Matrox Millenium G400 16Mb single head for $19.00 +shippment at computergeeks

[sterling]

I was thinking about buying Matrox or ATI 9000 pro. The Matrox uses a 350 ramdac. The New ATI 9000 uses two 400 ramdacs. Do you guys think the 2d for working all day will still be better than the ati 9000? if so by how much?

 

[beerbong]

what kind of monitor you have and how big? what resolution you run. If you run high resolutions get the matrox, if you run dvi at high resolution get the matrox parhelia... if you resolutions arent very high and you dont game very much at all get the matrox, but it will not be as big of a deal, if resoluition isnt high. matrox also has the best dual head support by far.

 

[adlep]

?
Suprized to see my thread still running....
The cards I bought are already installed....
Neither has a problem...
Go elcheapo Matrox..

 

[mithrandir2001]

I bought a G200 off of eBay for my office PC because the integrated Intel video chip is just poor, poor at 1600x1200. The Matrox does a very fine job. The W2K drivers I have are from this year even though the card is several years old.

 

[sterling]

Actually, I use a 15 inch monitor running at 800x600 will any difference between the Matrox and Ati show up?

 

[flenn]

.

I was thinking about buying Matrox or ATI 9000 pro. The Matrox uses a 350 ramdac. The New ATI 9000 uses two 400 ramdacs. Do you guys think the 2d for working all day will still be better than the ati 9000? if so by how much?

If the ATI's ramdac is 400Mhz, it should outperform the G400 handily as the resolution goes up. Whether you have a monitor that would even take advantage of that, I don't know. The ramdac on the vanilla G400 is only 300Mhz, and the Max is 360Mhz. Of course a fast ramdac only gets you lots of colors and a fast refresh rate at high resolutions, quality is another issue. But based on my experience with the Matrox G200, G400, ATI Radeon DDR, Radeon 7500 and Radeon 8500, I'd have to assume that the 9000 will be every bit as good as the G400. If it's like the other Radeons, you'd be hard pressed to tell the two apart. The color may be a little more vibrant on the G400, but text and image clarity are equal in the graphic design, CAD, and publishing apps I run (at 1280 and sometimes 1600 res). If you're just concerned with 2D you may as well save the money and go with the G400 assuming it'll run the resolution/refresh that you want. If you think you're going to play a few games, there's no question, go ATI. I should also mention that I was very pleased with the G400 drivers for the graphic apps that I used. The ATI cards still have little annoying issues like occasionally making me have to do a screen redraw after a pan or edit. This was never a problem with the Matrox cards.

EDIT: Just saw your last post and would be willing to bet that you couldn't tell the two cards apart on your monitor. Running 800x600 at 32 bit color requires something like 50Mhz -75Mhz ramdac speed. Both these cards offer much more potential than you'll be using.

 

[sterling]

Thanks for the reply flenn

 

[ElDonAntonio]

Yeah but what filters are used on the Radeon 9000?

 

[RDMustang1]

I use two G450 dual heads in my development box. SOO much clearer than all my other video cards and 4 monitors is always nice 🙂

My G450 32mb works fine for most games (plays everything I've thrown at it including ut2k3, gta3, and much more)... only thing it didn't run was doom3 but that wasn't a surprise...