• 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.

Best 2D video card for 1280x1024?

D

dejansen

Banned
I'm shopping around for a good 2D video card and am wondering what other people are impressed with. I have a 17 inch LCD with a native resolution of 1280x1024. I would really appreciate any recommendations.

Thanks,
David
 
are you planning to run any 3d apps? (eg games) or just use windows applications?

what is your budget?
 
Click the link and read the text to find out whats best for you. 🙂

EDIT.. The G-450 should be plenty if your not running any heavy 3D.
 
Yeah, I did. Thanks for the recommendation. Looks good. Any others?

I use a Radeon VE at work with the same size monitor and it works well and costs about half but if the Matrox Millenium works better, I'll snap it up.

Anyone have any comments about the Radeon?

Thanks a lot!

David
 
at 1280x1024 theres no concern over VGA low voltage problems. the monitor will be drawing pretty much exactly as the ramdac outputted. and yes, it does affect 3D too so i don't know why people think that the low-voltage problem is a 2D only thing. probably because they don't read text in 3D.
 
Go with Matrox G450 or G550 if you want just great 2d.
If you will game and want acceptable 3d as well, go with ATI(ATI has good 2d but is not as good as Matrox).
If games are more important, go with nVidia or maybe check out the new GF4 for 2d quality too cause that may be another option as well considering they have "supposedly" vamped up 2d support.

If multi-monitor is another concern, it's also in the same order as above, Matrox, ATI, and then nVidia.
 
if you can find a voodoo5 card for cheap that'll do that tick as well. 🙂 plus the 3D gaming is a little better than the Matrox.
2D is amazing...


--Scsi
 
I remember reading a review somewhere a while ago comparing 2D speed between different video cards. I know that they showed that at higher resolutions (1600x1200+) the Radeon was significantly faster than the Matrox card. I am sorry I can't provide any more information than this like as to why this is--I know the review had an explanation so hopefully someone can fill this info in.

But since you are running at more modest resolutions this shouldn't be a problem. But you should know that the Radeon does have very good 2D quality and though I have never seen two side by side, I would bet that most people couldn't tell it apart from a Matrox card. And with the Radeon you get the added bonus of halfway decent 3D speed which the Matrox cards really lack.
 
Thanks for the input. I don't think I would notice any difference in speed and I don't game. I'm only interested in the cleanest 2D output. Hopefully, the Matrox is a little better than the Radeon in this respect since I've already ordered the Matrox from newegg... 🙂
 
Don't worry - I don't think you will be dissapointed. Matrox has great image quality (as does Ati) but yeah, Matrox should come out on top between the two of them.
 
At 1280x1024 there shouldn't be much performance differences, as long as you stay away from older cards based on S3 or Kyro chipsets. Anything from Matrox from the G400 and newer series, 3dfx Voodoo3 or newer, nVidia GeForce or newer and ATI Radeon or newer will provided just about the same video performance. Image quality is another matter though, but again, at 1280x1024 I don't think there'll be a discernible difference unless you're doing a side by side comparison
 
use dvi if possible
otherwise matrox :-]
i never realized how good their 2d was until i tried a bunch of cards on teh analog input on my lcd
this 6(?) year old matrox millenium was better than any other card i had lying around.
 
Thanks Fishtank, I found the article on Firingsquad. It was comparing a AIW Radeon to the G450. It showed that at resolutions 1600x1200+ there was a significant performance delta between the two cards. The Radeon was much faster as benchmarked not only in video situations but even in OfficeBench 2001. They attributed this to the much higher bandwidth available to the Radeon.

The review can be read here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top