Best 2D video card?

[elkinm]

I am looking for a dual head video card to run 2 large displays at 1920x1200 (24 inch widescreen) each on the desktop for 1920x2400 total.

The 3D graphics is not a real concern, but I will have many many open windows and I want them to draw fast and absolutely no slow draw where I move away a window and get white leftovers until it has time to redraw.

I may possibly put 2 cards in one box and run 4 displays total, just in case that is important.

Cost is not an issue just as long as it is worth it and am sure that very expensive graphics is not.

I am thinking ATI FireGL or Quadro assuming they are any better then the mainstream versions.

Also, my first monitor choice is the Dell 2407WFP but the full HD compliance means absolutely nothing to me so if the 2405 or other displays are better, but with less features, I would prefer those.

Thanks
elkinm.

 

[Lord Banshee]

everything i've heard is that "Matrox" has the best dual monitor support and 2D quaility.

for example:
http://www.matrox.com/mga/workstation/cre_pro/products/apve/home.cfm

but i just did a quick price quote, and it seems that they are pretty expensive, but seeing that you are Eyeing the FireGL's and QUadros and are getting two Dell 24"s that might not be an issue.

 

[elkinm]

Thanks, Matrox are good. Just wondering how the 128 MBs stacks up, even if only for 2D. Any good 2D reviews?

The price is not that bad, some of our systems were using Matrox quad-head for about a thousand each which really aren't worth it.

Will keep looking for more details.

 

[Ayah]

Matrox has some lower powered cards that you can get.
You could easily get by with 64MB of video memory.

Personally, I think you should just get a normal graphics card, somewhere in the midrange.

 

[postmortemIA]

you want dual DVI link capable card, not some VGA from '99.

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Just wanted to add that two 24" 1920x1200 LCDs next to each other = 3840x1200, not 1920x2400...unless you were talking about portrait mode.

 

[elkinm]

Originally posted by: Ayah
Matrox has some lower powered cards that you can get.
You could easily get by with 64MB of video memory.

Personally, I think you should just get a normal graphics card, somewhere in the midrange.

I have some Matrox P650s with 64 MB which are step up from the 450 and it is slow. I updated all the drivers and it gets from bad to worse.

A FireGL v3100 or Quadro NVS 280 we have is much better, but that is with 2 screens at only 1280x1024 but again these are bottom end of these cards.

I am intending to use them in portrait mode for the 1920x2400 resolution.

I don't care to much for 3D performance or graphics processing performance like FireGL are meant for. Just something to show exactly what should be on the screen without delay, and dual DVI is probably a must for this resolution. If a mainstream midrange card like a 6800-7600 or X800 or otherwise is enough, I have no problems with it but I don't want problems with it.

Thanks again

 

[Penguisher]

PCI-E card = XFX 6800XT: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814150130
AGP 8x = XFX 6800XT : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814150163.
Just my recommendation.

 

[Lord Banshee]

Well if you want to upgrade to vista i would say get a ATI 18xx or better card.

My reasons are
1) There was once a review comparing DVI signal quality to Nvidia's Signal Quality during the X8xx and 68xx series of the two and Nvidia had some very bad results. The conclusion was that ATI cards had better quality control of the IC components on their cards, which it seemed Nvidia lacked. I have yet to see a review about the 7x00 series but unless something has changed in the way Nvidia does business i would rather go with ATI if i go professional 2D work.

ATI also has been known for having the better of the two 2D quality.

2) The Matrox will not run the Aero Glass Interface if you decide to upgrade to Vista, as it isn't 100% dx9.