Matrox g450; still good 2d or obsolete?

[WaynesWorld]

I got too much work to do,so therefore I don't game(yea,I know, I need to get a life,&quot;do you know where I can download one?&quot.Sorry for the old joke, I just think it's a great one,but anyway,I need/want to give my eyes a break,but I can't afford a LCD.For 2d business apps, what do you folks think about g450? Also, is dreamweaver and/or frontpage considered 2d or 3d?I also plan on using Visio.Question is g450 still considered better than nvidia (for 2d)or has nvidia caught up to,or surpassed matrox?Also, dual monitor support really isn't that important to me,it's the clarity that I'm &quot;looking&quot; for<grin ,pun intended>

 

[BFG10K]

The general consensus is that Matrox is still the best for 2D, although the Radeon and the Voodoo4/5 have very highly rated 2D image quality as well.

 

[Rand]

If all your concerned about then Matrox is still the best you can buy for sheer 2D visual quality. NVidia cards are generally considered to have rather poor 2D quality, the Kyro is average, the Radeon is quite nice, and the V3/4/5 is a touch better then the Radeon IMHO. But the Matrox G400/450 still reigns at the top.

BTW, Dreamweaver, FrontPage and Visio, are all 2D.

 

[Archknight]

No, no one had pass the matrox yet, especially not Nvidia. The radeon come close but not reach there yet. So matrox still the best in 2D.

I think matrox is going to release a version without dual head.

 

[WaynesWorld]

Thanks all, for the info.Comp USA has ATI all-in-wonder 16mb for $50 after rebates.Now I prefer the matrox for me,but my kid would like to have her wedding videos digitized and captured.Camcorder we used was analog.I've been told by CompUsa sales guy that analog films thru the ATI will appear &quot;grainy&quot;.How is the 2d on ATI? And does ATI work well enough on win2000?

 

[Clevor]

I have a Matrox G400 32 DH, and have also seen a G450. They look about the same. Supposedly the G400, particularly the MAX, is acceptable for 3D gaming, but not in my experience.

I've done extensive comparisons with a Voodoo5, Radeon, and Geforce2. The Matrox primarily shines at 1600x1200. Matrox has obviously taken great pains to be sure it excels here. But at lower resolutions, it still has fuzzy text in MS Word on a white background.

I am currently running the G400 in the AGP slot and a Voodoo5 in the PCI. You can hardly tell the difference in 2D. The Matrox might be a tad sharper and with more contrast, but for all intents and purposes, you can't really tell the difference except at 1600x1200.

The Voodoo5 is a remarkable card, when you consider it has adequate horsepower to play all the current 3D games, and it has workable FSAA! Nothing come closes to it so far, and it's not likely anything will, for the foreseeable future.

As for the Geforce3, I heard bad things about the 2D. Improving on the Geforce2 isn't doing much.

 

[nicowju]

The Matrox is incredible at higher resolutions. I used to have a G200 for dual monitor, and the output on the second 22&quot; monitor was incredible at high res. So the G450 can only be better (hopefully)

 

[Clevor]

Nope! I also own a G450 PCI, and when I had it in my computer, it looked exactly the same as the G400 at 1600x1200. 'Course the PCI card only has 16 MB ram, so it can't hit as high a resolution or refresh rate. And the G450 absolutely will not run 3D games; you're talking 2-9 fps here.

Anybody who replaces a G400 with a G450 is wasting their money.

 

[Clevor]

Sorry, I misunderstood your post. Yes, the G450 is better than the G200, but not the G400. Here in Japan, the G400 32 DH, particularly the MAX version (which I also own - retail box!), has achieved cult status. One place was selling 12 refurbished G400 32 DH cards for $79 and they were gone in a day.