Matrox card – can u use 2 vid cards?

M
Posted By
MY5TMAN
Jan 5, 2006
Views
630
Replies
15
Status
Closed
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

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

W
Waldo
Jan 5, 2006
MY5TMAN wrote:
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

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

Waldo
K
k
Jan 5, 2006
"MY5TMAN" wrote in message
| 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
M
MY5TMAN
Jan 6, 2006
Hi K –

**so I bowed to his wisdom.**

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?

| 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?

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.
K
k
Jan 6, 2006
"MY5TMAN" wrote in message
|
|
| 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 4×5 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
F
Fred
Jan 8, 2006
k wrote:
"MY5TMAN" wrote in message
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 😉

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.

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 4×5 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
M
MY5TMAN
Jan 11, 2006
k wrote:

"MY5TMAN" wrote in message

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! 😉

Good to know. Thanks for the tip

| 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 4×5 film/flatbed and a kick ass A3 pulsed xenon film scanner (like the one NASA and National Geo have 😉

[!] 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… 😀

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!

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

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
M
MY5TMAN
Jan 11, 2006
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
W
Westslope
Jan 13, 2006
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."
K
k
Jan 13, 2006
"MY5TMAN" wrote in message
|

| [!] 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
k
Jan 13, 2006
"Westslope" wrote in message
| 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
SC
Steven Campbell
Jan 13, 2006
"Westslope" wrote in message
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

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.
FK
Father Kodak
Jan 13, 2006
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 14:03:40 -0000, "Steven Campbell" wrote:

"Westslope" wrote in message

I recently upgraded my PC. I had a Matrox GeFeorce440 and went to an ATI

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

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.

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
Steven.

HB
How Bizarre
Jan 13, 2006
"Father Kodak" wrote in message
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 14:03:40 -0000, "Steven Campbell" wrote:

"Westslope" wrote in message

I recently upgraded my PC. I had a Matrox GeFeorce440 and went to an ATI

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

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.

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.

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.
FK
Father Kodak
Jan 14, 2006
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 20:58:16 -0000, "How Bizarre" wrote:


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

Oops sorry my mistake re the GeForce.

So, what was this video card? GeForce or Matrox?

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.

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
K
k
Jan 14, 2006
"Steven Campbell" wrote in message

| 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

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections