G400 or MX for DualHead?

[Zorba]

I want to run dual monitors with a 15" and a 17". I want to run 1280x1024 @ 75Hz on the 17, and 1024x768 @ 75 on the 15. Can I do this with either of the cards, or do I need two different cards?

The system this is going on is a K6-2 400@500, on a DFI Mobo with a VIA MVP3. I don't play a lot of games, so I don't really care too much about framerate. Which do you think I'd be happier with?

Also if nither can do different rez. to different monitors, should get a G400 or MX single head?

 

[Celstar]

OS?

I think in win98 you can set different resolutions with the g400. In win2k, both monitors uses the the same resolution... but that could be due to lack of driver maturity.

 

[Zorba]

Winblows 98FE

 

[Rand]

The G400 has a better dual head implementation and better 2D graphics in high resolution, the MX is a much faster card in 3D though.

 

[Napalm381]

In Win98SE you CAN run 2 different resolutions at the same time on the G400, no problem.

 

[Zorba]

Okay, if I go with Matrox, should get the 400 or 450? (I don't really know the difference).

 

[Czar]

Matrox has been over a year now making drivers supporting dualhead, nVidia has been doing drivers for dualhead for few months, and still not right. Go with Matrox.

 

[Zorba]

Okay, I think I will definitely go with Matrox, thanks for your help.

 

[Ulysses]

Check out AnandTech's review or Ace's. I use the G450.

 

[SUOrangeman]

FYI, you *should* be able to run different resolutions with GeForce2MX TwinView. I *might* be wrong, having not tried it myself.

But, I am under the impression that different resolutions in Win9x is available.

-SUO

 

[TheOverlord]

ive read that the g400 max is actually faster than the 450...can someone confirm this?

 

[UsandThem]

G450 is slower than the G400 Max. It is about the same as the original G400.

The G450 is the same chip, but is a smaller die size. .18 instead of .25 I believe. The only effect this has is it lowers the G450's prices as the can get more chips per wafer.

Kind of a bad move IMHO.

This could be a very bad year for Matrox.

Tomshardware did a review on it.

 

[Noriaki]

The G450 is not quite just a shrunk down G400 die, close but it adds a thing or two. The G450 is slower than the G400 max in 3d performance though.

If you want dual head the G450 is the way to go it has dual integrated RAMDACs (and a TDMS transmitter if you care), the G400 has only a single integrated RAMDAC the 2nd is outside and slower than the first (both have 2 RAMDACs, so you can run both displays at different resolutions, the G450's second one is just better than the G400s second one).

If you care about 3D performance the GF2MX is much faster, but for 2D quality and DualHead functionality I'd go with a G450.

 

[kombatmud]

The G450 is a much better choice since you don't care about 3d framerates. The G450 is about the same speed as the original G400, but costs less, and has a second RAMDAC on it, so that you can get higher resolutions on the second monitor. The 2D quality on the G400 and G450 are far superior to the GF2 MX. IMO, Matrox did not make a bad move at all with the G450, which is designed for business users, and follows Matrox's usual patern for releasing products.