DualHead - Can Anything Compete With It?

[Excalibur]

I like my G400MAX a lot. I really do. I love the Dualhead features - they've spoiled me. But I want faster 3D, darn it. It's not BAD on this board, mind you, but it does lag behind other boards significantly (like the GeForce2s and Radeons) nowadays.

After using Matrox boards for five years or more, I've been thinking about getting a different board. Something with better 3D. I don't know what Matrox's plans are for future board development, but I haven't found much information that points definitively to really competitive boards for the 3D gaming niche. I have a mixed use of heavy 3D gaming and DVD/video out (and in would be nice as well).

I have found, however, that I can't seem to find any boards that have a TV/Monitor-out option that even comes CLOSE to the functionality of the Dualhead, with it's Clone, Second Monitor & DVDMax modes. The ATI & ASUS boards I was looking at seem to be either limited in terms of output resolution (no more than 800x600), monitor-cloning only and another thing I'd never thought of - apparently "inferior" 2D quality! Having not used anything but Matrox for years, I can say that this one surprises me. How different is it?

And is this true? Is there nothing else that compares with its 2D and its DualHead?

- Excal

------------------
PIII-866MHz @ 866MHz, ASUS CUSL2 MoBo (v1002a BIOS), 256MB PC133 CAS3 RAM, MGA G400 MAX AGP 32MB; not overclocked; PD 6.14 / BIOS v1.6 - 25, SBLive! 5.1, Windows 98SE, DX7.0a and lots of other goodies that would just be showing off to list.

[This message has been edited by Excalibur (edited 20 November 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Excalibur (edited 21 November 2000).]

[Gurm]

Others will argue, especially those who want to bash, detract, or jump ship from Matrox.

BUT...

Sadly, you are correct. Nobody can even come close to Matrox's 2D quality. And while the GeFarce2MX's have a second output header (some of them, anyway), it isn't quite as nice as the G400's.

- Gurm

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

[mioeal]

Yeah, that's true.
There is
n o t h i n g
else that compares with the 2D and the Dualhead form Matrox.

.........but wait, there is one:


A MAC!


mioeal...


(Abit VA6, Celeron, enough memory, SUSE Linux 7.0)

[Greebe]

Now there's a wonderful thought, a Linuxhead smoking to much Mac. You know Mac kills!

Smoking a PC with Matrox just gives you that warm fuzzy feeling

[EchoWars]

I have a second machine with a GeForce2MX and TV-out. It's...ummmm...functional...yeah, that's the ticket, functional..

I want my G800!

[Dalbregor]

Every comparison I've seen on either the Matrox boards or the Ati boards suggests that the ATI Radeon has comparable 2d to the G400.

Some users say it's better, some say it's worse, but all say it's a close call.

Has anyone here had the opportunity to compare the 2d quality on the G400 with that on a Radeon, using the same monitor etc?

[Dalbregor]

Oh yeah . . . apparently ATI is coming out with a card comparable to the Geforce2 MX. Can't remember their name for the technology, DoubleDisplay or something (as compared to DualHead and Twinview).


I think it's a bit of a pipedream at this stage, but oh well.

Edit: my overall point being that there _may_ be something that can compare with the 2d, but there's nothing that can compare with DualHead.

[This message has been edited by Dalbregor (edited 21 November 2000).]

[Excalibur]

Gurm - thanks for the quick input. As far as INVIDIA boards go, I was looking at the ASUS V7700 Deluxe, which has video in and out, and is based on the GeForce 2 GTS board. Sounds good on paper, but I'm hung up on the 2D quality issue, and of course the Dualhead issue.

mioeal - No MACs for me, thanks.

EchoWars - I wonder how a GeForce2 MX's video out compares with a GeForce2 GTS's (only one I've come across so far, I think, is the ASUS board I mentioned above, though there may be others, of course)? Or if they're basically the same...

You mentioned G800... is this a real product that's coming sometime? Or mostly conjecture? It would be nice if Matrox would crawl out of their shell and release a board with the best of both worlds... *sigh* My ultimate solution to my dilemma would indeed be to get the next Matrox board that had such things, but alas - no such beast, yet. Though I admit I'm really not up on such news. IS there such a thing coming?

Dalbregor - I actually started leaning towards a Radeon in my thinking, as before I ever own a Matrox board, I was using ATI boards (last one was a Mach64 board), and I seem to recall they were pretty decent, though this was back when all that mattered was that it was able to go "all the up" to 1024x768 and maybe even 32bpp, if you had enough RAM on the board. What turned me off was the Radeon's overall lesser performance in 16-bit 3D, and on most counts ultimately vs. the higher end GeForces. I like the AIW feature-set, however. I just want my Dualhead, too, dammit!

Also, I don't think I could stand being limited by 800x600 on the TV, unless my desktop doesn't have to match that.

- Excal

------------------
PIII-866MHz @ 866MHz, ASUS CUSL2 MoBo (v1002a BIOS), 256MB PC133 CAS3 RAM, MGA G400 MAX AGP 32MB; not overclocked; PD 6.14 / BIOS v1.6 - 25, SBLive! 5.1, Windows 98SE, DX7.0a and lots of other goodies that would just be showing off to list.

[Arsa]

Hmm... i just got a thought...
Stop playing games at work! Get DSL and nice computer at home... hehe...
But that's my problem anyway... ;-)

[DB4]

It would be nice if there was an alternative to the Dual head of the G400 but unfortunatly you all don't think there will be until Matrox release another card.
After using Dualhead for so long, there is no other way now to use Dreamweaver or my 3D Programme I cannot ever understand how I managed to surve with one display.
Funny realy because although Matrox don't have a monopoly in the 3D market they do to people that use there cards for anything other then Hardcore gaming becuase they make it impossible to go back, although going forward doesn't seem to be happening either.

Before my G200 and G400 I also owned an ATI board (ATI Rage Pro) and I can tell you that I never experienced any problem with the card and even through the development of Opengl in the drivers the card was still rock solid. Was I just lucky or have ATI gone down hill since those days.

[Liquid Snake]

Off topic, but, Excailbur, does the name XCOM ring a bell?

[Ashley]

If you have a free PCI slot, just add a second card to the AGP card of your choice.

A Voodoo3 makes for an excellent "2nd head", as does any older Matrox PCI card...

[Excalibur]

DB4 - RE: Dualhead, I feel your pain.

Liquid Snake - XCOM? In what context? The first two things that jumped to mind were the turn-based strategy game (with aliens) from a handful of years ago, and the alter-ego of PayPal (X.Com). Give me some help here.

Ashley - mind expanding on that? Can one just add another board (would have to be PCI, obviously) without having all kinds of problems? Never really thought about doing that. I used to have a Voodoo2 in my machine as well (had to remove it with my new machine, as for some reason, 3D wouldn't work correctly on the Matrox until I removed it... weird...), but it wasn't a 2D board... just 3D with a pass-through.

- Excal

------------------
PIII-866MHz @ 866MHz, ASUS CUSL2 MoBo (v1002a BIOS), 256MB PC133 CAS3 RAM, MGA G400 MAX AGP 32MB; not overclocked; PD 6.14 / BIOS v1.6 - 25, SBLive! 5.1, Windows 98SE, DX7.0a and lots of other goodies that would just be showing off to list.

[Liquid Snake]

Well, I'll explain. I used to play Quake with a bunch of friends. We had a clan called XCOM. But I haven't seen any of the old members since the clan fell apart a year ago. There was a guy called Excalibur in our clan, and he was the leader at one point. He lived in NJ, and you live in NJ as well, so I thought you might've been him

As for adding another PCI video card (with 2D), it can be done. Just make sure the BIOS is set to look at AGP for the video card first and install the drivers for the second card. I've never actually done this, but I guess that's how it works. But why waste valuable PCI slots, when you can have a G400 with DualHead instead?

[Ashley]

There are remarkably few compatibility problems with mixing cards that have different chipsets. But since this is a Matrox fan site, I'll confine myself to a Matrox-only example that a friend of mine threw together, and likes to call his Matrox "Triple-Head".

Unhappy with DH under Win2k, he picked up a 16MB G400SH for just under $100, and then added two used Millenniums he got for just $18 each. For the grand total of $135, he now runs Win2K at 1920x1440 on his primary monitor and 1600x1200 on his 2 auxiliary monitors.

There are other advantages that independent cards have over DualHead or TwinView or whatever, but the genuine multimonitor support under Win2k was the only reason he needed to opt for this solution.