Tweet
Good day! I have somewhat of an odd question I guess... are there many people here that run very high resolutions for whatever reason that can say something about the 2D quality difference between Matrox and NVidia?
I was a matrox user for a very long time before the need for polygon processing came in, but I'm still curious as to where they stand. I do 3d visualization for work and I've recently purchased another computer and I have the PNY Quadro FX3000 card in it. I also bought the Sony GDM-FW900 monitor (which seems to be very controversial, but works very well for me luckily) and I'm able to run a maximum of 2368 x 1536 @76Hz (latest 52.16 forceware with forced quadro install + powerstrip), and at that resolution even 8 point text is flawlessly clear with the quadro. It's honestly hard to imagine it being any clearer, which brings me to my question -- has anyone tried this with the Parhelia + some hi-res monitor? My guess is that the parhelia and the fx3000 are extremely close in 2D quality.. I never expected this resolution to be usable, so this is a very positive surprise for me.
Unfortunately I do mostly 3D work, so the HR256 Parhelia wouldn't quite work for me, but the question is, would it really be superior to the fx3000 in 2D quality? Price-wise, the fx3000 is $500 cheaper, and you get excellent 3D performance also. And it supports the 3840x2400 resolution as well. The biggest advantage is that's PCI I guess, but does that make it worth it? I suppose it depends on what you do... still...
PS: For those curious, that resolution literally maxes out the monitor, as I had to push it in 8px increments until the monitor would not accept it. I did have a good reason for it though, since this monitor is in 16:10 aspect ratio, 2304x1440 is what I started with, but when you use 2304x1536, the aspect ratio is more like at 16:10.65 which gives you some distortion... that's why I pushed the horiz. res as high up as possible, that being 2368 for this monitor.
I'm sorry if some of these questions have already been answered, I am new to this forum and I did a quick search before making this post.. Thanks for reading!
Nick
I was a matrox user for a very long time before the need for polygon processing came in, but I'm still curious as to where they stand. I do 3d visualization for work and I've recently purchased another computer and I have the PNY Quadro FX3000 card in it. I also bought the Sony GDM-FW900 monitor (which seems to be very controversial, but works very well for me luckily) and I'm able to run a maximum of 2368 x 1536 @76Hz (latest 52.16 forceware with forced quadro install + powerstrip), and at that resolution even 8 point text is flawlessly clear with the quadro. It's honestly hard to imagine it being any clearer, which brings me to my question -- has anyone tried this with the Parhelia + some hi-res monitor? My guess is that the parhelia and the fx3000 are extremely close in 2D quality.. I never expected this resolution to be usable, so this is a very positive surprise for me.
Unfortunately I do mostly 3D work, so the HR256 Parhelia wouldn't quite work for me, but the question is, would it really be superior to the fx3000 in 2D quality? Price-wise, the fx3000 is $500 cheaper, and you get excellent 3D performance also. And it supports the 3840x2400 resolution as well. The biggest advantage is that's PCI I guess, but does that make it worth it? I suppose it depends on what you do... still...
PS: For those curious, that resolution literally maxes out the monitor, as I had to push it in 8px increments until the monitor would not accept it. I did have a good reason for it though, since this monitor is in 16:10 aspect ratio, 2304x1440 is what I started with, but when you use 2304x1536, the aspect ratio is more like at 16:10.65 which gives you some distortion... that's why I pushed the horiz. res as high up as possible, that being 2368 for this monitor.
I'm sorry if some of these questions have already been answered, I am new to this forum and I did a quick search before making this post.. Thanks for reading!
Nick
Comment