If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
1) The Matrox card did make us reboot, however, when enabling DualHead, something that the Radeon VE did not make us do.
2) Another downside is that current dual display setups are limited to 2D. In the case of the solutions out there now, only the primary display gets hardware 3D acceleration.
3) Windows 2000 has a limitation that prevents two separate monitors running off the same card from running at different resolutions.
All these shortfalls have now been fixed, so if you look at the table on the final page http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1423&p=8 you will see that the G450 gets top marks on everything. As its already number 1 for ease of use there is nothing on the market that can touch it.
Also if what was said in that eDH thread about a price cut comming, the price difference will be gone to.
I knew there was a reason I have Matrox cards in all my home and work machines (with a few exceptions at work).
Ali
EDIT:
I know that the 2nd head could always get 3D acceleration, but the ability to change memory resources is new.
[This message has been edited by Ali (edited 26 February 2001).]
DLed them earlier, haven't installed them yet. (DLing some 80's music) I will have a good platform to test on. My Duron seems to like 950 MHz at 1.825 V. It actually seems stabler than at default (700 MHz at 1.600V) Go figure. I'll post back in about 2 hours after I've Ragged it a bit
[size=1]D3/\/7YCR4CK3R
Ryzen: Asrock B450M Pro4, Ryzen 5 2600, 16GB G-Skill Ripjaws V Series DDR4 PC4-25600 RAM, 1TB Seagate SATA HD, 256GB myDigital PCIEx4 M.2 SSD, Samsung LI24T350FHNXZA 24" HDMI LED monitor, Klipsch Promedia 4.2 400, Win11
Home: M1 Mac Mini 8GB 256GB
Surgery: HP Stream 200-010 Mini Desktop,Intel Celeron 2957U Processor, 6 GB RAM, ADATA 128 GB SSD, Win 10 home ver 22H2
Frontdesk: Beelink T4 8GB
Someone want to explain to me why, on my G400 MAX under W2K, 1280x960x32bit@75hz isn't a valid resolution for the second head, while 1280x1024x32bit@75hz is?
I can live with 1280x1024 for a while under W2K - it's loads faster than the dual card setup I was using (G400 MAX/Millennium II), but it would be nice if I could adjust my second display's refresh manually so I can get it back to the nice 4:3 aspect ratio it was at...
[This message has been edited by IceStorm (edited 26 February 2001).]
The pessimist says: "The glass is half empty."
The optimist says: "The glass is half full."
The engineer says: "I put half of my water in a redundant glass."
I am glad to report that the problem I was experiencing with 5.3x drivers (AGP texturing disabled in DXDiags and all around louzy performance) is FIXED!!!
I think these drivers are really great. Good performance (better than 5.20 with 5.33 ICD), no more annoying Dx bug, True Dual-Head (is it really true, I mean, do you get two independant displays or a streched desktop like 1200x600?)
Anyone try these with the RR-G? There have been no new drivers for the RR-G in almost a year and according to Matrox's site those old drivers should only be used with the 5.55.022 G400 drivers. Does this mean that I have a choice between using these cool new drivers with no RR-G and sticking with the old drivers if I want to use the RR-G? What's the holdup concerning the RR-G?
Comment