Matrox card - can u use 2 vid cards?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by MY5TMAN, Jan 5, 2006.

  1. MY5TMAN

    MY5TMAN Guest

    Hi all -

    Another question! I got a friend to build a computer system for me and
    he wasn't impressed with the Matrox card I suggested. I really liked
    what was said about them, but the recent ones seemed reasonably
    expensive too, so I bowed to his wisdom.

    So the question is: If I find a cheap 2nd-hand one to play with, can I
    install it to work with the one that's in there? Or can you only use
    one at a time?

    Cheers,
    Michael
     
    MY5TMAN, Jan 5, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. MY5TMAN

    Waldo Guest

    Two AGP cards won't fit, but if one is AGP and the other PCI(-e) or both
    PCI-e then it works.

    Waldo
     
    Waldo, Jan 5, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. MY5TMAN

    k Guest

    | Hi all -
    |
    | Another question! I got a friend to build a computer system for me and
    | he wasn't impressed with the Matrox card I suggested. I really liked
    | what was said about them, but the recent ones seemed reasonably
    | expensive too,



    **so I bowed to his wisdom.**


    what WAS his wisdom.. what didn't he like, the fact that it is abominable
    for games, or the fact that it renders colours TOO accurately?

    they're very fine cards for 2D applications like image work but less than
    spectacular for much else, certainly game wise.



    | So the question is: If I find a cheap 2nd-hand one to play with, can I
    | install it to work with the one that's in there? Or can you only use
    | one at a time?

    Is yours a dual or single head card?

    memory in a vid card is less than critical for 2D stuff too don't forget, so
    if you have a 8,16 or 32Mb matrox and you're only doing imaging, you're good
    to go :)

    Make sure the cards set to a decent screen res and refresh rate too

    k
     
    k, Jan 5, 2006
    #3
  4. MY5TMAN

    MY5TMAN Guest

    Hi K -
    I know... I was hoping that that wouldn't be noticed too much *laughs*.
    It did come down to price for general performance. I wanted a u-beaut
    current matrox, but settled on a good reccommended 'generic' [as all
    other cards are for me - m really only interested in photo editing].

    And as I inidcated, I'm still hoping to get my hands on a 2nd hand
    Matrox sometime [when prices fall - or wage rises - whichever comes
    first] and use the current one to 'suppliment it'.

    My knowledge base is limited as to what current vid cards [vs the older
    matox that I could afford] are suitable for long-term sustainability.
    So i thought I might be prudent to avoid Millennium Matrox series due
    to their age. Will freely admit that I could have made a mistake there,
    but didn't have any mates interested in photog+comps who could advise.
    And that I was swayed by his opinion when I saw the prices *grin*. I'm
    satisfied now that I can add a card [thanks] when I get one.

    So do you do much editing? Got a good system going?
    Definately Dual. Just settled on 2 refurbished 19" Dell P992's today.
    Hoping to upgrade at least one spectacular 21" monitor eventually...
    when i can find one.
     
    MY5TMAN, Jan 6, 2006
    #4
  5. MY5TMAN

    k Guest

    |
    |
    | Hi K -
    |
    | > **so I bowed to his wisdom.**
    |
    | I know... I was hoping that that wouldn't be noticed too much *laughs*.

    hehe


    | It did come down to price for general performance. I wanted a u-beaut
    | current matrox, but settled on a good reccommended 'generic' [as all
    | other cards are for me - m really only interested in photo editing].

    you're not going to get much better than an old millenium unless you want to
    play the newer games. If photo editing is the main priority for you then
    you'll be fine with a creaky old G450 ;-)

    Sure the Parhelia's and RT series look loverly, but unless you're gaming or
    video editing intensively - don't waste your money!


    | My knowledge base is limited as to what current vid cards [vs the older
    | matox that I could afford] are suitable for long-term sustainability.
    | So i thought I might be prudent to avoid Millennium Matrox series due
    | to their age.

    heck, if you can whack in a $40 G450 / G500 and you need to toss it in say
    10 years when it finally fizzes out, you'll have at least saved yourself
    heaps of $$ on burnt out power supplies from the modern graphics cards
    massive drain on power! (you'll probably save $40- worth of electricity
    too! ;-)


    | So do you do much editing? Got a good system going?

    I think so - resonable AMD processor, reasonable amount of RAM, lots of
    *good* software, plenty of HDD's and space, removable back up drives, IDE
    card readers, a nice 20" trinitron and a pleasant philips 107 17" hanging
    off the matrox, a 4000 dpi film scanner, a nice 4x5 film/flatbed and a kick
    ass A3 pulsed xenon film scanner (like the one NASA and National Geo have
    ;-)



    | Definately Dual. Just settled on 2 refurbished 19" Dell P992's today.
    | Hoping to upgrade at least one spectacular 21" monitor eventually...
    | when i can find one.

    nice.
    :)

    Truly, the millenium cards will serve you for years and years. Hasn't been
    anything better come out since they first hit the shelves..

    k
     
    k, Jan 6, 2006
    #5
  6. MY5TMAN

    Fred Guest

    One thing to bear in mind is that those older cards can be a little slow
    even for 2D work if using a modern fast processor.
    You may find a discernible lag when drawing a screen. It's something that I
    found annoying when going from a 1Ghz processor to 3Ghz.
    That is why I purchased a Parhelia, which overcame that problem.
    As it happens I swapped out the Parhelia a couple of weeks ago. Replaced it
    with a Sapphire9800 pro so I could play some games over the holidays.
    As far as 2D goes the Matrox still shits all over the newer card. Much
    deeper colours, and the text is sooo.... much sharper.
    Also, apart from modern games, the other area where the 9800 is better is
    with displaying HDTV. The Matrox couldn't keep up, stuttering a bit on the
    video.

     
    Fred, Jan 8, 2006
    #6
  7. MY5TMAN

    MY5TMAN Guest

    Good to know. Thanks for the tip
    [!] How'd u score the film scanner? Months of sacrifice - or a 1 time
    only 'had to be there' deal? Am thinking of getting a scanner to do the
    old 35mm stuff from years ago. Have been busily archiving since the
    minute the new comp was turned on...

    My eyes... so tired... :D

    Just picked up an Infra-red filter 15 mins ago. Am heading up to Mt
    Gravatt MT to try it out this arvo. No idea what i'm in for. Looking
    4ward to it!
    Yeah. That was another thing. Wasn't sure that newer non-Matrox cards
    hadn't caught up. Will look into getting cheap one to try and then if
    not - wait until newer Matrox $ goes down :(

    M
     
    MY5TMAN, Jan 11, 2006
    #7
  8. MY5TMAN

    MY5TMAN Guest

    Hey Fred. Thanks for the comment. In my limited experience, that is 1
    thing I was wondering about. My computer guy didn't get the 2D
    priority. And then there was the cost...

    So can I ask what happened to the Parhelia??? *Sly Wink* ;D

    Cheers,
    Michael
     
    MY5TMAN, Jan 11, 2006
    #8
  9. MY5TMAN

    Westslope Guest

    If I can jump in on this discussion from soggy Burnaby, BC....

    I'm advising a PC purchase for a family member. All our PCs at home
    run on Matrox video cards G-450, G-550, donated a G-400 not so long
    ago. We have no need for 3-D and both, read, write, sometime program
    on screen (19" Samsung 99MB CRT monitors).

    The received wisdom was that Matrox had the best and sharpest 2-D
    images. But does that still hold?

    I would have thought that the competition, e.g.,ATI, would have tweaked
    the hardware and improved the drivers so the 2-D was just as sharp.

    I don't expect the user to be playing video games or watching HDTV.
    Might edit some digital photos.

    Was thinking of a ATI Sapphire Radeon X700 PCI-E 256MB OEM....

    Or should I simply stick to a Matrox product despite the lack of an
    inexpensive PCI-$E product and simply recommend a Millennium G550DH
    32MB DualHead AGP4x OEM ?

    -westslope

    Fred inspired the above:

    "One thing to bear in mind is that those older cards can be a little
    slow even for 2D work if using a modern fast processor. You may find a
    discernible lag when drawing a screen. It's something that I found
    annoying when going from a 1Ghz processor to 3Ghz.

    That is why I purchased a Parhelia, which overcame that problem. As it
    happens I swapped out the Parhelia a couple of weeks ago. Replaced it
    with a Sapphire9800 pro so I could play some games over the holidays.
    As far as 2D goes the Matrox still shits all over the newer card. Much
    deeper colours, and the text is sooo.... much sharper.

    Also, apart from modern games, the other area where the 9800 is better
    is with displaying HDTV. The Matrox couldn't keep up, stuttering a bit
    on the video."
     
    Westslope, Jan 13, 2006
    #9
  10. MY5TMAN

    k Guest

    |

    | [!] How'd u score the film scanner? Months of sacrifice - or a 1 time
    | only 'had to be there' deal? Am thinking of getting a scanner to do the
    | old 35mm stuff from years ago. Have been busily archiving since the
    | minute the new comp was turned on...


    lucked out at an auction :)


    k
     
    k, Jan 13, 2006
    #10
  11. MY5TMAN

    k Guest

    | If I can jump in on this discussion from soggy Burnaby, BC....


    | The received wisdom was that Matrox had the best and sharpest 2-D
    | images. But does that still hold?


    seems to. When my wife was going through her phase of buying gaming cards
    and blowing power supplies, she found most card manufacturers were big on
    frame rates, low on colour accuracy - she settled on a nvidia tho she still
    confesses working on my PC (matrox) is still a lot easier on the eyes than
    on hers across a day of editing.



    |
    | I would have thought that the competition, e.g.,ATI, would have tweaked
    | the hardware and improved the drivers so the 2-D was just as sharp.

    just the contary - made me laugh too when I hear the mac folks talking about
    using their machines for graphics.. LCD's and Radeons (who advertised on
    their sie that the way they achieved high frame rates was to sacrifice
    sharpness and colour fidelity)



    | Was thinking of a ATI Sapphire Radeon X700 PCI-E 256MB OEM....

    I'm fuzzy on the radeon card mentioned above (think it was the 9700) , but a
    search of their site should tell more..


    |
    | Or should I simply stick to a Matrox product despite the lack of an
    | inexpensive PCI-$E product and simply recommend a Millennium G550DH
    | 32MB DualHead AGP4x OEM ?

    what do you need PCI-E speeds for? games use these speeds..

    k
     
    k, Jan 13, 2006
    #11
  12. I recently upgraded my PC. I had a Matrox GeFeorce440 and went to an ATI
    Radeon 9600. To be honest I haven't noticed any difference at all.
    I then built 2 systems for my kids. Both setups were identical apart from my
    son got my old Matrox GeForce 440 card and my daughter was given an ATI
    Radeon 9250.
    Both have the same TFT monitors and my daughters picture in my opinion is
    far better than my sons. The colours are more vivid and the text is a lot
    sharper.
    My sons colours look washed out and the screen just looks a lot fainter.

    Steven.
     
    Steven Campbell, Jan 13, 2006
    #12
  13. MY5TMAN

    Father Kodak Guest

    The GeForce440 is NOT a Matrox card. I suggest you verify the card
    manufacturer and model number.

    Putting aside the question of what card your son now has, it is quite
    possible that you are seeing the result of different settings in the
    two displays. Or the variation in output between two displays of the
    same make and model.

    I suggest that you switch the displays between your son's and your
    daughter's systems, and observe the results. Also be sure that the
    room lighting is the same in both cases.

    Hope this helps.

    Father Kodak
     
    Father Kodak, Jan 13, 2006
    #13
  14. MY5TMAN

    How Bizarre Guest

    Oops sorry my mistake re the GeForce.
    However as for the display. Both were built in the same room (same lighting
    conditions), same configuration settings, same display settings on each PC
    and on the TFT's. I also swapped over the TFT's and my daughters produced a
    much cleaner, crisper display. The text on it for reading was far better.

    It could be the TFT's although exactly same had slightly different outputs
    but I'd reckon the cards made the big difference.
     
    How Bizarre, Jan 13, 2006
    #14
  15. MY5TMAN

    Father Kodak Guest

    So, what was this video card? GeForce or Matrox?
    If either display produced the same quality of image on a given
    display card then you have obviously eliminated the display as a
    variable, so it seems that there is a difference in cards.

    Father Kodak
     
    Father Kodak, Jan 14, 2006
    #15
  16. MY5TMAN

    k Guest

    | I then built 2 systems for my kids. Both setups were identical apart from
    my
    | son got my old Matrox GeForce 440 card and my daughter was given an ATI
    | Radeon 9250.


    <ahem> lets call that an Nvidia geforce mebbe ;-)

    | Both have the same TFT monitors and my daughters picture in my opinion is
    | far better than my sons. The colours are more vivid and the text is a lot
    | sharper.

    vivid ain't necessarily better..


    | My sons colours look washed out and the screen just looks a lot fainter.


    ...now we go into calibration and settings. there are innumerable settings
    beyond this point to play with to get the displays to perform best - least
    of which is gamma and brightness. Curves are next and then individual
    profiles.

    At the end of the day however it has to be decided what the settings
    priority is - if it's for onscreen web imaging then it'll be different than
    for printing. Different printers of course will need different monitor
    profiles, but if it's just for gaming then anything will do.

    If for printing, then that's when the card colour rendering comes into it's
    own - at a certain point with each card you'll reach the limit of it's
    ability to render both the colours themselves, and the colour
    relationships - ie, the accuracy of one colour to another. The matrox's at
    this point will really show their strengths - it's a bit like the old film
    thing (and the new digital issues) where a given film/camera/monitor display
    card will have say good reds, but the blues may be weak in relation to these
    reds (etc)..

    k
     
    k, Jan 14, 2006
    #16
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.