Posted by Ned Fenimore on April 12, 2006 at 5:57 PM
I'm in the process of building a new system, and since I will need to purchase one of the new PCI express style cards, my existing Matrox video card will need to be replaced. I'm looking at the Matrox P65-MDDE128 Millenium P650 PCI 128MB DDR Dual 400 Mhz w/DualHead DVI outputs. Whew! now that is a mouthful! I'd much rather buy this or perhaps one of the Quadro cards instead of a 3D gaming card, (concerned about ease of monitor calibration). Any thoughts or recommendations from the computer gurus here would be much appreciated.
Thanks!
Posted by Scott Buckel on April 12, 2006 at 6:52 PM
I have heard lotso f good things about the Matorx card in general. In one of my computers at home I also have a NVida card which worked well.
It has been a while since I've looked in detail at the Matrox cards. Traditionally they've been superb cards for two-dimensional applications (PS, Illustrator, etc). If you need three-dimensional graphics you'll probably find one of the NVidia cards more suitable. As far as the NVidia line up goes, the Quadro and GeForce are really built around the same graphics processor technology. The difference between the two lines is primarily related to features for high-end CAD systems and other similar software; i.e. a few more hardware accelerated features. Although I haven't done a side-by-side, detailed study I think you'll find very little difference between the two as far as color management goes -- I'm currently using a GeForce card at home and I've had absolutely no problems with monitor calibration issues.
Hope this helps.
Posted by Martin Ziese on April 12, 2006 at 11:41 PM
Ned,
The specs on that card state that it has only 128 meg of embedded ram and for $230.00 at one site.
I have a Radeon 9550 that has twice the amount of embedded RAM and at half the price.
Although I stopped using a dual monitor set up when I purchase a 20" Dell Wide-Aspect-LCD for under $400.00 several months ago. No more having to look back and forth at two monitors. Was like being at a tennis match... The 20" wide aspect monitor has enough real estate to allow me to have a large image and keep my tool pallets on the desk top.
I'd really do a search on the internet for a dual monitor VID card... I am sure you can find a great one with more memory and a lessor price.
Just my 2 cents worth
Martin
Posted by Ned Fenimore on April 13, 2006 at 12:49 AM
Thanks for the suggestions so far. I hear that the Quadro is pretty good, and a machine was just built at work with two high end cards at over 1k a piece - they were quite stunning. I guess I am starting to lean towards something more like you suggest, Martin. With Windows Vista and Direct X 10 on the way, I will be looking for another card at that point anyway.... I do appreciate the help!
For 2d it doesn't matter anymore. If photoshop is slow it aint the card. Check on Vista. The fancy desktop may want 256mb of v memory. Two DVI ports is good. Especially with Dell monitors you want to use DVI.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on April 16, 2006 at 7:11 AM
I'll second the DVI vote. It definitely improved the performance of my Samsung monitor. I was having some syncing issues with the analog cable.
As far as matrax goes, they certainly were the main choice on dual head setups. My last client used them with dual 19" monitor oriented vertically (portrait) and I really liked the way things could be worked with that setup. However, matrox is very high dollar and there are now many lower cost options that allow dual head control with very good performance. Even my $50 nVidia 128Mb k-mart special card supports monitor calibration.
Discussion
6 repliesThanks!
It has been a while since I've looked in detail at the Matrox cards. Traditionally they've been superb cards for two-dimensional applications (PS, Illustrator, etc). If you need three-dimensional graphics you'll probably find one of the NVidia cards more suitable. As far as the NVidia line up goes, the Quadro and GeForce are really built around the same graphics processor technology. The difference between the two lines is primarily related to features for high-end CAD systems and other similar software; i.e. a few more hardware accelerated features. Although I haven't done a side-by-side, detailed study I think you'll find very little difference between the two as far as color management goes -- I'm currently using a GeForce card at home and I've had absolutely no problems with monitor calibration issues.
Hope this helps.
The specs on that card state that it has only 128 meg of embedded ram and for $230.00 at one site.
I have a Radeon 9550 that has twice the amount of embedded RAM and at half the price.
check it out... It allows dual monitor set up.
http://www.newegg.com/product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814131243&CMP=OTC-Froogle&ATT=POWERCOLOR+R96-LD3+Radeon+9550+256MB+DDR+AGP+4X/8X+Video+Card
Although I stopped using a dual monitor set up when I purchase a 20" Dell Wide-Aspect-LCD for under $400.00 several months ago. No more having to look back and forth at two monitors. Was like being at a tennis match... The 20" wide aspect monitor has enough real estate to allow me to have a large image and keep my tool pallets on the desk top.
I'd really do a search on the internet for a dual monitor VID card... I am sure you can find a great one with more memory and a lessor price.
Just my 2 cents worth
Martin
As far as matrax goes, they certainly were the main choice on dual head setups. My last client used them with dual 19" monitor oriented vertically (portrait) and I really liked the way things could be worked with that setup. However, matrox is very high dollar and there are now many lower cost options that allow dual head control with very good performance. Even my $50 nVidia 128Mb k-mart special card supports monitor calibration.