Which video card for my 21" monitor?

[SeanTek]

I plan on running my Mitsubishi 2040u at 1600x1200, occasionally venturing higher (as high as 2048x1536 for special applications). There are so many video cards on the market nowadays, though, that I have no idea where to really start. I used to be a big Matrox fan, but I would prefer a more up-to-date 3D solution. I also have 1 monitor, so DualHead output is less appealing to me (besides, it does not fully work in Windows 2000). Using a TV as a second monitor would be beneficial, however. What I am looking for is:
1) Excellent image quality at high resolutions (requires high-speed RAMDAC)
2) TV-Output
3) TV-Input as an add-in card, or provided on-board (not needed right now)
4) DVD/HDTV accelerated support
5) Fast, high-quality 3D (not the absolute fastest)
6) OpenGL support
7) Windows 2000 support
8) stable drivers
9) not-insane heat output (I do not want to put a refrigerator on top of this card)
10) DVI flat-panel not necessary

I am already running a Pentium III/933 (may overclock later), so I am thinking that a GeForce 2 of some type would be best. Are there advocates for particular cards from particular manufacturers?

 

[Lore]

Right off the bat, if you want to run your monitor at 1600x1200 with "Excellent image quality", you do not want the GeForce GTS2. That card has very poor 2D when compared to the Matrox G400 Max. True, the 3D is excellent, but you will be disappointed by the ghosting and ringing around the text when you're running apps in Windows.

 

[Comp10]

I would advise getting an ATI Radeon 64mb DDR, although I use windows 98 so im not too sure how good the windows 2k drivers are. But image quality wise the Radeon is extremely good even at the highest resoultions, has great DVD support, and is excellent for 3D games.

 

[SeanTek]

Someone also recommended the Voodoo3 3500 to me. Should I also take a look at it?

 

[BenSkywalker]

Poorest 2D- nVidia

Poorest Win2K drivers- ATi

Poorest 3D- Matrox

Poorest OpenGL- 3dfx

Take your pick

None of the cards will be great for everything you have listed, it is a pick and chose game unfortunately. The nV based boards aren't that bad on Diamondtron tubed monitors(Trinitron is another matter), though at the ultra high resolutions you are speaking of they will not match up with a Matrox board. 3dfx boards have what I would consider completely unacceptable OpenGL drivers for anything outside of games, no matter which board. ATi and Matrox are not much better, though they are better, they are not close to being in nVidia's territory.

ATi is king of video support, hardware and image quality on the ATi boards is head and shoulders above the rest. Matrox would be the second closest with nV and 3dfx bringing up the rear.

Driver stability in Win2K isn't up to NT standards yet, though nV, Matrox and 3dfx seem to be overall the best choices. ATi, with their prior driver(new release is too new to speak with authority) was extremely poor with stability under Win2K.

If you have your priorities listed in order, you can go with either a G400 Marvel board or an ATi Radeon though both of them are lacking in certain other areas. If OpenGL application support and 3D visualization is your thing, I would say go with nVidia. 3dfx is a good choice if you want strong 2D and solid drivers and good gaming support(though the V5 5500 would probably be a much better option for you).

 

[Sunner]

One thing to considder if you go GTS, that doesnt apply to the others, is that 2D quality varies from board to board.
For instance, while GTS X might have crap ass 2D quality, GTS Y might not be too far from Matrox quality, so thats something definately worth looking into.

 

[Lore]

I believe that all GeForce 2 GTS's suffer from poor 2D - I tried several cards of different brands on my system and they all have ringing and ghosting.

 

[ET]

I agree that you should consider the Radeon. It has good 2D and 3D quality, and video in and out. As people said, it might lose in stability. Then again, my GeForce performs _much_ worse in Win2K than in Win98, so ATI is not the only one with imperfect Win2K drivers.

BTW, you say that you're running a P3-933, but your sig says Athlon 750. What gives?

 

[tonyou]

I would wait for the All-in-Wonder Radeon, but Voodoo3 3500 is very good for high resolution also. The only problem is that it gets really hot.

Tony

 

[ET]

The Voodoo3 may have good 2D, but in 3D speed it's just around G400 level, so you might as well get the "real thing" if you want great 2D. Plus the G400 supports 32bit rendering and EMBM, etc.

Considering he wants something faster than the G400 in 3D, the Voodoo5 or Radeon are probably best for good 2D plus fast 3D. I'd go for the Radeon for the video i/o and good feature set.