• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Are these fancy new boards any good with high-end 2D?

C

CaptainNemo

Junior Member
Hi,
I was wondering if there is anybody who has some experience with any of newly released 3D boards when it comes to performances in 2D applications (for instance Photoshop or Illustrator). Good behavior when running Adobe?s progs is most important to me, but I like playing games too 😉 . I would like to know as well, if any of you stumbled on a board with dual display solution with possibility of adjusting different refresh rate and resolution for each monitor (otherwise, when you have like 21? and 17? monitor, the only way is two cards). I would appreciate any tip

Cheers,

 
For fast photoshopping, a fast CPu and lotsa mem is your primary concern.
What should concern you regarding the 2D is quality, and all the cards are pretty much equal now(V5, GTS, G400).
 
G400/G400 Max is your only option Captain. That's not a bad thing, since the G400 is the best 2D card out there.
 
Heard the GeForce2 MX and new Matrox G450 will be the best 2d cards on the market both have dual moniter support also and are relatively cheap.
 
If you've never seen an Elsa Geforce, that may be the case, the Origina lTNT cards were sloppy, and even the ultra was nothign to brag about, but Geforce cards look nice and crisp.
 


<< Geforce cards look nice and crisp >>



...Right. Except when you're running 1920x1440 on a 21&quot; monitor, nothing comes close to a g400.
 
I own an SDR Geforce and a CLAP2 and neither of them comes even close to my old G200. I've never used an Elsa Quadro, but since it is aimed at professionals and it costs $600, it better have real nice image quality, though I think the G400Max would still look quite a bit better.
 
I wish Matrox would just get some solid 3D gaming support.

Oh yeah, my GTS looks great (at 1024x768).

There is just no easy answer...

jeremy
 
First, thank you very much for your suggestions; second, just as I thought, outstanding 3D performance doesn?t come with analogous 2D quality. It looks like getting both 2D and 3D performance (on truly high level) is not possible. Well, I wish I could have enough cash to build two systems?

 
A few possibilities...

First, if you're doing 2D work, what you could do is get a G200 PCI and use that on a secondary display. Pretty much all cards do well up to 1024x768. After that is where the Matrox line surpasses the others. However, not all G200's will do 32bit above 1280x1024. I've heard that dissimilar monitors under Win98 force it to default to the lowest common denominator in terms of refreshrate/colordepth. I don't know for sure, as I use twin 19&quot; Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 900u monitors. I do run my G400 with different refresh rates on both outputs to the monitors. One is at 85hz, the other at 75hz (even though it is stated in the specs that the second head can't go over 60hz at 1280x1024, it does 75 just fine).

Second, Matrox is rumored to be getting ready to release their next card, the G800 (working title). New rumors indicate 3D performance on-par with the GeForce, if not the GeForce 2. Just be patient.

Third, go with digital LCD panels instead of CRTs and get a GeForce MX w/ both outputs setup for digital output. It performs as well as a GeForce SDR, but would give you dual displays.

Just my $0.02
 
Pretty much all reviews have put the GF's and GTS' almost on par with the G400's in terms of 2D quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top