|
Post Reply
ohooghuis 2001-05-05 07:31
I have a NVidia TNT2 Ultra in my Win2k computer. I am wondering what is better for multi-monitor use: buy a PCI videocard and use it together with my TNT2 or buy a G450 and throw my TNT2 away?
I use my computer mainly for browsing the internet but sometimes I also play games.
|
Christian Studer 2001-05-05 07:54
Both options have their advantages:
2 cards:
- usually better performance on the primary card
- easily upgrade your primary video card (for games, etc)
- less expensive if you already have a video card
Dualhead card:
- no compatibility problems (at least with the Matrox...)
- uses only a single slot
- included software
I prefer individual cards, mainly because you can keep your PCI cards and easily upgrade the primary card whenever necessary. If you want more than 2 monitors, I would probably get an AGP card for the primary monitor, and a 2- or 4-port PCI card for the secondary monitors.
Christian Studer
www.realtimesoft.com
|
ohooghuis 2001-05-05 21:11
Thanks for your quick reply.
The G450 has software included, does this mean I don't need to buy Ultramon? What functions does Ultramon have that the Matrox software doesn't?
|
Christian Studer 2001-05-06 02:03
Can't help you with that, I haven't used the Matrox software myself.
Anyway, additional software isn't required, Win98/2000 have built-in multi-monitor support. UltraMon just adds additional features.
Christian Studer
www.realtimesoft.com
|
almghty 2001-05-09 11:43
I went the route of the g450. It all depends on whether you play games all the time or just drop in to B&W or Counterstrike occassoinally. Its important because you will notice a slight performance drop. Not much but just enough until you re-adjust. Having said that the drivers no doubt will improve things marginally so that it will eventually be on par with what you expected with the TNT2.
Can I say gone are the days of turning off the second monitor? I play games on the primary whilst surfing on the other. I debug graphic apps whilst i trace through my code. I can set different resolutions for each of my monitors.
IT is proper dual head in that each monitor can be a different resolution. Nothing stretches across both screens ..not even the login dialog. This is what dualhead should be and I dont know what is taking Nvidia so long because the much anticipated release of detonator 4 do NOT address these issues for their TwinView. In fact XP will be released with the same type of Dualhead support as win2k; Explorer taskbar stretched all the way across.
You can turn off dualhead without a reboot and even though their e-dualhead (for IE5.5) is a gimmick it can be useful.
Sorry if this sounds like i'm selling the g450 its just that the TwinView gets me frustrated. Nvidia know Matrox are ahead and yet releases a sub par implementation of dualhead technology. They dont even bother with fixing the different resolution problem, instead acknowledging it cannot be done ..and then matrox come along and proves them wrong.
Anyhow I hope my g450 helps you.
|
Florian 2001-05-09 18:24
Just to mention, the performance of the matrox cards in 3d sector, are just a joke.
Even a Gforce mx is 4 times faster then the matrox accelerator, though it does not support bumb mapping, wich is rarely used anyway.
Beneath that, I'v heard that tha matrox g400 performs better in 3d apps then the g450.
I dont know, if dual head works properly on the g450, but since the driver update for the g450 and g400 are the same for win2k, I suppose that the 3d acceleration does not work either in dual head service, with two different resolutions.
This bug was driving me crazy, and I dont know, if matrox has implented this by will. You could have dual head but not different resolutions(early release of the driver for win2k), you could have different resolutions then but not 3d accelereation.
Sometimes thing seem to be build up to Murphys law.
Anyway, I broke up with matrox, an will never buy me one again. Because of the above mentiont things, and the fact that their OpenGl support is lausy, and the renderpipeline of their own chip is most of the time not even working correctly(problems with the correct shading of faces).
I'v also encounterd various problems with getting another card beneath the G400 to work.
|
Jerry Perlstein 2001-05-09 23:42
I didn't like the idea of dual head cards running on from a single chip. Since you have Win2k, I am not sure that a multimonitor system with a dual card is going to work the way you want it to. Better check with the card manufacturer before you buy.
System
Iwill KK266-R 800Mhz Duron not overclocked, Raid disabled,sound enabled
power supply: Enermax 431W-2fans
Case: Enlight with 2 additional fans
Memory: Crucial-768 Mb PC133 CAS 2 (3 sticks of 256)
IBM 75GXP 30Gb 7200rpm Master Ide 0
plextor CD-RW 16/10/42 Master Ide 1
NEC ZIP 100 slave Ide 0
Mitsumi 1.44 Mb floppy
Monitors: 1 19" CTX-PL9, 2-17" CTX-PL7
PCI slots:
O:(AGP) ATI RADEON 64 Mb DDR (primary)
1: NIC LinkSys Fast Ethernet 10/100
2: Modem-Intel HAM Data FAx
3:Matrox Millennium 4 Mb (monitor 2)
4:empty
5:empty
6:Matrox Millennium 4 Mb (monitor 3)
|
Charles 2001-05-20 06:35
I have a second monitor but it is not yet installed. A recent magazine stated that the G450 will not support an LED monitor as a second screen.(which is a pity) Anyone any experience when connecting LED monitors?
Charles
|
Post Reply
|
