Indecisiveness

[Dalbregor]

I hate buying new video cards.
I'm hoping a few of you might offer opinions on my situation . . .

I'm currently using a Celeron 300a (@380), TNT2 (32Mb, standard), 256Mb PC100 RAM, 19" Flatscreen monitor system.

I'm shortly going to be buying a new system, Pentium III 733, brand new video card, 256Mb PC133 RAM, keeping the existing monitor.

Question is, which video card?
I read an awful lot of text, do a lot of 3d modelling/rendering, a fair bit of web design (including image editing) and play games once every so often.
Everyone I've spoken to who's in the know says that the G400's 2D quality is absolutely unmatched. In addition, the dual-head feature would be very handy for graphics work, and getting 3d acceleration a bit better than my TNT2 would be nice.

Ideally I'd like a solution that would give me very readable text at high resolution, multi-monitor support and good 3d acceleration for tomorrow's games.

My options seem to be:
G400 MAX, 32Mb, Dual-head (the G450 seems sub-optimal for gaming).
nVidia GeForce 2 MX 32Mb, Twin-view (but twinview is extremely immature thus far, and image quality . . . blech?).
Top of the range 3d accelerator in the form of a GeForce 2 GTS or Voodoo 5 card, keeping my TNT2 to drive the second monitor (this option is more expensive, and image quality becomes an issue again).

So . . . what do people think?
Should I go the G400, and compromise on 3d acceleration, go the MX, and risk never having satisfactory multi-monitor or image quality, or go the ultimate 3d acceleration and pay through the nose for it (and still miss out on image quality)?

Aiee! Choices!

[ayoub_ibrahim]

my unbiased view is to get the G4OOMAX.superb card for what you want to use it for!!

[Dogbert]

Personally, I'd go for an ATi Radeon 64 DDR

------------------
I like to con people, but I also like to insult them. What if I could combine the two, I would call it - Consult !


[This message has been edited by Dogbert (edited 04 October 2000).]

[Opus]

Recently I've been thinking about replacing my trusty old G200 and mulling over the same dilemma.

1.I'm not interested in spending over £200 for a GeForce 2 so they are out. ATI's driver support seems a bit dodgy (look how they effectively killed the Maxx), though the 32 meg Radeons seem nice and cheap.

2.I don't need dual-head so that's not important to me.

So that leaves either a G400/450 (Max is still bit too expensive for a old PII-400 system) or a MX2. The G400 while great for image quality is relatively old. The MX2 seems to have the best bang for buck (and overclockable to boot) and getting rave reviews (this months PcPro A-listed it, as well as giving the 450 a good review for 2D).

As to the MX2's image quality, I came across a website that details a mod to bring the card up to par with other 'professional' grfx cards. It can be found here http://www.geocities.com/tnaw_xtennis/Quadro1-2.htm. Does anyone in the know think this would bring an MX2 up to the same (or close) visual quality as a Matrox card?

Course this is all academic as my missus may veto the whole idea. Ah well I still like my G200

Whoops. re-reading your post it looks like a dual-head G400 Max for you would be ideal.

Cheers

[This message has been edited by Opus (edited 04 October 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Opus (edited 04 October 2000).]

[Dalbregor]

Thanks for the feedback thus far

Does any other card on the market have comparable 2d image quality to the Matrox cards?

[Greebe]

Nope.

[Dalbregor]

Dang ;-)

[Brian R.]

Opus, for a 400 MHz computer, the GTS 32 MB cards might be the way to go. Also, the mod for the NVidia cards has no effect on image quality. It allows the card to implement some additional functions used in professional 3-D graphics work. These are not useful in gaming.

For Dalbregor, my opinion is to get the MAX. Excellent card if 2D is a high priority. The faster processor will help it shine. At this time, nothing can touch the MAX in high res display quality.

[This message has been edited by Brian R. (edited 04 October 2000).]

[Gurm]

I have to agree with the others... here's the rundown:

ATI: 2D is "close" to Matrox. Certainly substantially better than nVidia or 3dfx. However, as stated before their driver support is... err... crap. There are STILL no correctly working drivers for the Rage 128, which is a couple years old. The Rage Fury MAXX has been squished entirely, and although they are being pretty good about Radeon releases, who knows how long that will last? In addition, if the Radeon has the same minor visual glitches (in text fill bars and dialogue box titles, etc.) as the Rage128/R128Pro did, that rules that out as "high-quality 2D".

nVidia: Display is crap. Others will argue, but the quality varies EXTREMELY widely. Buy 2 nVidia cards, and one will have a nice crisp display whilst the other has moiring and blur. It's a REAL crapshoot. Their gaming speed is unparalleled, but their drivers alternate in quality. Their colors are washed-out as well (in comparison to ATI or Matrox).

3dfx: Hey, it's a FAST CARD. So that means you can skimp on 2D, right? Well, the V3's were kinda like nVidia - a crapshoot depending on the day, the time of day, and the lunar cycle... haven't heard yet on the V5, but early reports show it to be still "not as good as Matrox or ATI".

So there you are. If visual quality is important, the G400Max is really the only choice right now. If you are willing to gamble on driver support, the Radeon is VERY spiffy. If you are willing to accept a non-optimal display, nVidia is FAST and CHEAP. The only way you could get me to put a 3dfx "power conversion heat generator" in my computer is with a large bribe.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[Brian R.]

Power conversion heat generator??

LOL

[Ali]

BrianR, there is a different mod (not that link) that goes on about removing a couple of resisters and capaciters to make the output better.

I was linked from 3dnews.net last week sometime.

Ali

[Snake-Eyes]

That's true Ali, but (even though I bought one, mainly for the ability to run much higher resolutions at the same framerate) who wants to by a card (counting on the image quality) and have to modify it to get the quality that they desire from it? Seems like nVidia should be investigating the issue a bit..

------------------
Ace

[Dalbregor]

Ok, you've managed to sell me on the G400 without a doubt ;-)
Nice forum you've created here, from the tone of it.

Ok, next question . . .
(all prices in AUD, sorry, exchange rate is currently 54 cents US per AUD).
A G400 MAX (32Mb, Dualhead) will cost me ~$425 (cost price).

There's a possibility that I can get a G400 (32Mb, Dualhead) second-hand in the vicinity of $200->$250, which is a substantial price difference.

For comparison, a GeForce 2 GTS costs around $550 AUD, and a Voodoo 5500 around the same.

I'm under the impression that the main differences between the standard G400 and the MAX are that the MAX is clocked higher, has a fan to cope with that, and has a slightly faster RAMDAC.

If overclocking the standard a bit would get me "close enough" to MAX performance I'll probably go the cheaper option.

What are your thoughts on this?

For the record, I was also horrified to note that the Voodoo 5 needs to be connected to power ;-). On the other hand, it's better than some of the GeForce 2 cards, which apparently cause instability by drawing more power than they should over AGP . . .

[Alec]

If gaming won´t be your essential activity, get a G400MAX. Even with its age, combined with a 733Mhz system, G400´s power will show.

By the way, isn´t Kyro (PowerVR 3) a video card upgrade option? I´m sure it´s good at 2D, too. PowerVR cards have something sexy to it. I never saw a Neon 250 on sale here in Portugal, but I hope to see Kyro, if the price is right.

------------------
"I wish I was a witch...
...to shove my broomstick right up your *ss."

Intel Atlanta LX 66Mhz @ 72Mhz bus (Bios 14)
Intel Celeron 433Mhz @ 468Mhz
Hyundai 128Mb SDRAM PC100
Western Digital Caviar 4.3 Gb UDMA
Creative Soundblaster PCI128 (driver revision 2)
Matrox Millennium G400 SH 16Mb SGRAM @147Mhz/196Mhz + attached fan (Powerdesk 6.04)
Genius desktop speakers + subwoofer
Microsoft Optical Intellimouse
Microsoft Sidewinder Frrestyle Pro gamepad (USB)
Standard keyboard
Standard FDD

Windows 98 4.10.1998
IE 5.5
DirectX 7a

[Nuno]

For the use you are planning to make, G400 without a doubt, I agree.

As for $425 MAX/$200 2nd hand plain G400 32 Mb, go for the last one. Almost all vanilla G400 overclock to MAX speeds if you stick a fan on the heatsink (the heatsink is actually much larger than the one on a MAX). Considering that kind of price difference, I would say get the used one.

You won´t miss the 360 Mhz RAMDAC. I don´t think you can use your 19´´ above 1600x1200, so it simply doesn´t matter. And if you feel brave, do a search in the fori for "PINS" and see how to overclock the G400 RAMDAC