What video card is fastest for general Windows use?

[stuman74]

I am not really a gamer, but I was wondering if any video cards are faster for normal windows use such as office apps and of course surfing the web. Maybe most all are the same speed nowadays for windows apps, but I just thought I'd check.

Thanks!

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Most modern cards will differ only in image quality at the 2D level.

At which point, Matrox 0wnz all.

- M4H

 

[dguy6789]

speed wise, a gf2mx would be just as fast as a radeon 9800 pro in windows, but image quality is another story, ait and matrox would have very good image quality.

 

[stuman74]

My current card is an ATI AIW 128 Pro. I'd imagine it's fast enough for windows, but sometimes my web pages seem a little slow loading (it's not because of the connect speed since I have a fast broadband connection). My work laptop seems to load a ton quicker and it is a bit more dated.

 

[dguy6789]

even though you have broadband, some web servers are not fast enough to serve to you at that speed, and maybe the web server has a much clearer line to where you work then your home, video card has absolutely nothing to do with web loading unless it is like stone-age.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
even though you have broadband, some web servers are not fast enough to serve to you at that speed, and maybe the web server has a much clearer line to where you work then your home, video card has absolutely nothing to do with web loading unless it is like stone-age.

mine is a flint rock with a ISA slot connector on the bottom.

 

[Pete]

Actually, if you like Cleartype, I think Matrox's equivalent, Glyph AA, is faster simply because it's a hardware (Parhelia series) solution, whereas Cleartype is a software (CPU) solution. Plus, Glyph AA works in Windows 2000. Aside from that, I don't think you'll see a big difference among most modern cards. Heck, I'm not even sure Cleartype will really bog things down, except maybe huge, text-laden internet windows.

 

[Viper96720]

Wouldn't a fast cpu and lots of memory make more of a difference in windows apps then a video card?

 

[brianp34]

Originally posted by: Viper96720
Wouldn't a fast cpu and lots of memory make more of a difference in windows apps then a video card?

absolutely

 

[clicknext]

Don't think you'll see a difference in "windows" performance between any of the new cards. Matrox should have a bit better quality 2D than the rest, but the cost of a parhelia is hardly worth it for a normal user.

BTW, Cleartype in Windows doesn't affect my performance at all.

 

[DarkKnight]

get a cheap ati card.

 

[Pete]

MWNH over at Ars posted that his Parhelia is noticably faster with Glyph AA than Cleartype, so it may be a factor, just not a very big one. I think he runs dual 16x12 displays, so he's on the extreme end of the office work spectrum.

 

[Schadenfroh]

/another vote for matrox

 

[Doomer]

Get a LCD with DVI input then quality is a mute point.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: brianp34

Originally posted by: Viper96720
Wouldn't a fast cpu and lots of memory make more of a difference in windows apps then a video card?

absolutely

Yes, but there is a difference between a 9800 Pro and a Radeon 128 in Windows. You may notice if you have all the settings enabled for Windows, that the 128 can make it seem a bit 'laggy' in terms of FPS when you click the start menu or something...

 

[Mitzi]

I miss my Matrox G400 MAX, it was the best video card I ever owned. I had it for over 3 years and to this day, its still going strong in one of my mates machines (he doesn't play games).

 

[niggles]

I'd say it's a toss up between ATI and Matrox. Having said that I think that in the past few years ATI's customer support has become better than Matrox.

 

[modedepe]

Matrox for their supperior image quality.