Which video card to buy? Is Matrox any good?

[Ilmater]

I'm looking for a video card for a friend. He's on a pretty tight budget, but it's somewhat flexible. Let's just say, it'd be difficult to get him to shell out $100 or more for a video card. He's an artist (in the good sense), and would like the best in 2D quality. I'm honestly not sure how much a video card will affect performance in apps like Photoshop or After Effects or Illustrator, but these are the kind of programs he'll want to be using more than anything. He doesn't use any 3D Studio Max or anything like that, so that's not important. His preivous card was a Matrox card because of their superior 2D quality, and I know that ATI has good 2D quality, but considering nVidia's questionable 2D quality, I'd rather stay away from them.

Any help is appreciated. BTW, if you want to check out his work, it's at Wilper.com. (shameless plug for a talented friend)

 

[deathwalker]

Might I suggest a ATI 7500 if he is on a real tight under $100 budget ($50-$60). If he will strech out to $100 then perhaps a Geforce4 4200 would fit the bill.

 

[Ilmater]

What about Matrox? Don't they still make good cards? Is their image quality still a cut above the rest? Has anyone used recent budget Matrox cards?

 

[ElFenix]

G450 - $84 at newegg

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
G450 - $84 at newegg

How is it for image quality? Performance?

I know about all there is to know about 3D game performance, but I have no idea about stuff like this.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Matrox is still the unquestioned king of image quality. The matrox Parhelia would give you the performance of a ti4200. Matrox is misunderstood by the gaming community. There cards are mainly for business and CAD and that is what they are good for. Gaming does well with parhelia but it is not its primary focus. it is a bit more expensive becuase matrox can not produce cards in the numbers taht the big 2 can.

 

[mooojojojo]

I think firingsquad.gamers.com had a comparison in 2D performance between the G450 and a Radeon DDR. in res above 1600x1200x32bit the 128bit memory bus on the G450 actually becomes a limiting factor thus slowing down windows performance. so if he's running a 21" monitor I suppose this should be taken into consideration. I personally think that the g450 are too expensive..

 

[bluemax]

Finding a used G400 would be a good approach.
Matrox is king of Analog 2D and multiple monitors.

BUT...

If you want a touch of 3D gaming and/or you only run up to 1600x1200 you'd probably be more than content with the excellent image quality of ATI and some cards also allow dual monitors. Best of all is the low, low price of cards like the 8500LE, 9000, 9000 Pro, and 9100 variants. 8500LE/9100 offer better gaming performance, 9000 is a touch slower but offers better multi-monitor usage because it's imbedded in the GPU.

I'd say a fanless 9000 non-pro card could fit the bill VERY nicely. Easily under $100 if you go Sapphire OEM.

 

[bacillus]

I still have a G400Max in one of my pcs & it still impresses me with its clarity in 2D!

 

[Gage8]

Originally posted by: Ilmater
What about Matrox? Don't they still make good cards? Is their image quality still a cut above the rest? Has anyone used recent budget Matrox cards?

lots of people sware by them for 2d graphics, autocad n' stuff