
    #7
  8. enigma

    enigma Guest

    On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:55:53 -0800, "Rick" <> wrote:

    >3D performance on the Parhelia series and other current Matrox
    >products is pathetic compared to current products from ATI and
    >Nvidia. Matrox is three generations behind in that technology.
    >
    >For video editing, forget about an all-in-one video card solution
    >(most are exercises in compromise) and get a separate video
    >capture card. E.g. Canopus' ADVC-100 is very highly regarded
    >and not expensive.

    What's the advantage of your recommended Canopus, or other such, over
    an AIW? Also, I'm planning on getting a digital camcorder soon, so was
    thinking of simply using that as a passthrough for my analog
    transfers. Do the dedicated cards do anything I can't with that or the
    AIW? Thanks again for all the help.
    >
    >2D image quality isn't an issue among the three manufacturers,
    >they all use comparable RAMDACs and output filters. The
    >Parhelia will provide slightly better 2D output at resolutions
    >above 1600x1200, otherwise you won't see any difference
    >between controllers from the three major manufacturers.
    >
    >Rick
    >
    >"KJ" <> wrote in message news:5XCDb.83487$%...
    >> If you can swing the expense, the Matrox Parhelia series is EXCELLENT for 2D
    >> & video editing, and had good 3D performance (though not as fast as the
    >> newer ATi's or nVidia on 3D cards). MUCH more stable than the ATi products,
    >> and much "cleaner" than the nVidia products from my experience.
    >>
    >> "enigma" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > I'm looking for a card that can handle 3D decently (flight sims and
    >> > most recent kids games like Harry Potter are the most intensive it
    >> > will be used for), but also would like to do video editing. Is there
    >> > one that can do both well? If not, is an alternative to put one in the
    >> > AGP slot and another in the PCI slot? TIA!
    >> >

    >>
    >>

    >
     
    enigma, Dec 18, 2003
    #8
  9. enigma

    Rick Guest

    "enigma" <> wrote in message news:...
    > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:55:53 -0800, "Rick" <> wrote:
    >
    > >3D performance on the Parhelia series and other current Matrox
    > >products is pathetic compared to current products from ATI and
    > >Nvidia. Matrox is three generations behind in that technology.
    > >
    > >For video editing, forget about an all-in-one video card solution
    > >(most are exercises in compromise) and get a separate video
    > >capture card. E.g. Canopus' ADVC-100 is very highly regarded
    > >and not expensive.

    > What's the advantage of your recommended Canopus, or other such, over
    > an AIW? Also, I'm planning on getting a digital camcorder soon, so was
    > thinking of simply using that as a passthrough for my analog
    > transfers. Do the dedicated cards do anything I can't with that or the
    > AIW? Thanks again for all the help.


    It's not so much what the two solutions can do, it's how well
    they do them. A dedicated capture card will give you better
    and far more flexible video, better quality audio (all-in-one
    video card solutions use your computer's audio card, which
    can be a cause of background noise and sync problems) and
    can be used with a wide variety of editing software (Vegas,
    Sonic, Premiere etc), instead of being limited to always
    inferior software which is bundled with all-in-one video cards.
    But probably the biggest advantage to a dedicated capture
    card is CPU usage -- the Canopus does the bulk of its
    processing onboard, while all-in-one video cards use the
    system's CPU (don't count on doing much else with your
    system while capturing, without dropping lots of frames).

    Rick
     
    Rick, Dec 18, 2003
    #9
  10. enigma

    KJ Guest

    I had and 8500 AIW prior to my current Parhelia. I tell you I am MUCH
    happier having ditched the AIW (though the remote was cool) in place of a
    Matrox solution. Just my personal experience.

    "Rick" <> wrote in message
    news:brt8bm$7fjo1$-berlin.de...
    > "enigma" <> wrote in message

    news:...
    > > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:55:53 -0800, "Rick" <> wrote:
    > >
    > > >3D performance on the Parhelia series and other current Matrox
    > > >products is pathetic compared to current products from ATI and
    > > >Nvidia. Matrox is three generations behind in that technology.
    > > >
    > > >For video editing, forget about an all-in-one video card solution
    > > >(most are exercises in compromise) and get a separate video
    > > >capture card. E.g. Canopus' ADVC-100 is very highly regarded
    > > >and not expensive.

    > > What's the advantage of your recommended Canopus, or other such, over
    > > an AIW? Also, I'm planning on getting a digital camcorder soon, so was
    > > thinking of simply using that as a passthrough for my analog
    > > transfers. Do the dedicated cards do anything I can't with that or the
    > > AIW? Thanks again for all the help.

    >
    > It's not so much what the two solutions can do, it's how well
    > they do them. A dedicated capture card will give you better
    > and far more flexible video, better quality audio (all-in-one
    > video card solutions use your computer's audio card, which
    > can be a cause of background noise and sync problems) and
    > can be used with a wide variety of editing software (Vegas,
    > Sonic, Premiere etc), instead of being limited to always
    > inferior software which is bundled with all-in-one video cards.
    > But probably the biggest advantage to a dedicated capture
    > card is CPU usage -- the Canopus does the bulk of its
    > processing onboard, while all-in-one video cards use the
    > system's CPU (don't count on doing much else with your
    > system while capturing, without dropping lots of frames).
    >
    > Rick
    >
    >
    >
     
    KJ, Dec 18, 2003
    #10
  11. enigma

    J.Clarke Guest

    On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:35:21 GMT
    enigma <> wrote:

    > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:55:53 -0800, "Rick" <> wrote:
    >
    > >3D performance on the Parhelia series and other current Matrox
    > >products is pathetic compared to current products from ATI and
    > >Nvidia. Matrox is three generations behind in that technology.
    > >
    > >For video editing, forget about an all-in-one video card solution
    > >(most are exercises in compromise) and get a separate video
    > >capture card. E.g. Canopus' ADVC-100 is very highly regarded
    > >and not expensive.

    > What's the advantage of your recommended Canopus, or other such, over
    > an AIW? Also, I'm planning on getting a digital camcorder soon, so was
    > thinking of simply using that as a passthrough for my analog
    > transfers. Do the dedicated cards do anything I can't with that or the
    > AIW? Thanks again for all the help.


    Using a digital camcorder for passthrough to Firewire works fine--just
    make sure the one you get does support that, some of the lower-end
    models don't. The Canopus does pretty much the same thing that the
    camcorder would. The advantage of either over the AIW is that
    analog-to-digital conversion takes place in dedicated hardware and the
    computer only has to read and store the digital stream over the Firewire
    port--capture using the AIW is CPU-intensive and every machine that I've
    tried it on has dropped frames when used at the higher resolution
    settings.

    > >2D image quality isn't an issue among the three manufacturers,
    > >they all use comparable RAMDACs and output filters. The
    > >Parhelia will provide slightly better 2D output at resolutions
    > >above 1600x1200, otherwise you won't see any difference
    > >between controllers from the three major manufacturers.
    > >
    > >Rick
    > >
    > >"KJ" <> wrote in message
    > >news:5XCDb.83487$%...> If you can
    > >swing the expense, the Matrox Parhelia series is EXCELLENT for 2D> &
    > >video editing, and had good 3D performance (though not as fast as
    > >the> newer ATi's or nVidia on 3D cards). MUCH more stable than the
    > >ATi products,> and much "cleaner" than the nVidia products from my
    > >experience.>
    > >> "enigma" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:...
    > >> > I'm looking for a card that can handle 3D decently (flight sims

    > >and> > most recent kids games like Harry Potter are the most
    > >intensive it> > will be used for), but also would like to do video
    > >editing. Is there> > one that can do both well? If not, is an
    > >alternative to put one in the> > AGP slot and another in the PCI
    > >slot? TIA!> >
    > >>
    > >>

    > >

    >



    --
    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J.Clarke, Dec 18, 2003
    #11
  12. enigma

    Arthur Hagen Guest

    KJ <> wrote:
    > I had and 8500 AIW prior to my current Parhelia. I tell you I am MUCH
    > happier having ditched the AIW (though the remote was cool) in place
    > of a Matrox solution. Just my personal experience.


    I can second that. I get a much steadier picture on high resolutions and
    refresh rates (better components?) than the old ATI, and can individually
    adjust the colour tuning for each monitor, which more than makes up for the
    somewhat slower 3D of the Parhelia.
    For a non-gamer (or a flight sim gamer who REALLY benefits from 3 monitors),
    the Parhelia is a very good choice. The real downside is the price. It's
    too expensive, especially after 18 months on the market. Then again,
    compared to the price of Adobe Photoshop or Premiere, it's cheap...

    Regards,
    --
    *Art
     
    Arthur Hagen, Dec 19, 2003
    #12
  13. enigma

    enigma Guest

    On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:35:20 -0500, "J.Clarke"
    <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:35:21 GMT
    >enigma <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:55:53 -0800, "Rick" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >3D performance on the Parhelia series and other current Matrox
    >> >products is pathetic compared to current products from ATI and
    >> >Nvidia. Matrox is three generations behind in that technology.
    >> >
    >> >For video editing, forget about an all-in-one video card solution
    >> >(most are exercises in compromise) and get a separate video
    >> >capture card. E.g. Canopus' ADVC-100 is very highly regarded
    >> >and not expensive.

    >> What's the advantage of your recommended Canopus, or other such, over
    >> an AIW? Also, I'm planning on getting a digital camcorder soon, so was
    >> thinking of simply using that as a passthrough for my analog
    >> transfers. Do the dedicated cards do anything I can't with that or the
    >> AIW? Thanks again for all the help.

    >
    >Using a digital camcorder for passthrough to Firewire works fine--just
    >make sure the one you get does support that, some of the lower-end
    >models don't. The Canopus does pretty much the same thing that the
    >camcorder would. The advantage of either over the AIW is that
    >analog-to-digital conversion takes place in dedicated hardware and the
    >computer only has to read and store the digital stream over the Firewire
    >port--capture using the AIW is CPU-intensive and every machine that I've
    >tried it on has dropped frames when used at the higher resolution
    >settings.
    >
    >> >2D image quality isn't an issue among the three manufacturers,
    >> >they all use comparable RAMDACs and output filters. The
    >> >Parhelia will provide slightly better 2D output at resolutions
    >> >above 1600x1200, otherwise you won't see any difference
    >> >between controllers from the three major manufacturers.
    >> >
    >> >Rick
    >> >
    >> >"KJ" <> wrote in message
    >> >news:5XCDb.83487$%...> If you can
    >> >swing the expense, the Matrox Parhelia series is EXCELLENT for 2D> &
    >> >video editing, and had good 3D performance (though not as fast as
    >> >the> newer ATi's or nVidia on 3D cards). MUCH more stable than the
    >> >ATi products,> and much "cleaner" than the nVidia products from my
    >> >experience.>
    >> >> "enigma" <> wrote in message
    >> >> news:...
    >> >> > I'm looking for a card that can handle 3D decently (flight sims
    >> >and> > most recent kids games like Harry Potter are the most
    >> >intensive it> > will be used for), but also would like to do video
    >> >editing. Is there> > one that can do both well? If not, is an
    >> >alternative to put one in the> > AGP slot and another in the PCI
    >> >slot? TIA!> >
    >> >>

    Thanks again for the help. Do I understand this correctly? If I use a
    digital camcorder capable of it, I can use that to transfer my analog
    tapes to digital, and then wouldn't need a dedicated capture card? If
    not, what are the other functions of the capture card?
    Then, I would need an appropriate video card, with good 2D performance
    and preferably dual monitor support.
    If I do that, can I use the AGP/PCI slot for that, and the other for a
    card better suited to gaming? If so, would it be best to have the
    gaming one in the AGP, and the 2D in the PCI? Do most cards come in
    both interfaces? Thanks again for all the help.
     
    enigma, Dec 19, 2003
    #13
  14. enigma

    J.Clarke Guest

    On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:10:29 GMT
    enigma <> wrote:

    > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:35:20 -0500, "J.Clarke"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:35:21 GMT
    > >enigma <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:55:53 -0800, "Rick" <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >3D performance on the Parhelia series and other current Matrox
    > >> >products is pathetic compared to current products from ATI and
    > >> >Nvidia. Matrox is three generations behind in that technology.
    > >> >
    > >> >For video editing, forget about an all-in-one video card solution
    > >> >(most are exercises in compromise) and get a separate video
    > >> >capture card. E.g. Canopus' ADVC-100 is very highly regarded
    > >> >and not expensive.
    > >> What's the advantage of your recommended Canopus, or other such,

    > >over> an AIW? Also, I'm planning on getting a digital camcorder soon,
    > >so was> thinking of simply using that as a passthrough for my analog
    > >> transfers. Do the dedicated cards do anything I can't with that or

    > >the> AIW? Thanks again for all the help.
    > >
    > >Using a digital camcorder for passthrough to Firewire works
    > >fine--just make sure the one you get does support that, some of the
    > >lower-end models don't. The Canopus does pretty much the same thing
    > >that the camcorder would. The advantage of either over the AIW is
    > >that analog-to-digital conversion takes place in dedicated hardware
    > >and the computer only has to read and store the digital stream over
    > >the Firewire port--capture using the AIW is CPU-intensive and every
    > >machine that I've tried it on has dropped frames when used at the
    > >higher resolution settings.
    > >
    > >> >2D image quality isn't an issue among the three manufacturers,
    > >> >they all use comparable RAMDACs and output filters. The
    > >> >Parhelia will provide slightly better 2D output at resolutions
    > >> >above 1600x1200, otherwise you won't see any difference
    > >> >between controllers from the three major manufacturers.
    > >> >
    > >> >Rick
    > >> >
    > >> >"KJ" <> wrote in message
    > >> >news:5XCDb.83487$%...> If you can
    > >> >swing the expense, the Matrox Parhelia series is EXCELLENT for 2D>

    > >&> >video editing, and had good 3D performance (though not as fast as
    > >> >the> newer ATi's or nVidia on 3D cards). MUCH more stable than

    > >the> >ATi products,> and much "cleaner" than the nVidia products from
    > >my> >experience.>
    > >> >> "enigma" <> wrote in message
    > >> >> news:...
    > >> >> > I'm looking for a card that can handle 3D decently (flight

    > >sims> >and> > most recent kids games like Harry Potter are the most
    > >> >intensive it> > will be used for), but also would like to do video
    > >> >editing. Is there> > one that can do both well? If not, is an
    > >> >alternative to put one in the> > AGP slot and another in the PCI
    > >> >slot? TIA!> >
    > >> >>

    > Thanks again for the help. Do I understand this correctly? If I use a
    > digital camcorder capable of it, I can use that to transfer my analog
    > tapes to digital, and then wouldn't need a dedicated capture card?


    You are correct.

    > If
    > not, what are the other functions of the capture card?
    > Then, I would need an appropriate video card, with good 2D performance
    > and preferably dual monitor support.
    > If I do that, can I use the AGP/PCI slot for that, and the other for a
    > card better suited to gaming? If so, would it be best to have the
    > gaming one in the AGP, and the 2D in the PCI? Do most cards come in
    > both interfaces? Thanks again for all the help.


    If you're doing video editing 8 hours a day for a living or are in film
    school or something then go with a Matrox board, otherwise an ATI or
    nvidia should be fine--any contemporary board should support dual
    monitors and the 2D performance and image quality are fine for all but
    the most critical applications.

    None of the current-generation "gaming" boards are available as PCI
    boards except the extreme low-end--if that's good enough for you then go
    with current-generation Matrox, which should give about the same
    performance. If you need more than that then you've got no choice but
    putting the "gaming" board in the AGP slot, and once you've done that
    there's no real point to a second board--the most recent PCI Matrox is a
    G450, which, while it's a nice board, doesn't give you any better image
    quality than the current (three generations newer) ATI and nvidia
    boards.

    Note that the difference in image quality between a Matrox and a current
    ATI or nvidia board is going to be small in any case--it's there but it
    doesn't jump out at you.


    --
    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J.Clarke, Dec 19, 2003
    #14
  15. enigma

    Rick Guest

    "J.Clarke" <> wrote in message news:...
    > None of the current-generation "gaming" boards are available as PCI
    > boards except the extreme low-end--if that's good enough for you then go
    > with current-generation Matrox, which should give about the same
    > performance.


    That's not quite true. ATI makes PCI Radeons which are a
    _much_ better single solution for 2D/3D.

    Rick
     
    Rick, Dec 19, 2003
    #15
  16. enigma

    Arthur Hagen Guest

    J.Clarke <> wrote:

    > None of the current-generation "gaming" boards are available as PCI
    > boards except the extreme low-end--if that's good enough for you then
    > go with current-generation Matrox, which should give about the same
    > performance. If you need more than that then you've got no choice but
    > putting the "gaming" board in the AGP slot, and once you've done that
    > there's no real point to a second board--the most recent PCI Matrox
    > is a G450, which, while it's a nice board, doesn't give you any
    > better image quality than the current (three generations newer) ATI
    > and nvidia boards.


    There's also the Matrox Parhelia PCI 256MB, which is good enough to play the
    majority of games. (There's also the Matrox Parhelia HR256 PCI, but that's
    just too expensive at $2500 for the card plus another $5000+ for 9MP
    monitors.)

    Regards,
    --
    *Art
     
    Arthur Hagen, Dec 19, 2003
    #16
  17. enigma

    Arthur Hagen Guest

    Rick <> wrote:
    > "J.Clarke" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> None of the current-generation "gaming" boards are available as PCI
    >> boards except the extreme low-end--if that's good enough for you
    >> then go with current-generation Matrox, which should give about the
    >> same performance.

    >
    > That's not quite true. ATI makes PCI Radeons which are a
    > _much_ better single solution for 2D/3D.


    _Much_ better than the Parhelia PCI 256?

    --
    *Art
     
    Arthur Hagen, Dec 19, 2003
    #17
  18. enigma

    J.Clarke Guest

    On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:48:03 -0500
    "Arthur Hagen" <> wrote:

    > Rick <> wrote:
    > > "J.Clarke" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> None of the current-generation "gaming" boards are available as PCI
    > >> boards except the extreme low-end--if that's good enough for you
    > >> then go with current-generation Matrox, which should give about the
    > >> same performance.

    > >
    > > That's not quite true. ATI makes PCI Radeons which are a
    > > _much_ better single solution for 2D/3D.

    >
    > _Much_ better than the Parhelia PCI 256?


    Item the first, if he is going for a single slot solution then he does
    not need a PCI board to begin with. Item the second, the most capable
    ATI board that is currently available with PCI is the Radeon 7500, which
    is at this point four generations old and wasn't all that good a 3D
    performer to begin with--it is _not_ more capable than the current
    generation of Matrox boards.

    > --
    > *Art



    --
    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J.Clarke, Dec 20, 2003
    #18
  19. enigma

    Rick Guest

    "J.Clarke" <> wrote in message news:...
    > On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:48:03 -0500
    > "Arthur Hagen" <> wrote:
    >
    > > Rick <> wrote:
    > > > "J.Clarke" <> wrote in message
    > > > news:...
    > > >> None of the current-generation "gaming" boards are available as PCI
    > > >> boards except the extreme low-end--if that's good enough for you
    > > >> then go with current-generation Matrox, which should give about the
    > > >> same performance.
    > > >
    > > > That's not quite true. ATI makes PCI Radeons which are a
    > > > _much_ better single solution for 2D/3D.

    > >
    > > _Much_ better than the Parhelia PCI 256?

    >
    > Item the first, if he is going for a single slot solution then he does
    > not need a PCI board to begin with. Item the second, the most capable
    > ATI board that is currently available with PCI is the Radeon 7500, which
    > is at this point four generations old and wasn't all that good a 3D
    > performer to begin with--it is _not_ more capable than the current
    > generation of Matrox boards.


    If he's going with a single slot solution, ATI makes AGP cards
    that are _much_ faster in 3D and equal in 2D display quality, at
    least up to 1600x1200. If he's looking for a separate PCI card
    ATI's 7500 is much faster in 3D than any Matrox PCI model.

    There's nothing worse than paying top dollar for a card and then
    having to turn all the eye candy off just to get acceptable frame
    rates. You'll find many posts to that effect in Matrox's Parhelia
    forum.

    Rick
     
    Rick, Dec 20, 2003
    #19
  20. enigma

    J. Clarke Guest

    Rick wrote:

    > "J.Clarke" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:48:03 -0500
    >> "Arthur Hagen" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> > Rick <> wrote:
    >> > > "J.Clarke" <> wrote in message
    >> > > news:...
    >> > >> None of the current-generation "gaming" boards are available as PCI
    >> > >> boards except the extreme low-end--if that's good enough for you
    >> > >> then go with current-generation Matrox, which should give about the
    >> > >> same performance.
    >> > >
    >> > > That's not quite true. ATI makes PCI Radeons which are a
    >> > > _much_ better single solution for 2D/3D.
    >> >
    >> > _Much_ better than the Parhelia PCI 256?

    >>
    >> Item the first, if he is going for a single slot solution then he does
    >> not need a PCI board to begin with. Item the second, the most capable
    >> ATI board that is currently available with PCI is the Radeon 7500, which
    >> is at this point four generations old and wasn't all that good a 3D
    >> performer to begin with--it is _not_ more capable than the current
    >> generation of Matrox boards.

    >
    > If he's going with a single slot solution, ATI makes AGP cards
    > that are _much_ faster in 3D and equal in 2D display quality, at
    > least up to 1600x1200. If he's looking for a separate PCI card
    > ATI's 7500 is much faster in 3D than any Matrox PCI model.


    Why it took a month for this to show up on my server I don't know, but it
    did.

    If he has a fast board in the AGP slot and he doesn't need three monitors
    then what point is there to putting a board in the PCI slot? And is the
    PCI 7500 better in any manner whatsoever than an AGP Parhelia?

    > There's nothing worse than paying top dollar for a card and then
    > having to turn all the eye candy off just to get acceptable frame
    > rates. You'll find many posts to that effect in Matrox's Parhelia
    > forum.


    Further, if you will go over to google groups and find the second post on
    this thread you will find that I told him to use an ATI board. Why you're
    off on this tangent of putting a Radeon in a PCI slot I don't
    know--discussion of the 3D performance of PCI boards is like discussion of
    the chastity of prostitutes. If he needs to have both what a Radeon does
    good and what a Matrox does good and it's sufficiently critical to have
    both to justify putting both boards in the machine then he's better off to
    put the Radeon in the AGP slot and the Matrox in the PCI slot.

    > Rick


    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Jan 27, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. John Geddes
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    428
    John Geddes
    Nov 1, 2005
  2. enigma
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    212
  3. enigma
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    222
    enigma
    Dec 16, 2003
  4. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    987
  5. Joe
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    511
    geoff
    May 25, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page