• 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.

G450 vs. GeForce 2 MX

I

IntelConvert

Senior member
I'm building a PC (O/S is Win2K) that will be used just for image-editing (Paint Shop Pro) and business apps.(MS Office). So I was just about to buy a G450 when I read a recent article by TomsHardware saying:

<<...the Millennium G450 can only be characterized as competitive if the Dual Head Feature comes onto the scene. If you don't care about that, the new Matrox card is either too slow or far too expensive - a GeForce 2 MX board would then be the better choice.>>

Is there anyone out there who thinks that a G450 still makes better sense than an MX for my needs, considering that I'm just going to be using a single monitor? Or is the MX the smarter buy (like Tom suggests)?

 
The image quality on the Matrox wins hands down compared to the MX's. I've own both a Geforce MX and a G400 MAX, which should be the same as the G450 2-D wise, and I can tell you just how much better the Matrox card is. Get the Matrox if you don't play any games; your eyes will thank you!

 
If you are only going to be using one monitor then what do you need the G450 for? You should just go for the single head G400 card. They have the best 2d quality, so I've heard, and I'm sure the single head costs much less than the dual head card. If you are not going to be using any 3d games/apps then what do you need an MX card for?
 
<<If you are only going to be using one monitor then what do you need the G450 for? You should just go for the single head G400 card>>

I was under the impression that the G450's primary RAMDAC frequency was higher than the G400's RAMDAC, which if true, would translate into better images.
 
i had a geforce2 mx and my eyes started to revolt... ahhaa, then i got a g400 max and my eyes almost cried when i first saw the difference... hahaa
its worth it for ur eyes! 20/20 vision is rare nowadays, and i intend to keep it...
 
Ok you guys have convinced me to go with my original feelings and get a Matrox G450/400.

Do you think that the 16MB version is all that I need?
 
Great - looks like I can get a 16MB G450 for about $75. That leaves me some $$ left over that I'll add to my monitor budget and get a really good 19&quot; 😉
 
Funny, after starting this thread yesterday, I later saw Anand's Web-News item about x-bit labs Matrox G400/G450 review.


Not so funny, is that as I interpret x-bit's review (and benchmarks), they seem to indicate that the GeForce2 MX is the better 2D choce!!!

So now I'm really confused. Any observations would be appreciated. 😕
 
What resolutions are you expecting to run your machine at? Anything >than 1280*1024 and the G450 should give you the better picture quality. As for 2d, most new cards on the market will run apps at a rate fast enough to suit anyone. Only consider the G400/G450 if you dont expect to become an industrial gamer. That said it is quite capable of 800*600 and the quality is good.


regards MD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top