Which cards have dual-CRT support?

[geoff2k]

Its upgrade time and I'd like to get a new card for my wife's box that will allow her to play contemporary 3d games at modest frame rates, but will also allow her to support the two 19" flat screen monitors she uses for her graphics design business.

It appears that there aren't any pure dual VGA-out cards any longer, and that most cards these days come with a VGA-out and DVI connector. I've read a fair amount about the different types of DVI connectors, so I know that to drive her two CRTs I'll need a card that has a DVI-I connector that has both digital and anlog signals in it.

Problem is, I can't seem to find a list of which cards specifically have this type of connector -- do all current (e.g. Geforce4, ATI8500, ATI8500LE) chipsets support DVI-I natively? Anyone have any recommendations as to which sub-$100 cards I should look into?

As an example of a card I'm looking at, the Hercules 3D Prophet FDX 8500 LE seems like a contender, but I can't tell from the site's spec sheet whether it supports DVI-I or not...

 

[Shalmanese]

I have a "super" brand Radeon VE which has Dual VGA out. Dont know if you can find it in the states.

Other than that, Im pretty sure all DVI cards are DVI-I. Just get a $20 adaptor.

 

[sohcrates]

matrox g450/550 have dual vga outs, no?

 

[AnAndAustin]

Matrox suck when it comes to anything other than dual display or image quality and their prices are high too. Radeon or GF4 are your choices IMHO.

Beware the non-ATI Radeon cards as dual RAMDACs and DVI implimentation are very often skimped on, along with often lower clocks yielding lower perf. A true retail ATI Rad8500 (unsure about LE version) should allow dual CRT but usually via DVI-to-CRT adapter. Check out ATI's website for info regarding Radeons support for dual CRT usage (bear in mind the info us for true ATI Radeons).

 

[AnAndAustin]

If you want dual CRT the best cards to go for are GF4. GF4MX cards give decent DX7 perf, slower than the DX8 Rad8500LE and DX8 GF3TI200. But GF3 cards certainly lack dual monitor support. GF4TI cards are faster than Rad8500 and GF3TI500 but start from around $130. GF4 cards are standardised and 95% come with CRT+DVI+TVout (or VIVO instread of TVout). They all use dual RAMDACs and many ship with DVI-to-CRT converter and as such this is your safest bet to attaining dual CRT. The other 5% of GF4 cards may come with single CRT only or else CRT+CRT+TVout. Search through Pricewatch for GF4MX420, 440, 460 as these should cost you $60, $70 and $110 and you don't have to worry about brand, oem etc as you will with other non-GF4 gfx cards. GF4TI4200 are much faster than GF4MX460, but see what your needs are, GF4MX cards should serve your purposes more than fine without breaking the bank.

 

[geoff2k]

I'm going to pick up a Built-By-ATI Radeon 8500 64MB (non-LE) for my wife's system to see what the 2D, 3D and dual-head capabilities are like.

If I like what I see, I might get a 128MB 8500 non-LE for my system, or perhaps I might investigate the ti4200's (which seem to be about the same price as a retail built-by-ati 128mb 8500 non-LE). Having similar hardware in our two computers would be nice though...

 

[Peter]

ATi's dual head software for Windows is way better than NVidia's, just read the reviews. Also NVidia isn't as strict in their 3rd party card QA program, so you might end up with a 2D image quality that isn't quite good.

regards, Peter

 

[AnAndAustin]

geoff2k that's a great choice, just ensure it can do dual CRT display, some Radeon cards give the outputs but the DVI port or RAMDACs are lacking. Rad8500 cards are excellent for the price though and I'm sure you'll love yours. I don't think there is a true ATI Rad8500 128MB, it is either Rad8500LE 64/128MB or Rad8500 64MB, the Rad8500LE 128MB is the best of those but you should find a 4200 is better on pretty much all accounts for a similar price.

Peter I believe nVidia's GF4 Windows 'dual view' sw was a step up from ATI's, either way I don't think we're talking noticable diffs here. If anything it is ATI who are lax on 3rd party implimentation. With non-ATI Radeons you generally get cheaper parts (RAM etc), lose speed, o/c'ability, image quality and find things such as RAMDACs and ports have been skimped on. This is a big reason ATI have integrated as much as possible in to a single chip on the Rad9000 cards. GF4 cards are much more consistent and image quality, perf, clocks, component quality and implimentation are very uniform across all manus.

 

[geoff2k]

Originally posted by: AnAndAustin

geoff2k that's a great choice... I don't think there is a true ATI Rad8500 128MB...

Yeah there is:

http://mirror.ati.com/products/pc/radeon8500128/index.html

 

[AnAndAustin]

Cool! Let us know how you get on with that Rad8500. A Rad8500LE 128MB is more future-proof for gaming and is about the same perf as Rad8500 64MB, worth seeing what the prices are like, and of course verifying that it does dual CRT too, LOL! If the Rad8500 128MB is close to the prices of GF4TI4200 cards then they'd be a better all-round buy, but hey any of these cards will give you excellent gaming perf and will forfill your needs incredibly well. Take the plunge and enjoy

 

[Peter]

AnAndAustin, strange that NVidia _admitted_ recently that their 3rd party card QA program skimped especially on the signal quality issue ...

Regarding ATi's OEM partners, what you get is a much wider choice of configurations and feature sets than from what ATi themselves build. It isn't all lower performing cards, there are also fairly many cards that go for the maximum specification, even some that have feature sets ATi themselves don't offer. Overclockability is not a topic for serious discussion, being so much a matter of luck of draw on an individual unit.
And how could anyone lax on RAMDACs when they are (and have ever been) integrated into the Radeon chip anyway? 7500 and 9000 even include the TV-in/out RageTheater chip, so nothing an OEM could do wrongly here either. (And with the 8500, I have yet to see a card that uses something other than a separate RageTheater for TV ...)

Regarding ports, yes there are baseline versions that don't have dual outputs, DVI, or TV-out. That's a choice, not a reason for complaint.

So, any valid points left?

regards, Peter

 

[AnAndAustin]

Hey cool wasn't trying to come off as either anti-Radeon nor pro-nVidia, just telling it as I have read and heard it to be.

From all of the reviews and consumers who've commented on image quality the GF4 cards, the TI in particular, all offer excellent image quality and it isn't until you get above 1600x1200 that any differences become noticable. Not only that but it is clear that manu and oem vs retail make no diffs at all for GF4 cards which sadly isn't the case for Radeon cards where all things vary significantly.

I've heard lots of people commenting on disappointment in speed, dual display, driver implimentation, tweaking (cheap RAM etc) and image quality on non-ATI Radeon cards and as such it is something worth bearing in mind. Of course there are some non-ATI Radeon cards which sport faster clocks (and therefore speed) than true ATI Radeons but IMHO you're taking a gamble with all of the above if you don't go ATI. If the prices are significantly cheaper then non-ATI are certainly worth considering but it is important to bear in mind the risks and possible shortfalls involved.

 

[AnAndAustin]

In these recent times it makes very little sense not to have o/c'ing as a consideration. It's not only about the likely perf gains if you do o/c but also indicates how well/stable the cards run even at standard speeds, if a card doesn't o/c well it is a sign of being too near the limit and/or cheap RAM. RAM quality is the biggest factor to how much a gfx card will gain from o/c'ing and also the overall perf. Rad7500, Rad8500, GF2ultra, GF3TI500 all run very near the limit and don't o/c but cards like Rad8500LE, GF3TI200, GF4TI4200 all are clocked below their true potential and as such you'd be mad not to raise the clocks a little.

 

[AnAndAustin]

ATI introduced everything into the Radeon core on the Rad9000 cards, I don't think they use that nice but botched Rage Theatre solution any more. Anyway ATI discovered many 3rd party Radeon manu were skimping on RAMDACs (only including 1 IIRC) and other cost cutting measures which prevented dual display, plus IIRC some 3rd's missed out the Rage chip completely. When it comes to ports many people mistakenly thought that buying a card with CRT+DVI would enable them to use dual display and pref dual CRT (with DVI-to-CRT converter) but even though the ports were there it often wasn't possible. Tech Report - Great info on Rad9000

All I'm saying is buy a true ATI Radeon or you're taking your chances, esp if things like speed, o/c'ing, build/image quaility and dual display are important factors.

 

[Peter]

"skimping on RAMDACs" ... HELLOOOOOOO ... the RAMDACs are INSIDE the main Radeon chip, both of them, ever since the Radeon 7000. About time you ditch all the hearsay and learn about the hard facts. Or at least don't post technical sounding answers about stuff you know nothing about. Thank you.

The only Radeon that has only one RAMDAC is the original Radeon-256 aka Radeon-7200. There are cards that have CRT+DVI using that chip. Might be misleading, sure, as long as you didn't do your homework. I had such a card myself, and there's no mention of Hydravision anywhere - not on the box, and not in the manual either.

Also, being directly involved in (main)board design, I must say overclockability and stability at stock speeds have nothing much to do with each other. Besides, how much time wasted toying around with that stuff do you think will you gain back by the couple percent speed gain?

Finally, since NVidia doesn't make ANY cards at all, you get nothing but luck-of-draw 3rd party stuff when buying their chipsets ... at least when following your logic.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Peter, it sounds as though you're the one who should 'ditch all the hearsay and learn about the hard facts'. Did you read the Tech Report Info? I've heard this from other sources INCLUDING consumers, and not with ancient Radeons either but 7500 and 8500.

"Better multimonitor support ? ATI's multimonitor software hasn't changed with the RV250. You can still run multiple monitors with different refresh rates, color depths, and screen resolutions. What has changed is how the chip deals with multiple displays in hardware. The original R200 GPU integrated a single RAMDAC for VGA output and a single TMDS transmitter interface to drive DVI-capable monitors like flat-panel LCDs. Output to a second VGA monitor, connected via a DVI-to-VGA adapter, had to be handled by a second, board-mounted RAMDAC, and TV output was handled by ATI's Rage Theatre chip."

 

[AnAndAustin]

"Third-party manufacturers flooded the market with a lot of R200-based boards, and many cut out that second RAMDAC, presumably to save money. Cutting out the second RAMDAC castrated the R200's multiple monitor support, making it impossible to run two VGA monitors, even with a DVI-to-VGA adapter. For consumers, this was a nightmare; support for two VGA monitors didn't appear to be standardized for R200-based products in any way. ATI's own boards had the extra RAMDAC, but boards from Hercules using identical R200 GPUs lacked that all-important second RAMDAC.

 

[AnAndAustin]

The RV250 solves all the multimonitor uncertainty by integrating a single TMDS transmitter interface in addition to two 400MHz RAMDACs. Also, there's a TV encoder right on the GPU. Any graphics board using the RV250 chip, regardless of manufacturer, should have support for dual VGA monitors via a DVI-to-VGA adapter. The Radeon 9000 Pro's simpler and cheaper board design doesn't require a second RAMDAC or a Rage Theatre chip. Consumers should now know better what kind of multimonitor support they're getting, regardless of the brand of Radeon 9000 Pro they're purchasing."

R200 is Rad8500 and RV250 is Rad9000, hardly Radeon-256 aka Radeon-7200.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Source: WWW.ATI.COM

Rad8500 & 8500LE & Rad7500 can run dual CRT.
AIWRad7500 & AIWRad8500 & AIWRad8500DV can't, it seems can only run a TV & CRT simultaneously with ghosting and not true Dual Display.
Rad7200 & Rad7000 can't.

It is even more difficult to ascertain if any non-ATI Radeon truly supports Dual Display, but it seems even ATI disagree with you Peter.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Oh dear, here's a review of Hercules Rad8500LE .... 1 RAMDAC ... but Peter say tha's impossible!!!!

Firing Squad Hercules Rad8500LE Review
Firing Squad Hercules Rad8500LE Review (1 RAMDAC part)

 

[AnAndAustin]

Oops ... looks like HardOCP got it wrong too. After all Peter must be right ... he couldn't possibly be wrong after he told me to get the hard facts!

HardOCP Hercules Rad8500LE review (under HYDRAVISION heading at bottom of page)

I'll paste it for you Peter, I know you have trouble clicking on links ... LOL!

"ATi's HYDRAVISION has the ability to run different displays at various refresh rates simultaneously. Most of you who run dual displays know how difficult it can be to run separate refresh rates on separate monitors ( It should be noted that you can't use a DVI-to-VGA adapter to power dual monitors since the 8500LE only has one RAMDAC )."

 

[AnAndAustin]

QUOTING Peter, Also, being directly involved in (main)board design, I must say overclockability and stability at stock speeds have nothing much to do with each other. Besides, how much time wasted toying around with that stuff do you think will you gain back by the couple percent speed gain?

Well quite simply if a card can o/c well then it is running well within its limits and as such is far more likely to be stable and last longer than a card which is right at the limit of the technology it uses. I wasn't saying this was a hugely important point, but since you brought it up. Oh, and check the gains that many cards get from o/c'ing, GF4TI4200=4400-4600 GF3TI500=GF3-GF3TI500 Rad8500LE=Rad8500 GF4MX440=GF4MX460. All but particularly the first 2 examples show a LOT more improvement than a 'couple of percent', try more like 30-50%.

 

[AnAndAustin]

QUOTING Peter ... again, "Finally, since NVidia doesn't make ANY cards at all, you get nothing but luck-of-draw 3rd party stuff when buying their chipsets ... at least when following your logic."

If you read a bit more and criticised a little less you'd realise I've already stated that manu AND oem vs retail matters quite a lot for Radeon cards ... like dual RAMDACs, multi-monitor support, 10% slower speed, cheaper RAM, poorer o/c, poorer image and build quality ... LOL! However the same can't be said for nVidia cards, esp GF4 cards and GF4TI cards in particular. Read the reviews, I haven't got time to hold your hand. Retail and oem versions of GF4TI cards make no difference at all, the only diffs are the usual packaging, bundle and cosmetic changes which is valid for pretty much all oem vs retail components.

 

[AnAndAustin]

As for manu differences on standard GF4TI cards, there isn't any, even when o/c'ed the diffs come down to about 1%, with the exception of 1 card (out of the huge array of cards) which uses 1 CRT port and therefore obviously lacks dual display. The only time manu makes a diff for GF4TI cards is on a 'Special Edition type card which doesn't pretend to be the same as a standard GF4TI but makes a point of being enhanced usually with faster RAM and faster clocks. From consumers and reviewers it seems all things such as image quality, perf, dual display, dual RAMDACs etc etc don't vary in any remotely significant way FOR GF4TI CARDS.

So in brief both manu and oem vs retail make a significant diff for RADEON cards, but the same is NOT true for GF4 cards in general and certainly the ever popular GF4TI.

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by: AnAndAustin
Oops ... looks like HardOCP got it wrong too. After all Peter must be right ... he couldn't possibly be wrong after he told me to get the hard facts!

HardOCP Hercules Rad8500LE review (under HYDRAVISION heading at bottom of page)

I'll paste it for you Peter, I know you have trouble clicking on links ... LOL!

"ATi's HYDRAVISION has the ability to run different displays at various refresh rates simultaneously. Most of you who run dual displays know how difficult it can be to run separate refresh rates on separate monitors ( It should be noted that you can't use a DVI-to-VGA adapter to power dual monitors since the 8500LE only has one RAMDAC )."

Now isn't it strange then that exactly this card INCLUDES such an adapter so you can use dual CRTs? The review clearly says so btw. I'll leave the rest of your blurb uncommented, it contains just as much useful information as the above one.