Any PCI cards able to do 1200x1600 @ 85hz?

[Chu]

Hello, there is a chance I might be needing a PCI video card for dual display (GF2 Ti200 for gaming, PCI for 2d), and was wondering what the best 2D PCI card for image quality is. I have heard forever that matrox is the hands down best when it comes to 2d, but the last chipset they released with PCI support is the G200, which is fairly old. Meanwhile, both ATI, nVidia, and Voodoo have more recent chipsets with PCI offerings. Would I be better off grabbing an 8mb G200, or be looking at a PCI GF2MX or ATI Rage 128 if 2D quality was the only factor? Oh yeah, and it has to be able to do 1200x1600 at 85hz . . .

-Chu

 

[FreakyGuy]

ATI Radeon 32 DDR

Display modes: resolutions, colors
and maximum refresh rates (Hz)
Resolutions 256 colors 65K colors 16.7M colors (32bpp)
640x480 200 200 200
800x600 200 200 200
1024x768 200 200 200
1152x864 150 150 150
1280x1024 130 130 130
1600x1200 90 90 90
1920x1440 75 75 75
2048x1536 75 75 75
Resolution and refresh rates are subject to change.

 

[Chu]

Cool, thanks freakyguy, but any chance you know how the 2d image quality compares to the matrox G200?

-Chu

 

[CHHASmatroxuser]

Matrox G450 PCI

Merry Xmas

 

[Shalmanese]

No, no, get the G200 and then you can have 5 displays or even 9 running at the same time. IIRC, Windows only supports a maximum of 9 displays

 

[Chu]

Hrmm . . . is the quality on the G450 really that much better then the G200 though? The price difference is $50, which is quite a bit on my budget, and I have no room for 2 monitors on my desk (my current monitor has 2 inputs).

-Chu

 

[SpeedTester]

<< is the quality on the G450 really that much better then the G200 though? >>



I have both cards in two workstations and running at 1024x768 I cant really see a diffrence.
At higher resolutions though the g450 looks better plus its quite a bit faster.
FYI, I use them at work for Acad and Photoshop, Along with the normal stuff.

 

[duragezic]

You'd be fine with either the G200, G450, or Radeon 32 PCI. IMO, the G450 slightly edges out the Radeon, although even at 1600x1200, I don't find it to be that much of a difference. I've never seen a G200 in action before.

 

[BFG10K]

Any video card with a 300 MHz RAMDAC (or more) can manage that setting, regardless of its interface.

 

[Rand]

<< Any video card with a 300 MHz RAMDAC (or more) can manage that setting, regardless of its interface. >>



Providing it has enough RAM also. Of course just because the can do it doesnt mean they can do it 'well'.

 

[BFG10K]

8 MB is enough. Besides, it's unlikely that a sub-8 MB card will have a 300 MHz RAMDAC.

 

[Chu]

>>Any video card with a 300 MHz RAMDAC (or more) can manage that setting, regardless of its interface.

Hrmm . . . the G200 only has a 250MHz ramdac Anyoneout there know more about this card's proformance at 1200x1600 firsthand? I know it does support it, and the 8 meg to 16 meg upgrade is dirt cheap on ebay, but I don't know how much ram matters for 2d applications since I jumped from a Riva 128 /w 8 megs @ 800x600 to a Radeon /w 64 megs @ 1200x1600.

-Chu

 

[Rand]

<< >>Any video card with a 300 MHz RAMDAC (or more) can manage that setting, regardless of its interface.

Hrmm . . . the G200 only has a 250MHz ramdac Anyoneout there know more about this card's proformance at 1200x1600 firsthand? I know it does support it, and the 8 meg to 16 meg upgrade is dirt cheap on ebay, but I don't know how much ram matters for 2d applications since I jumped from a Riva 128 /w 8 megs @ 800x600 to a Radeon /w 64 megs @ 1200x1600.

-Chu >>



RAM matters very little in most 2D apps unless your doing 2D CAD/graphics editing work.
Personally, I'd put the 2D of the G200 as beingroughly equal to the Radeon series. A tiny bit below the V3/4/5, and clearly inferior to the Matrox G400/G450/G550.
It should be totally acceptable at 1600x1200 for most anybody, even on a high quality monitor the image should be quite good at 1600x1200.

If you intend to go any higher then 1600x1200, or your going to be sitting at the monitor and working on it consistently for 6+ hours straught then the differences between the G400/G450/G550 probably wouldnt be enough to justify the added cost assuming 2D is all that matters.

 

[BFG10K]

Hrmm . . . the G200 only has a 250MHz ramdac Anyoneout there know more about this card's proformance at 1200x1600 firsthand?

It'll probably be limited to 75 Hz at 1600 x 1200.

 

[Rand]

<< Hrmm . . . the G200 only has a 250MHz ramdac Anyoneout there know more about this card's proformance at 1200x1600 firsthand?

It'll probably be limited to 75 Hz at 1600 x 1200. >>



All iterations of the Matrox G200 can do an absolute minimum of 85Hz at 1600x1200, even the G200's that only have a 230MHz RAMDAC. The Milennium G200 can do up to 90Hz at 1600x1200.

Supposedly the G200MMS (support for up to 4monitors simultaneously!) can do more then 90Hz at 1600x1200, but I've never seen the card first hand so I have no idea whether that is accurate.

There is all the G200SE which has a 350MHz RAMDAC, and I've no idea about it's refresh rate abilities though undoubtedly it's far higher then 85Hz at 1600x1200

 

[Chu]

So, final call . . . PCI G200's go for about $20. PCI G450's go for about $80. They can both do 85hz @ 1200x1600. Is the quality difference at 1600x1200 really enough to justify the difference in price?

-Chu

 

[Rand]

<< So, final call . . . PCI G200's go for about $20. PCI G450's go for about $80. They can both do 85hz @ 1200x1600. Is the quality difference at 1600x1200 really enough to justify the difference in price?

-Chu >>



It's debateable. If it was me- then I would go for the G450. But then I tend to have very sensitive eyes, and sub-par 2D can give me a headache really easily, and I also work on my PC for long hours at a time.
From what I've seen most people don't seem to be as sensitive to 2D quality as I tend to be though, and likely wouldnt notice much difference between them.

If you often find yourself noticing slight differences in 2D and the slightest blurriness bothers you, then you might want to go with the G450. Or if you expect to be working at the PC for 6+ hours staight then the G450 would be better.

If you generally don't notice extremely slight blurriness, and can't easily see the differences between most cards, or if you only want the card for basic 2D use and won't be sitting at the PC for prolonged periods of time then the G200 should be more then adequate.
The majority of people probably would have a hard time seeing the difference between the two cards.