2D performance ATI compared to Matrox

FAQ

Profile

2D performance ATI compared to Matrox
Goto page 1, 2

Hardware Problem Solving Community! (Home) -> General

Next: DVd writer

Author

Message

Jo Vermeulen

External

Since: Jan 03, 2004
Posts: 10

(Msg. 1) Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 4:51 pm Post subject: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox Archived from groups: comp>sys>ibm>pc>hardware>video, others (more info?)

Hi, I recently upgraded my monitor to an iiyama 22 inch Diamnondtron (HM204DT, Vision Master Pro 514). I'm really satisfied about it. The only thing that bothers me is a fuzzy image at high resolutions at high refresh rates (currently 1600 x 1200 @ 85 Hz). The image is significantly more crisp at lower refresh rates or lower resolutions. I think this is probably due to my Nvidia Geforce2 MX 400 graphics card. I read a few posts and articles about blurry 2D quality with these cards. I'm looking for an upgrade, and although 2D performance is much more important to me, I wouldn't want to cut back on the 3D performance my Geforce2 MX had (which isn't great compared to high-end 3D cards nowadays). So I was considering either a low-end ATI or a Matrox card which would cost about 100 euros (comparable to about 100 dollars). I don't want to pay much more than that (the monitor already cost me a fortune) The problem with the Matrox cards I looked at (G450, G550) was that they had pretty bad 3D performance (even worse than my Geforce2 MX). They deliver superb 2D quality though. On the contrary, the ATI Radeon 9200 card is very good in 3D. I don't know about the 2D quality. Does anybody know how it compares to the G450/G550? I would like to work comfortably in at least 1600 x 1200 @ 85 Hz. This should feature very crisp image quality. The 2D performance has thus a higher priority. Thanks in advance, -- Jo Vermeulen Student Computer Science at the tUL email: jo DeleteThis @lumumba.luc.ac.be www: http://lumumba.luc.ac.be/jo >> Stay informed about: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox

Jean

External

Since: Dec 06, 2003
Posts: 33

(Msg. 2) Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 5:40 pm
Post subject: Re: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"On the contrary, the ATI Radeon 9200 card is very good in 3D >>

You must be joking !!!!

>> Stay informed about: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox

Chris7

External

Since: Jan 03, 2004
Posts: 2

(Msg. 3) Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2004 9:04 pm Post subject: Re: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

I have owned a GF3 and 4 and found them to have noticeable blur even at 1280x960, I now have a ATI 9700 Pro in my main machine, 9700 AIW in HTPC and 7500 AIW in bedroom box, the 2D image quality is far superior even with the 7500, currently using a Viewsonic P225 22" Diamondtron tube monitor in the main PC. Matrox is still the best for 2D and multi-monitor but if you game, not a great or even seriously viable choice with the latest and greatest. I wish Matrox would get more serious about 3D, I owned a G200 and G400 and they were excellent cards in their day. "Jo Vermeulen" <jo.TakeThisOut@lumumba.luc.ac.be> wrote in message news:bt6dok$hfo$1@reader10.wxs.nl... > Hi, > > I recently upgraded my monitor to an iiyama 22 inch Diamnondtron > (HM204DT, Vision Master Pro 514). I'm really satisfied about it. > > The only thing that bothers me is a fuzzy image at high resolutions at > high refresh rates (currently 1600 x 1200 @ 85 Hz). The image is > significantly more crisp at lower refresh rates or lower resolutions. > > I think this is probably due to my Nvidia Geforce2 MX 400 graphics card. > I read a few posts and articles about blurry 2D quality with these cards. > > I'm looking for an upgrade, and although 2D performance is much more > important to me, I wouldn't want to cut back on the 3D performance my > Geforce2 MX had (which isn't great compared to high-end 3D cards nowadays). > > So I was considering either a low-end ATI or a Matrox card which would > cost about 100 euros (comparable to about 100 dollars). I don't want to > pay much more than that (the monitor already cost me a fortune) > > The problem with the Matrox cards I looked at (G450, G550) was that they > had pretty bad 3D performance (even worse than my Geforce2 MX). They > deliver superb 2D quality though. > > On the contrary, the ATI Radeon 9200 card is very good in 3D. I don't > know about the 2D quality. Does anybody know how it compares to the > G450/G550? > > I would like to work comfortably in at least 1600 x 1200 @ 85 Hz. This > should feature very crisp image quality. The 2D performance has thus a > higher priority. > > Thanks in advance, > > -- > Jo Vermeulen > Student Computer Science at the tUL > email: jo.TakeThisOut@lumumba.luc.ac.be <font color=purple> > www: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://lumumba.luc.ac.be/jo</font" target="_blank">http://lumumba.luc.ac.be/jo</font</a>> --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.557 / Virus Database: 349 - Release Date: 12/30/2003<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox

kony

External

Since: Jan 03, 2004
Posts: 7693

(Msg. 4) Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2004 1:08 am Post subject: Re: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 14:40:46 -0500, "Jean" <nospam.TakeThisOut@nospam.ca> wrote: > >"On the contrary, the ATI Radeon 9200 card is very good in 3D >> > > > You must be joking !!!! > It's true... compared to a Matrox G450 or older. It doesn't sound like he needs blazing 3D speed though, a Radeon 9200 or 9600 might be ideal for the purpose.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox

robin

External

Since: Jan 03, 2004
Posts: 2

(Msg. 5) Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2004 1:57 am Post subject: Re: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 13:51:02 +0100, Jo Vermeulen <jo RemoveThis @lumumba.luc.ac.be> wrote: >Hi, > >I recently upgraded my monitor to an iiyama 22 inch Diamnondtron >(HM204DT, Vision Master Pro 514). I'm really satisfied about it. > >The only thing that bothers me is a fuzzy image at high resolutions at >high refresh rates (currently 1600 x 1200 @ 85 Hz). The image is >significantly more crisp at lower refresh rates or lower resolutions. > >I think this is probably due to my Nvidia Geforce2 MX 400 graphics card. >I read a few posts and articles about blurry 2D quality with these cards. > >I'm looking for an upgrade, and although 2D performance is much more >important to me, I wouldn't want to cut back on the 3D performance my >Geforce2 MX had (which isn't great compared to high-end 3D cards nowadays). > >So I was considering either a low-end ATI or a Matrox card which would >cost about 100 euros (comparable to about 100 dollars). I don't want to >pay much more than that (the monitor already cost me a fortune) > >The problem with the Matrox cards I looked at (G450, G550) was that they >had pretty bad 3D performance (even worse than my Geforce2 MX). They >deliver superb 2D quality though. > >On the contrary, the ATI Radeon 9200 card is very good in 3D. I don't >know about the 2D quality. Does anybody know how it compares to the >G450/G550? > >I would like to work comfortably in at least 1600 x 1200 @ 85 Hz. This >should feature very crisp image quality. The 2D performance has thus a >higher priority. > >Thanks in advance, If you want great 2d performance get a Matrox card.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox

Jo Vermeulen

External

Since: Jan 03, 2004
Posts: 10

(Msg. 6) Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2004 3:34 am Post subject: Re: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

kony wrote: > On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 14:40:46 -0500, "Jean" <nospam DeleteThis @nospam.ca> wrote: > > >>"On the contrary, the ATI Radeon 9200 card is very good in 3D >> >> >> >> You must be joking !!!! >> > > > > It's true... compared to a Matrox G450 or older. Indeed, that's what I meant > It doesn't sound like he needs blazing 3D speed though, a Radeon 9200 > or 9600 might be ideal for the purpose. You are right. I don't need a very fast card. I occassionaly play games (e.g. Max Payne, FIFA 2003, GTA 3, Midnight Club, ...). My Geforce 2 MX card was good enough for that purpose. I don't even need the performance of an Radeon 9200. It just want to keep playing the games I played before. But I don't know if any of the Matrox cards is capable of the 3D performance of my old Geforce 2 MX 400 (not considering the Parhelia, which is way out of my budget). Maybe the G550 or P650 are? Kind regards, -- Jo Vermeulen Student Computer Science at the tUL email: jo DeleteThis @lumumba.luc.ac.be www: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://lumumba.luc.ac.be/jo" target="_blank">http://lumumba.luc.ac.be/jo</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox

Jo Vermeulen

External

Since: Jan 03, 2004
Posts: 10

(Msg. 7) Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2004 3:46 am Post subject: Re: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Jo Vermeulen wrote: > kony wrote: > >> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 14:40:46 -0500, "Jean" <nospam RemoveThis @nospam.ca> wrote: >> >> >>> "On the contrary, the ATI Radeon 9200 card is very good in 3D >> >>> >>> >>> You must be joking !!!! >>> >> >> >> >> It's true... compared to a Matrox G450 or older. > > > Indeed, that's what I meant > >> It doesn't sound like he needs blazing 3D speed though, a Radeon 9200 >> or 9600 might be ideal for the purpose. > > > You are right. I don't need a very fast card. I occassionaly play games > (e.g. Max Payne, FIFA 2003, GTA 3, Midnight Club, ...). My Geforce 2 MX > card was good enough for that purpose. > > I don't even need the performance of an Radeon 9200. It just want to > keep playing the games I played before. But I don't know if any of the > Matrox cards is capable of the 3D performance of my old Geforce 2 MX 400 > (not considering the Parhelia, which is way out of my budget). > > Maybe the G550 or P650 are? Just found this: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=matrox+g550+vs+geforce+2+mx&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&selm=bcAK7.57279%242w.3033444%40bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com&rnum=2" target="_blank">http://groups.google.com/groups?q=matrox+g550+vs+geforce+2+mx&hl=en&lr...e=UTF-8</a> <quote> Seriously, from what I've read, you won't see much improvement in 2D performance or image quality. 3D gets the biggest boost. The G450 is like a TNT 2 ultra but the G550's 3D performace is close to a GeForce 2 MX. </quote> So apparantly the G550 is as good as my Geforce2 MX ) Does anybody know how the P650 compares? Kind regards, -- Jo Vermeulen Student Computer Science at the tUL email: jo RemoveThis @lumumba.luc.ac.be www: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://lumumba.luc.ac.be/jo" target="_blank">http://lumumba.luc.ac.be/jo</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox

Tod

External

Since: Dec 28, 2003
Posts: 332

(Msg. 8) Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2004 5:47 am Post subject: Re: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

I use to use a Matrox G400 32MB DH, I later used an Sapphire ATI 9100 128MB, 2D was a least 90% as good as the G400. (now I've got an ATI 9600 PRO AIW). The 9000, 9200 are slightly stripped down version of the 8500,9100 line. So get the 9100 instead of the 9200 "Jo Vermeulen" <jo.DeleteThis@lumumba.luc.ac.be> wrote in message news:bt6dok$hfo$1@reader10.wxs.nl... > Hi, > > I recently upgraded my monitor to an iiyama 22 inch Diamnondtron > (HM204DT, Vision Master Pro 514). I'm really satisfied about it. > > The only thing that bothers me is a fuzzy image at high resolutions at > high refresh rates (currently 1600 x 1200 @ 85 Hz). The image is > significantly more crisp at lower refresh rates or lower resolutions. > > I think this is probably due to my Nvidia Geforce2 MX 400 graphics card. > I read a few posts and articles about blurry 2D quality with these cards. > > I'm looking for an upgrade, and although 2D performance is much more > important to me, I wouldn't want to cut back on the 3D performance my > Geforce2 MX had (which isn't great compared to high-end 3D cards nowadays). > > So I was considering either a low-end ATI or a Matrox card which would > cost about 100 euros (comparable to about 100 dollars). I don't want to > pay much more than that (the monitor already cost me a fortune) > > The problem with the Matrox cards I looked at (G450, G550) was that they > had pretty bad 3D performance (even worse than my Geforce2 MX). They > deliver superb 2D quality though. > > On the contrary, the ATI Radeon 9200 card is very good in 3D. I don't > know about the 2D quality. Does anybody know how it compares to the > G450/G550? > > I would like to work comfortably in at least 1600 x 1200 @ 85 Hz. This > should feature very crisp image quality. The 2D performance has thus a > higher priority. > > Thanks in advance, > > -- > Jo Vermeulen > Student Computer Science at the tUL > email: jo.DeleteThis@lumumba.luc.ac.be <font color=purple> > www: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://lumumba.luc.ac.be/jo</font" target="_blank">http://lumumba.luc.ac.be/jo</font</a>><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox

Jo Vermeulen

External

Since: Jan 03, 2004
Posts: 10

(Msg. 9) Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2004 6:20 pm Post subject: Re: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Jo Vermeulen wrote: > Jo Vermeulen wrote: > >> kony wrote: >>> It doesn't sound like he needs blazing 3D speed though, a Radeon 9200 >>> or 9600 might be ideal for the purpose. >> >> >> >> You are right. I don't need a very fast card. I occassionaly play >> games (e.g. Max Payne, FIFA 2003, GTA 3, Midnight Club, ...). My >> Geforce 2 MX card was good enough for that purpose. >> >> I don't even need the performance of an Radeon 9200. It just want to >> keep playing the games I played before. But I don't know if any of the >> Matrox cards is capable of the 3D performance of my old Geforce 2 MX >> 400 (not considering the Parhelia, which is way out of my budget). >> >> Maybe the G550 or P650 are? > > > Just found this: > > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=matrox+g550+vs+geforce+2+mx&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&selm=bcAK7.57279%242w.3033444%40bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com&rnum=2" target="_blank">http://groups.google.com/groups?q=matrox+g550+vs+geforce+2+mx&hl=en&lr...e=UTF-8</a> > > > <quote> > Seriously, from what I've read, you won't see much improvement in 2D > performance or image quality. 3D gets the biggest boost. The G450 is > like a TNT 2 ultra but the G550's 3D performace is close to a GeForce 2 MX. > </quote> > > So apparantly the G550 is as good as my Geforce2 MX ) Just found an article contradicting that. The G550 comes "close", but cannot match the performance of the Geforce2 MX. > Does anybody know how the P650 compares? I think I will try to go for this card, since it's not much more expensive than the G550 and should have better 3D performance than my Geforce 2 MX card (I heard somebody was able to play C&C Generals with it). Kind regards, -- Jo Vermeulen Student Computer Science at the tUL email: jo.DeleteThis@lumumba.luc.ac.be www: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://lumumba.luc.ac.be/jo" target="_blank">http://lumumba.luc.ac.be/jo</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox

chrisv

External

Since: Nov 12, 2003
Posts: 649

(Msg. 10) Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:21 am Post subject: Re: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Jo Vermeulen <jo.TakeThisOut@lumumba.luc.ac.be> wrote: >I would like to work comfortably in at least 1600 x 1200 @ 85 Hz. This >should feature very crisp image quality. The 2D performance has thus a >higher priority. I've had several ATI cards, and they've all been quite good in 2D. 1600x1200 should be no problem if you've got the monitor for it.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox

Jo Vermeulen

External

Since: Jan 03, 2004
Posts: 10

(Msg. 11) Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 4:21 am Post subject: Re: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Jo Vermeulen wrote: > Hi, > > I recently upgraded my monitor to an iiyama 22 inch Diamnondtron > (HM204DT, Vision Master Pro 514). I'm really satisfied about it. > > The only thing that bothers me is a fuzzy image at high resolutions at > high refresh rates (currently 1600 x 1200 @ 85 Hz). The image is > significantly more crisp at lower refresh rates or lower resolutions. > > I think this is probably due to my Nvidia Geforce2 MX 400 graphics card. > I read a few posts and articles about blurry 2D quality with these cards. > > I'm looking for an upgrade, and although 2D performance is much more > important to me, I wouldn't want to cut back on the 3D performance my > Geforce2 MX had (which isn't great compared to high-end 3D cards nowadays). I just bought myself a Matrox Millenium P650, which has excellent 2D image quality, and better 3D performance than my Geforce2MX. Kind regards, -- Jo Vermeulen Student Computer Science at the tUL email: jo DeleteThis @lumumba.luc.ac.be www: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://lumumba.luc.ac.be/jo" target="_blank">http://lumumba.luc.ac.be/jo</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox

Jo Vermeulen

External

Since: Jan 03, 2004
Posts: 10

(Msg. 12) Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:58 am Post subject: Re: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Jo Vermeulen wrote: > Hi, > > I recently upgraded my monitor to an iiyama 22 inch Diamnondtron > (HM204DT, Vision Master Pro 514). I'm really satisfied about it. > > The only thing that bothers me is a fuzzy image at high resolutions at > high refresh rates (currently 1600 x 1200 @ 85 Hz). The image is > significantly more crisp at lower refresh rates or lower resolutions. > > I think this is probably due to my Nvidia Geforce2 MX 400 graphics card. > I read a few posts and articles about blurry 2D quality with these cards. Apparantly it was not (only) my Geforce2 MX 400 card. I had fuzzy quality at the right side of the display (this means for example a fuzzy clock in the Windows taskbar). I use the Matrox Millenium P650 now, which in combination with my monitor gives a very crisp image in the middle and at the left side. Unfortunately the right side is still fuzzy. This is probably due to my Iiyama monitor. I will try to contact the helpdesk on Monday, and explain my problem. The ultimate test I did was take a screenshot of the right corner, save it to a file, and view that image in the upper left corner, where it displayed very crisp. It's a pity Kind regards, -- Jo Vermeulen Student Computer Science at the tUL email: jo.DeleteThis@lumumba.luc.ac.be www: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://lumumba.luc.ac.be/jo" target="_blank">http://lumumba.luc.ac.be/jo</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox

Ken2

External

Since: Sep 19, 2004
Posts: 123

(Msg. 13) Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2004 1:57 pm Post subject: Re: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 00:58:21 +0100, Jo Vermeulen <jo DeleteThis @lumumba.luc.ac.be> wrote: > I had fuzzy quality at the right side of the display (this > means for example a fuzzy clock in the Windows taskbar). > > I use the Matrox Millenium P650 now, which in combination with my > monitor gives a very crisp image in the middle and at the left side. > Unfortunately the right side is still fuzzy. > > This is probably due to my Iiyama monitor. I will try to contact the > helpdesk on Monday, and explain my problem. > > The ultimate test I did was take a screenshot of the right > corner, save it to a file, and view that image in the upper > left corner, where it displayed very crisp. > > It's a pity Your montior have a bad focus adjustment.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox

Jo Vermeulen

External

Since: Jan 03, 2004
Posts: 10

(Msg. 14) Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2004 6:03 pm Post subject: Re: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Ken wrote: > On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 00:58:21 +0100, Jo Vermeulen > <jo.DeleteThis@lumumba.luc.ac.be> wrote: > > >>I had fuzzy quality at the right side of the display (this >>means for example a fuzzy clock in the Windows taskbar). >> >>I use the Matrox Millenium P650 now, which in combination with my >>monitor gives a very crisp image in the middle and at the left side. >>Unfortunately the right side is still fuzzy. >> >>This is probably due to my Iiyama monitor. I will try to contact the >>helpdesk on Monday, and explain my problem. >> >>The ultimate test I did was take a screenshot of the right >>corner, save it to a file, and view that image in the upper >>left corner, where it displayed very crisp. >> >>It's a pity > > > Your montior have a bad focus adjustment. I hope this problem can be fixed by getting a new monitor from the dealer (same model, same brand ofcourse)? Kind regards, -- Jo Vermeulen Student Computer Science at the tUL email: jo.DeleteThis@lumumba.luc.ac.be www: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://lumumba.luc.ac.be/jo" target="_blank">http://lumumba.luc.ac.be/jo</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ --> >> Stay informed about: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox

Kevin Lawton

External

Since: Jan 08, 2004
Posts: 40

(Msg. 15) Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2004 3:15 pm Post subject: Re: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Jo Vermeulen <jo RemoveThis @lumumba.luc.ac.be> wrote: <snip> \| I had fuzzy quality at the right side of the display (this means for \| example a fuzzy clock in the Windows taskbar). \| \| I use the Matrox Millenium P650 now, which in combination with my \| monitor gives a very crisp image in the middle and at the left side. \| Unfortunately the right side is still fuzzy. \| \| This is probably due to my Iiyama monitor. I will try to contact the \| helpdesk on Monday, and explain my problem. The 'fuzzy' corner of the display will be either due to a fault in the monitor itself, or maybe some external factor - magnetism ? Try the simplest things first. Make sure that there is nothing ganerating magnetic fields near to the monitor - speakers, adapters/power supplies, force-feedback joystick, external drive, etc. Just moving things around on the desk might make the difference. At one time I had the power 'bricks' for various peripherals - scanner, joystick, etc - plugged into a power strip on a shelf just below the monitor. It didn't exactly 'help' the bottm of the display. If in doubt, move it and see. Kevin. >> Stay informed about: 2D performance ATI compared to Matrox

Display posts from previous:

Related Topics:

Dual 22" LCD monitor slow down the desktop performance? - Hi there, how are you doing? We just bought two 22" widescreen LCD monitors to replace our two old 19" CRT monitors. By the way I can't remember what was the resolutions that I had for running the two dual 19" CRT monitors. Here is my har...

TV only on a Matrox G550 - Hi all, I'm trying to boot Win98 with a G550 & TV only. This is an extra computer which will play games and some mp3s only. Everything works great with a regular monitor plugged in with the tv as a secondary monitor. Two desktops, etc. When th...

SE440BX-2 and Matrox G550 - Does anyone know if my pentium II system (using SE440BX-2 a motherboard) will be compatible with the Matrox G550 card? I've heard of some problems with voltage levels etc., but I'm not sure how to determine this compatibility. I'm currently using aa..

Matrox P650 informations... - Someone have a Matrox P650? I like Matrox output quality......... but I'm frightened about hardware or software problems. :-\ Like the infamous Parhelia "banding" problem. ....or corrupted desktop icons I remember with my old G400. My mother...

Help with Matrox and Radeon cards - Ok here is the short of it, I am currently building a new PC for myself and I am stumped about one aspect. I am pretty big into gaming to I got a Radeon 9800 card. Now the thing that confuses me is that I also to a good bit of digital editing with Adob...

	Hardware Problem Solving Community! (Home) -> General	All times are: Pacific Time (US & Canada) (change) Goto page 1, 2
Page 1 of 2

You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum