Dell 2005fpw cheapie (not crappy) videocard?

[Peter]

Image corruption, I said that. This is entirely different to poor quality on a stable picture, like you would with a poor analog signal. Which is exactly why the IQ rumble you and Matrox are trying to drag into the DVI age is entirely pointless there.

You still fail to demonstrate that your praised Matrox card does anything any better than ATI's. You claimed that, remember? I recommended the ATi card on the basis that it will get the requested job done perfectly. Job done 100%, over and out. The rest was you splitting hairs trying to push the poor guy into spending twice as much into an inferior card.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Image corruption, I said that.

No, you didn't. Don't you have the sense to edit your own posts before you lie about what you stated in them?

Poor DVI signal quality doesn't even degrade image quality like poor analog does - you'll simply get no picture at all, or massive dropouts, not just blurriness or poor color reproduction.

Image dropouts or no picture at all- not seeing anything about image corruption.

Which is exactly why the IQ rumble you and Matrox are trying to drag into the DVI age is entirely pointless there.

Actually it isn't rumble, the term for it is signal jitter. Very, very basic stuff here.

You still fail to demonstrate that your praised Matrox card does anything any better than ATI's.

You made your claims, I crushed them- try and do it with mine. I figure this way you will have to do a little research and find out just how far behind nV and ATi are in terms of 2D output quality.

I recommended the ATi card on the basis that it will get the requested job done perfectly.

First and foremost you reccomended an ATi card because it was an ATi card and that is the brand you hold so dearly. If you want something that will simply 'get the job done' then any POS board with DVI will do it. The OP spent considerable money on an expensive display and you are saying he should drive it with a POS like the Saphire R9600? Wonkyturk spent a lot of money on a display- I would think that anyone with a shred of decency would be willing to reccomend a board that suits his needs best as listed.

Wonkyturk-

3. I deal heavily with Photoshop/Painter/etc (Though I don't think this reflects on the gfx card?)

Go check on forums dedicated to image editing what they think about MatroxP650 v R9600 for use with your monitor for your purposes. Matrox is a privately held company- owning stock in them isn't an option and I certainly wouldn't be picking up one of the boards I reccomended to you for myself as it suck horribly for gaming- but given the exacting criteria you listed it is the best solution at a reasonable price point. If you doubt who is telling the truth here simply look at the claims and then read the links provided.

 

[gac009]

after reading BenSkywalker and Peter's post and doing a little google search I vote 9600.

 

[blckgrffn]

No contest

Ben, I like your arguments, but for about 4x the price, I think that he is going to be more than happy with this.

Nat

 

[Peter]

I'm not commenting any further hair splitting until I've seen independently measured fact on "superior" Matrox DVI. You turned up zip so far.

Besides, marketing rumble is still rumble, even though there is an unrelated technical problem named jitter. Hold your blood pressure while trying to misquote me, it's beginning to look desperate.

 

[tuongo]

So lemme see if I understand everyone's inputs.

It sounds like everyone is saying if you want a fancy new widescreen monitor, you need a fancy new card.

edited:
oops, I'm a noob. My vid card is ATI RADEON9200SE 128MB DDR
I don't think it supports this res, and I hear it's a real strain on your system to do the widescreen res regardless. If I get the non-widescreen version I'm ok though, right?


640x480 200
800x600 200
1024x768 200
1152x864 200
1280x1024 160
1600x1200 120
1920x1080* 16:9 120
1920x1200 100
1920x1440 90
2048x1536 85

 

[Steve]

Non-widescreen may be able to run on your built-in graphics. Best bet is to look up the specs and see the supported modes.

For the record, I'm running a 2405FPW on a PCI 9100 via DVI, but just barely.

 

[Peter]

Tuongo, your 9200SE will do 1920x1200 or 1680x1050 for the widescreen Dells no problem; serving a single display at 160 MHz pixel clock isn't going to make it sweat. Just don't expect any miracles in 3D speed - but then again, if you did you wouldn't have a 9200SE to begin with 😀

 

[thraxes]

Another vote for 9600

 

[tuongo]

thanks, Peter.

All I play is Warcraft 3. I guess the widescreen would be good for watching TV/videos and doing spreadsheets and using other productivity software, but it sounds like it would crap up for WC3 (and probably Dungeon Siege II when it comes out).

 

[kmmatney]

Originally posted by: blckgrffn
No contest

Ben, I like your arguments, but for about 4x the price, I think that he is going to be more than happy with this.

Nat

:thumbsup:

 

[batmanuel]

I just want to add that I'm running a 2005FPW on a Sapphire X300 (the PCIe version of the vanilla 9600) and the image quality is flawless.

I also recently use a Sapphire 9600 on another build where the FX 5200 I had previously had used was not playing nice with a 1905FP on DVI (the monitor would often not get a signal when the computer was first booted up). With the 9600 these problems went away, and the image quality was also flawless.

You can argue the theoretical superiority of Matrox products all you want. In practice, however, the vanilla 9600/X300 is a great card for the majority of flat panel users who have no need for heavy 3D. They have great quality on DVI and they play really nice with Dell panels. The price Matrox is asking for that 64MB card is also simply outrageous, considering that you can easily get a 128MB X800 for less after rebates at the Egg now.

It is important to be buying DX9 compatible parts now anyway, since the new Avalon UI for Windows Vista will need DX9 if you want to run Aero Glass. Even if you don't upgrade to Vista, Avalon will be available for XP at some point in the next year also and will also likley need a DX9 part to run at its best.