To buy a Matrox or not?

[Kurt]

@Whirl-Secret: when you compare a Radeon to another card, you have to name the brand (same with NV).

Comparing a Powercolor Radeon to a P or a Sapphire Radeon to a P is NOT the same thing. The IQ on the Powercolor will s*ck while the one on the Sapphire will be extremely good (slighly less or equal to the P) -especially if it's a higher end model.

I'm using a Saphhire 9800Pro Ultimate (Zalman heatpipe) on an Eizo T965 21" CRT and it's absolutely fine at 1600*1200@85Hz. I've used Asus or CP or Sparkle or others at lower resolutions and they certainly weren't as sharp.

My P750 is connected to 2 Sony SDM-S93B 19" LCDs running at 1280*1024 throught the DB15 connector (Sony...can't even put a DVI connector on a 800+ EUR monitor...) and it looks just great. Maybe if the screens had DVI I could compare various cards to the P...

What I can say though, is that an Asus 9200SE doesn't look as good as the P -even with DVI- on an Acer AL922 19" LCD. But it sure is close...

[JerryMouse]

A number of interesting issues have been raised here along with a variety of opinions offered, and I appreciate all.

Does anyone have an opinion on MSI's Radeon cards? I've noticed that reviewers tend to comment that MSI cards run quiet, like Sapphire cards. That's appealing to me.

At any rate, I have a large home office, and most of my old PCs are still here, as I like to tinker with them. I even still have my first DOS box. I've been thinking that instead of trying to make my main PC do everything I want, I could simply make it a dedicated 2D workstation. Then, I also have an Athlon-based PC circa 2001 that needs some work, but I could fix it up and dedicate it to gaming. (I wouldn't mind having a dedicated, low-cost audio workstation; a dedicated Linux box; and an HTPC, but those are stories for another thread. )

So, for my 2D workstation, I have a P750 available to me via a friend that I can use for testing purposes. (I've only seen it in action on a CRT, not an LCD.) In addition, I think I'll get a quality Radeon card and see what I think of its 2D performance. If dissatisfied with it and/or the P750, I can always try a Parhelia 8x.

I think I currently have monitors that were very good when I bought them in 2002. My LCD is a 17" NEC 1760NX, hooked up to the DVI port on my video card, native resolution 1280 x 1024 @ 60 Hz; and my CRT is a Samsung Syncmaster 900NF, 19" flatscreen that I run at 1600 x 1200 @ 85 Hz. We all know the merits and flaws of LCDs and CRTs. In order to free up desk space and to reduce eyestrain, I'll probably move to a dual DVI LCD setup. Despite being a bit pricey, I'll probably spring for a new LCD with a native resolution of 1600 x 1200. Since good LCDs provide clearer, sharper images than CRTs, I may not notice much difference between a Matrox card and a one with an ATI or NV chipset, as has been suggested by others here. But we'll see.

Despite some of the problems noted with Matrox, I still remain excited to try the P750 and maybe a Parhelia in my own setup at home.

Leech: Thanks for the offer on the P4x, but I'll pass for now.

Thanks again everyone!
-- Jerry

[Whirl-Secret]

Kurt:

come to think of it, it was a Powercolour Radeon 9700 Apologies to ATI fanboys, however the point is still there, iirc the powercolour was the only one available from the trustworthy & cheap online stores here in the UK at the time.

[Kurt]

[DualMonitors]

similar issues: need 2 dvi for 2 LCD w/diff resolutions, questions...

this is very useful for me but i still have some questions. similar situation, dell dimensions 8200, 2.26ghz, 1.5gb ram, current video card is the one that came with the dell: nvidia Ti4200 64mb, only one dvi and one vga. my goal is to connect my 21.3" samsung 213T LCD and mky 19" NEC 1920NX LCD at different resolutions via dvi to my future/new video card.

tried one: asus V9520 Video Suite, worked for a few hours, black screen flashed more and more often after around 10 hours, then basically all black screen. returned it. while it worked, the two dvi outputs were beautiful.

i simply cannot understand how a "modern" and fast video card by nvidia or ati can possibly produce worse 2D image quality than the P650, which i'm seriously considering? i understand that the others are meant for gaming and the P650 is for more "professional" 2D work, but with all the processing speed, power, ram, and whatever, how can it be worse in 2D?? my only speculation is that when P650 is designed specifically for 2D graphics work and reading and words and web work, then that's why it is superior in 2D.

my purpose is to do photoshop CS work on the 21.3" LCD and watch dvd tutorials on the 19" LCD, and other email/excel/word/websurfing. nothing strenuous for the card, but i'm interested in getting very very high quality for these uses.

there's no point in the P750 because i don't intend to use a tv with it, and it is identical to the P650 except for the fan.

it is just hard for me to "get" why everyone seems to say that for 2D graphics/word/reading uses, the P650 is that much more superior than a much faster, more current technology, more ram Nvidia or ATI.

does my confusion make sense? which card(s) would you gurus/gentlemen recommend for my use? please do remember that i only have 250 watt power supply from dell, and that heat dissapation is limited to whatever dell's fans are, which is relatively low cfm.

many thanks! i can also email you directly and vice versa, much more efficient. i guess we can trade emails via private messages? thanks again!

[Wombat]

Usually, when people are talking about 2D quality, they're talking about 2D signal via VGA, that is, an analog connection. The circuitry on the video card that produces the analog signal makes the difference.

If you're using a digital connection, then none of that makes a difference.

Hope that helps.

One question though, why are you doing Photoshop work on an LCD?

[DualMonitors]

similar issues: need 2 dvi for 2 LCD w/diff resolutions, questions...

this is very useful for me but i still have some questions. similar situation, dell dimensions 8200, 2.26ghz, 1.5gb ram, current video card is the one that came with the dell: nvidia Ti4200 64mb, only one dvi and one vga. my goal is to connect my 21.3" samsung 213T LCD and mky 19" NEC 1920NX LCD at different resolutions via dvi to my future/new video card.

tried one: asus V9520 Video Suite, worked for a few hours, black screen flashed more and more often after around 10 hours, then basically all black screen. returned it. while it worked, the two dvi outputs were beautiful.

i simply cannot understand how a "modern" and fast video card by nvidia or ati can possibly produce worse 2D image quality than the P650, which i'm seriously considering? i understand that the others are meant for gaming and the P650 is for more "professional" 2D work, but with all the processing speed, power, ram, and whatever, how can it be worse in 2D?? my only speculation is that when P650 is designed specifically for 2D graphics work and reading and words and web work, then that's why it is superior in 2D.

my purpose is to do photoshop CS work on the 21.3" LCD and watch dvd tutorials on the 19" LCD, and other email/excel/word/websurfing. nothing strenuous for the card, but i'm interested in getting very very high quality for these uses.

there's no point in the P750 because i don't intend to use a tv with it, and it is identical to the P650 except for the fan.

it is just hard for me to "get" why everyone seems to say that for 2D graphics/word/reading uses, the P650 is that much more superior than a much faster, more current technology, more ram Nvidia or ATI.

does my confusion make sense? which card(s) would you gurus/gentlemen recommend for my use? please do remember that i only have 250 watt power supply from dell, and that heat dissapation is limited to whatever dell's fans are, which is relatively low cfm.

many thanks! i can also email you directly and vice versa, much more efficient. i guess we can trade emails via private messages? thanks again!

[DualMonitors]

wombat: i don't follow

wombat: thanks for writing.

i don't follow. are you saying that there is no difference in dvi connected LCD monitors?? i can't believe that every video card out there has identical 2D quality when connected via dvi to LCD panels!

please correct my misunderstanding. thanks!

[leech]

@JerryMouse

Not a problem. Just looking for a buyer, so that I can one day upgrade to a New motherboard/CPU.

@Wombat.

That's what I'm thinking, a CRT is much better at displaying proper colors than an LCD is.

I have noticed one thing with my eVGA 6800 GT. If I have two monitors connected, the 2D quality isn't nearly as good (I get ghosting on both monitors, but if I have only one connected (either the VGA or the DVI to VGA connector) it looks great. And the TV-OUT isn't bad either. Raven Shield was pretty sweet on a 36" flat screen TV. But the 2D quality isn't anywhere near what my Parhelia has. Especially with the GlyphAA. I much prefer that to the Cleartype. And without either, text looks pretty nasty. (I know it was created for LCD's, but I like it.)

Leech

[Wombat]

Re: wombat: i don't follow

Originally posted by DualMonitors
wombat: thanks for writing.

i don't follow. are you saying that there is no difference in dvi connected LCD monitors?? i can't believe that every video card out there has identical 2D quality when connected via dvi to LCD panels!

Well, they do. Assuming the LCD is using digital input.

[JerryMouse]

leech wrote:

a CRT is much better at displaying proper colors than an LCD is.

Exactly. That's why if I move to a dual DVI-LCD setup, I'll still keep my CRT around.

Oh, and I hope you find a buyer for your card!
-- Jerry

[JerryMouse]

Actually, I find that better color depth and nuance are about the only advantages CRTs have over LCDs -- for me personally, anyway. Perhaps better response time in some apps, but I've never seen any ghosting on my current LCD.

The image clarity is so much better on an LCD, IMO. And my eyes suffer much less when viewing an LCD for hours. These are all known issues, of course.

When I really need to see accurate, rich color for graphics or photos, I'll use my CRT. Otherwise, I prefer my LCD.

-- Jerry

[Wombat]

Another thing is that LCDs really only look good at their native resolutions.

[Greebe]

The image clarity is so much better on an LCD, IMO.

If a crt monitor doesn't have refined edges it's time to move up to a better quality monitor.

And my eyes suffer much less when viewing an LCD for hours. These are all known issues, of course.

If you run the refresh rate to low ie <85hz for a given resolution, yes this will be a problem.

The only real disadvantage I see CRT's having is Moire and physical size.