Matrox Millennium G450 Dual Head 32 MB

[goteeman]

This is a 32mb ddr card. Let me know what you think of it.

[Darthtanion]

If you're going to be doing business type applications then it will rock. If it's gaming that you have in mind, then it sucks... BAD!

[Ehhe Yebeb]

i think i already answered your question at overclockersforum.com (if its the same person) but the answer is its a bad choice. If you want a good 2D card, then get the G550, 3D performance is about the same as a TNT2

[zeradul]

No, I have a buddy who has one, and it does considerably better than a TNT2.

[Ehhe Yebeb]

Oh well of the reviews i saw of the G550 it was getting hammered by the GeForce 2

[zeradul]

I believe that, If you asked me to place the relative power of the card, I would say somewhere a little weaker than a GF2 MX... give or take..

[Ehhe Yebeb]

meh either way i dont think its a good investment. If you want a good quality 2D card thats cheap then get a radeon 7500

[Wiggo]

No if only want 2D quality and dual monitors then ya can't go past a Matrox card and those who say otherwise obviously havn't seen one in action. Not everyone wants to play games ya know. :smokin:
<center>:cheers:</center>

[Ehhe Yebeb]

Oh i know. I dont play games myself, i have one game on my computer, NFS5. Anyway the G450 is long outdated and if you are looking into a card like that the G550 is probably a better choice

[Wiggo]

How much a person is willin' to outlay also has to be taken into consideration as well and a Dual Head G450 is cheaper than a Dual Head G550 which to some the difference may not seem much but to others could be far too much. :smokin:
<center>:cheers:</center>

[chisholm]

yea when it comes to 2D quality matrox are definantely first....followed distantly by nvidia...with ATI and kyro in between:cheers:

[zeradul]

just for kicks... does anyone have a link of screenshots comparing the quality of various 2D performance?

[Ehhe Yebeb]

Zeradul, if you view a bunch of pics taken off different video cards of the same thing, then you will not see the relative image quality difference properly. IE if you view two pics of something, one froma matrox, one from a nVidia, and view them on a TNT2, you are not really going to see much difference, because your only viewing the image at the capability of the TNT2. So see the difference you need to have two systems set up next to eachother, one with each video card, viewing the same thing, then you will see how much better the matrox is in 2D

[Ehhe Yebeb]

yea when it comes to 2D quality matrox are definantely first....followed distantly by nvidia...with ATI and kyro in between:cheers:

Actually ive heard, and read many times that ATI far surpasses nVidia in 2D quality and DVD playback

[zeradul]

Zeradul, if you view a bunch of pics taken off different video cards of the same thing, then you will not see the relative image quality difference properly

Is that the case? I considered that but I believe that a screenshot would be an un-alterable example of how the vid cards display the key things, like window edges, and menus, etc. I do not know for sure, that is just an educated hunch.

Actually ive heard, and read many times that ATI far surpasses nVidia in 2D quality

Hehe.. that IS what he said... :D :D :thumb: :thumb:

PS: As pure circumstance would have it, I was at a mini-lan today at my friend who is running a G550, and we did some comparing of the 2D quality, and we certainly couldn't see any difference. I have excellent eyes, but I will say that I do have a better monitor than both of his.

My system:
Elsa GF2 GTS 32 MB / Samsung Syncmaster 950P

His:
Matrox G550 / Compaq 17" (not sure of model) and an older Dell 15"