Your last Matrox hardware?

[chaoliang]

I voted 3. I'll put together a new computer in the Q1 2003. The place of graphics card is reserved for a revised version of P, if Matrox does things properly this time. Otherwise I'm afraid that my G200 will be the last card from Matrox in my computer. I hope this would not happen.

[fleabus2]

Originally posted by chaoliang



Hello fleabus2:

How would you compare the 2D quality of 9700Pro and your previous G400MAX and Parhelia? I'd love to know your personal judgement. Thanks.

Hi:

Since I almost always use DualHead 1600x1200 32bit 85Hz, I can really only compare them at that setting.
I see no difference. My (55 year old) eyes, my gear. I consider my monitors to be quite good. I don't know if equipment of lesser quality would show the same results. IMO, better stuff should exhibit more "warts". Others may say that higher quality monitors should be more forgiving of faults. I don't consider my opinions "expert".
In 3D, I tried the new NFS4 Hot pursuit 2 demo on the Parhelia and got a garbled screen no matter what settings I tried. The Radeon 9700 Pro ran it nicely. Tried a demo of NASCAR 2002 (whatever) and both the Parhelia and 9700 ran it fine.
As for DVD, ATI has a reputation for doing DVD movies better than Matrox due to hardware assist. With the CPUs in common use today, that advantage is likely moot. Since my computer is in the same (living) room as my HT system which uses a Denon 2800 Progressive scan console player with component cabling and a like equipped TV and receiver, I may not bother with a software DVD player.
I assume that Matrox does a better job with it's TV OUT S-video.
I always passed on ATI in the past due to a continuing bad reputation for "first-rate hardware, third-rate drivers/support" but it runs OK so far ... I installed the 9700 Pro with the current drivers and Control Panel software from their site in case there was anything goofy with same from their install CD.
nVidia I ignore as I'm almost always using 2D. I do little gaming though I may do more in the future.

Happy trails,

[chaoliang]

Thank you very much, fleabus2! Honestly speaking I feel quite relieved after reading your kind response. It confirms that the top products of new generation ATI cards can truely be considered as alternatives to Matrox in 2D. It was always my concern, that the 2D quality of ATI cards has still not fully reached the level of Matrox. This also confirms the signal quality comparison of video cards done by TechChanel.

[Indiana]

In any case be sure NOT to get a Radeon8500 if you really care about 2D quality on highend CRTs in high resolutions (16x12@85Hz and up).
The original Radeon does quite fine here, the R9700 built-by-ATI is maybe even slightly better - but the R8500 is a bit behind which might be somewhat annoying to anyone who's picky (it was annoying enough to me that I only used 1280x1024 on the R8500 on my 22" Vision Master Pro510).

Another thing to be aware of is that the 2D of 3rd party manufacturers often doesn't match the BBA cards.

[Reckless]

I (as IMO anyone else) would be stupid to simply ignore Matrox (or any company for that matter) cause they botched a product (well, pretty much everything released since the G400 Max....).

It's not hugely likely that they'll ever return from where they are - self excile in the OEM/business domain - but maybe P2 will be enough of a product to stir the emotions once more? In my main machine I've not owned a non Matrox card ever. 2nd machines and systems I've built have had a couple of Matrox cards but the majority have been perfomance and cost constrained so low-mid range nVidia's usually find their way in. Quality wise, I've not found anything to be on par with my G400Max - latest system included a GF4/4200 which I thought were supposed to be better!

I didn't pay up £337 for a retail Parhelia when I couldn't see any benefit to TH, the jury was out on FAA anf performance was obviously good enough for now + 6 months but would most likely struggle mid next year which is too early in life for the card price. I think the lack of a full DX9 implementation also disinterested me even though titles wouldn't use this for at least a year I guess.

[chaoliang]

Originally posted by Indiana
In any case be sure NOT to get a Radeon8500 if you really care about 2D quality on highend CRTs in high resolutions (16x12@85Hz and up).
The original Radeon does quite fine here, the R9700 built-by-ATI is maybe even slightly better - but the R8500 is a bit behind which might be somewhat annoying to anyone who's picky (it was annoying enough to me that I only used 1280x1024 on the R8500 on my 22" Vision Master Pro510).

Another thing to be aware of is that the 2D of 3rd party manufacturers often doesn't match the BBA cards.

Thanks for the tip! What are BBA cards by the way?

[Novdid]

If you look further down on this page you'll see what I think about the 9700 2d.

Well it was a looong time ago I used a M board, but the 2d in my opinion sits somewhere between the Radeon 7500(the same quality as the original Radeon) and the G400. I think the 2d is very acceptable, atleast on the first head, haven't tried out the second head yet though. I have another HQ 19" here so I'm more or less ready to test out the W2K dualscreen capabilities(yes, it's supposed to support individual resolutions in 2K). Note that I got a BBA 9700Pro, some other boards manufactured by others than ATI, Sapphire and Hercules may have an output of lesser quality .

http://forums.murc.ws/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37790&perpage=20&pagenumber=3

[Pace]

BBA - Built By ATi

[Indiana]

BBA = Built by ATI cards.
Especially PowerColor have made very bad ATI cards in the past (as well as very bad Nvidia and Kyro ones if you count the posts on problems with these cards on the respective boards), so I would definitely stay clear of them.
Hercules had decent quality in the past and the Sapphire boards are said to be identical to the ATI cards if you cannot get an original ATI one.

[Chrono_Wanderer]

somewhere i read sapphire cards are not as good as the the BBA cards in terms of 2D. But probably that's just me though. But worse is i also heard sapphire manufacteur BBA cards... okay i will stop... making too many rediculus comments...

anyways my 8500 is WORSE than my G550 in 2D. That's for sure. 8500 is the first non-Matrox card i have brought.

Edit: Keep mixing ATI with Matrox up i meant to say "8500 is the first non-MATROX card, not non-ATI"

[chaoliang]

Is 9700Pro better than Voodoo3 in 2D? (Voodoo3 is not that good as my old G200)

[Indiana]

Originally posted by Chrono_Wanderer
But worse is i also heard sapphire manufacteur BBA cards...

This seems to be correct, Sapphire is producing cards for ATI, thus the Sapphire cards should be the same as original ATI ones.
And as said before, the R8500 did not really have outstanding 2D...

[K6-III]

As I understood it, MSI was also making BBA cards...

[R@nkor]

I voted #3.

I had the Mystique G200, Millenium G400 OEM.

Right now I'm running the Millenium G450.

For what I do at home regarding work, the G450 fits the bill w/c is multi-display with unwavering iq. My only gripe is the lower ramdac on the secondary output.

Unless this G450 goes south, I'm not purchasing a replacement.

For gaming, unfortunately, I've turned to nVidia's GF4 Ti4400. Their iq does not hold a candle to any of what Matrox or even ATI has. But I spend more time behind the G450.

A shame of what's going on at Matrox. It would be sad to see them go the way of the dodo.

[CHHAS]

No.3 I don't play enough 3D games for Parhelia to be worth it, so I'm running a G450 at the moment. I also have a G400 and an old Mystique PCI.