Question about 2D performance

[Chu]

I am currently using a monitor with 2 inputs, and I no longer have 2 computers here, so I am seriously looking at my options for adding a 2nd video card. Basically, I was trying to find the best 2D PCI card I could that could handle 1200x1600 @ 85 Hz. Well, after all the research I have done (a lot of it thanks to a previous thread in this forum), it looks like it has come down to the Matrox G200 and the Matrox G450 PCI.

Here's the deal though. If we assume for a second that the image quality is the same (and I think we've had this discussion before, the quality isn't the same, but they?re both better then a PCI Radeon, anyone disagreeing with this?), the price difference is HUGE. The G200 can be had for $25 shipped. The G450 starts at $95 + S&H.

Well, in trying to decide which one to get, I realized that I have absolutely no clue how to judge 2D performance, or even what features in Windows the video card effects. Is alpha blending handled by the processor or the graphics card? Someone warned that running 1600x1200 on cards below a certain ramdac speed was asking for trouble (in the previous thread), but the ramdac on the G200 is well below that, and it supports resolutions well past 1600x1200. The G200 has an optional memory upgrade, but does this matter at all for 2d? Also, for really simple stuff like just alt tabbing around windows, does the speed of the graphics card have anything to do with this, but the difference is just not noticeable with more recent video cards because they are so fast? Also, the G200 features hardware DVD decoding. Wouldn?t all DVD decoders look the same, or could the DVD decoding on the Radeon somehow be better then the almost 3 year old G200?

I need enlightenment on exactly what good 2D performance entails, and what aspect of the user interface are hampered by 2D performance. Can someone out there shed some light please?

-Chu

 

[Chu]

. . . oh come on. Someone out there has to know something besides X card produces Y framerates under Z conditions

-Chu

 

[Cosmic_Horror]

To my limited understanding, 2d preformance has basicaly hit a limit such that most modern video cards are roughly the same (basically they are so fast that they are no longer relevent, hence aren't discussed anymore). 2d image quality is another thing with matrox cards holding the crown. The G200 is a generation behind the G450. The G450 is also a faster 3d card than the G200 too, hence the price premium.

The memory on video cards for 2d just allows the different colour depths at different resolutions. 8mb allows 1600 x 1200 x 32bit see
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/video/modesBuffer-c.html.

for dvd info check this
review, not sure how much it will help though.



hope this gives you a starting piont for finding more info

 

[Chu]

>> To my limited understanding, 2d preformance has basicaly hit a limit such that most modern video cards are roughly the same

I know this, but the problem is that one of the cards I am considering (the G200) isn't exactly "modern." On the other hand, it's 2d refresh rates/resolutions are higher then even a radeon, but people on this forum keep posting "You need at least a 350 mhz Ramdac to get decent 1200x1600 proformance." One of my questions is where that magic number is coming from :\

-Chu

 

[Cosmic_Horror]

Ok i see. By the time the G200 was released (at a similar time to the original TNT and voodoo 2) 2d performance was no longer an aspect considered in choosing a video card, as they were all pretty much the same. You might want to look at some old reviews and see if you can find the software o test 2d speed if that helps.

I am not sure where the magic number of 350Hz ramdac comes from. Has this been quoted for 2d performance or 3d preformance? I think you will not find a difference in 2d performance with either the G200 or G450 or any card less than 3 years old to be honest with you, provided they can do 1600 x 1200 @ 85Hz. 2D performance for really has been a non-issue for the last few years.

I personally would buy the G200 as it will run at the resolution you want etc and has excellent 2d quality, plus it is relaitivley cheap, such that if you do not like it you can always get a G450 later, but i doubt that a g450 will be noticeably faster in 2d away.

With dvd playback, i run a duron 800 with an original TNT card and watch dvd's thru powerdvd (software) and it looks great! If the G200 has similar features as the TNT chipset has in dvd decoding then it will be fine, (you might need to check out older reviews for this).