ATI Radeon VE (dualhead) better that G450?

[bongo]

Been reading some reviews (actually just looking at the pictures, I have trouble with words); and I am getting the gist that the ATI radeon VE 32mb dualhead (around same price as G450 dh) is a faster card all around. Even faster than the G400max 32mb dh.

Is this a correct interpretation; or is it wrongo.

bongo.

[Rags]

The VE is faster than a G400 in windows 98, but in win2k it's slower in a lot of things.

Rags

[az]

besides, it's dualhead functionality isn't as advanced as the g400/g450's

AZ

[JackYi]

Its true that Matrox's DualHead is far superior then ATI's implementation(eg: eDualHead capable of second display zoom+DVD playback), but Radeon VE's 3D performance(framerate is general) is higher then the G450 or even the G400 MAX. I say, if you still play some games, go far away from the G450. Otherwise, G450's superb 2D and awesome 3D image quality would keep you happy for graphics design work. Matrox had always produced video cards that output colors pleasing to the eye.

However, if your intention is to play games with dual displays(multiplay; Serious Sam is the first to support this) for multiplay purposes, not design, and want to achieve a more of a high framerate of let's say +56fps average for today's games, you'd want a GeForce2 MX with Twinview.



[This message has been edited by JackYi (edited 23 March 2001).]