Card for non-gaming PC :confused:

[kynersley]

Hi everyone, this looks like a great place for advice. I have an AMD 1500 Mh PC with 80 gigs of ATA 100 2700 rpm hard drive and .75 of a gig of pc133 ram. My monitor is a 19" Iyama and I am running Win 2K Pro. Now I know in the great scheme of things this is not the mother of all PCs but I am hoping it will suffice for the purpose. The main point being I do not play games on this machine it is purely a work machine. The types of applications I use are Adobe Photoshop, Signlab and Corel Draw 10. I use a program called Shiraz to RIP large .eps & .jpg graphic files to an Encad 850 large format printer. My work quite often involves being sent a Corel Draw file comprising a backdrop of some description. This backdrop can be made up of mainly vector images with fountain fills, pattern fills etc and vector text. I then have to photograph a product/s of some description using a Ricoh RDC7 digicam. I use Adobe Photoshop to process the photo/s then incorporate them into the Corel Draw backdrop. While I am shunting these bitmaps around in Corel they quite often fail to re-draw, are jerky when moving or appear distorted. My Encad outputs at 600dpi and the output is always better than it appears on the PC. I run my display at 1024x768 32bit colour. The card I am trying at the moment is the Nvidia Gforce4 MX440 64Mb I think (cost about £95). It sounds pretty impressive and the box looks a million dollars but do I really need all that 3D this that and the other . Whenever I read reviews on these cards all the benchmarks seem to be done on games. What are the important factors that I should be looking out for. Is open GL important to me, what about DDR ram ?. Being as all of these cards are agp and I have more than enough ram, is 64Mb onboard enough. Can I get what I need for a couple of hundred quid or does what I am trying to do require big bucks ? Any help would be much appreciated.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
I've learned.... That the easiest way for me to grow as a person is to surround myself with people smarter than I am.

[grover]

If you're not doing any 3D intensive applications, you don't need all that power. And even old obsolete cards will process 2D information so fast, you'll never notice the difference... I'd recommend you save your money and get an older card. Anything with 16-32mb is in the right power range. If you only run 1024x768, GeForce2MX is probably a good choice, but older ATI cards like the Radeon would also work well for you with better performance at higher resolutions These cards were top-of-the-line in their day, and either will play DVDs and any game out today, they just won't let you pay the game 1600x1200 FSAA.

Of course, this is all assuming you're working with reasonable size files (like 3-5mpixel or smaller). If by "large", you mean 36" wide banners x 1200dpi, then you might need something more specialized; I'm not sure if even the newest fastest GeForce4 will handle it any better than whatever card you have now.

------------------
Asus A7V
AXIA T-Bird 1GHz @ 1.30GHz

[MuFu]

I'd get a cheap ATi or Matrox card as 2D image quality is probably your priority. Something like an ATi Radeon VE or secondhand Matrox G400/G450 would suit your needs perfectly. The dual-head functionality will let you add a second monitor in the future.

I would avoid GF2MX cards as their image quality is often found wanting. The same goes for some of the latest GF4MX's.

MuFu.

------------------
BRAND NEW ATi RADEON 8500 RETAIL FOR SALE 64MB DDR W/TV-OUT DUAL DVI/VGA (e-mail me)

GOTcentral?

[This message has been edited by Mutha Funker (edited 05-06-2002).]

[COZITSTHERE]

Nothing wrong with the image quality of ANY Gforce 2 or 4 MX. I have used both and have been completly satisfied with the quality and performance for the price.

There are 3 PCs currently running in the computer room at my house. One has a Radeon 8500, another a Gforce 2 GTS and mine with a Gforce 4 MX 420. The 2D image quality looks good on all three machines.

The Gforce MX cards are not as feature rich as the higher end cards but can be purchased for less than $100.00.

Mutha Funker, exactly where do the MX series lack in image quality?

------------------
Inwin Q500 FT
IWILL KK266
640 mb PC-100
Duron 1 Ghz
Gforce 4 MX 420
Mini Super Orb
Pioneer 16x DVD
Philips 24/12/40
Philips 107S 17" Monitor
Logitech Z-340s
Win XP Pro

[MuFu]

Mutha Funker, exactly where do the MX series lack in image quality?

On the monitor.

No, seriously, it really depends on the manufacturer that makes the card. It is common knowledge that 3rd parties often use low quality RF filters on their GF2MX resulting in poor IQ. I am very suprised that there is no image quality discrepancy between the cards you own. Hell, there is even a "hack" to improve IQ on GF2MX's.

I just said avoid GF2MX's since there are better cards for kynersley's type of application that cost the same.

MuFu.

[This message has been edited by Mutha Funker (edited 05-06-2002).]

[a13antichrist]

Originally posted by COZITSTHERE:

There are 3 PCs currently running in the computer room at my house. One has a Radeon 8500, another a Gforce 2 GTS and mine with a Gforce 4 MX 420. The 2D image quality looks good on all three machines.

No-one notices a difference until you use a Matrox card..

In any case it's a matter of what's important to you. A hard-core audiophile can hear the subtle differences between a $2000 amp and a $300 one.. and writhes in pain upon hearing Xing-encoded MP3. Me, I like my eyes... and I won't touch anything other than Matrox.

------------------
The Darkside: OCN Hellspawn - having our way with your daughter's genes

[wonderinguy34]

I would also recommend the Matrox G450 80.14 pound ,but you can probably get an OEM cheaper if you look around. The G450 has 32MB DDR ,64MB is not going to make a difference except in some games perhaps.OpenGL is supported on the Primary Display ,if you only use One monitor this isn't a problem.

[dfgsd]

i went from a geforce 2 pro to an ati 8500 and there is quite a large 2d quality difference. i am willing to get the ati radeon ve would be the cheapest i bet you can find one for around 30

[DuronClocker]

I would recommend a Matrox G450, but the G550 should be somewhat better (right guys?).

Another option, if you have some soldering skills, would be to purchase a GF2MX card (or regular GF2) and mod it to a Quadro2. This will give you a significant boost using OpenGL and wireframing types of apps (not OGL games though, only stuff like AutoCAD and 2D graphics work with OGL). This should outperform a GF4MX, Radeons, and even the Matrox cards in 2D graphics work...

------------------
MSI K7T Turbo-R w/ 2.35v/4.05v mods
Certified as "Turbo2-R" by me
AthlonXP 1600+ @1700+ @ 1.55v
256MB Corsair PC150 CL3 - hopefully MushkinREV3 soon
Diamond TNT2 Viper V770 @ 160/220

[flat-v8]

Another vote for the Matrox G-450, I love those cards! It will play any game, just not as fast. Super picture quality, Excellent DVD playback, and a very rugged built card. Twice I had to rebuild systems that were damaged by lighting strikes, both had Matrox cards, one a G-400, the other a G-450. When everything in the PC was dead except the video cards in both machines, Wow! they are good.

------------------
http://www.heatware.com/eval.php4?id=2362

[MuFu]

See, not only are G450's good, THEY ARE INVINCIBLE!!!

MuFu.

P.S. Most graphics cards survive power surges from what I've seen, even when the rest of the system is totally hosed. Weird...

------------------
BRAND NEW ATi RADEON 8500 RETAIL FOR SALE 64MB DDR W/TV-OUT DUAL DVI/VGA (e-mail me)

GOTcentral?

[kynersley]

WOW! I am totally overwhelmed by you guys. 10 quality replies within 24 hours, 8 on the same day!!!
Is this the mother of all forums or what ?
I've wasted hours reading those main stream PC magazine reviews and none of them ever tell me what I need to know. Plus I've heard that the winners of those reviews are the ones giving the biggest back hander, surely not.
You guys on the other hand, sound like a bunch of hands on, real world enthusiasts with large portions of humour thrown in for good measure. (I hope that the majority of you aren't sponsored by Matrox). Firstly I must jump to the defence of MuFu and his little punch up with Cozitsthere regarding image quality. The card that I mentioned I was trying is a "Sparkle" Nvidia Gforce 4 MX 440 and not a genuine Nvidia card, so I suppose that based on what MuFu said, that could account for the indifferent picture quality, so Cozitsthere I thank you for your comments but based on the general consensus (including MuFu) it looks like Matrox has won the day. Dfgsd It looks like you too have been out voted this time, but thanks anyway. Wonderinguy34, you piled on the Matrox points and helped me make my mind up, cheers. Flat-v8 I'm not only going with you on the Matrox, but I'm now going to stop worrying about lightning, (although MuFu isn't convinced about the lightning theory) cheers. Continued next post ......

[kynersley]

Contd ... Grover I took careful note of your input. On your comment about file size, the biggest size bitmap I normally have to manipulate in Adobe or Corel is A1 to A0 at about 200 dpi max. I actually produce prints up to 42" wide by 10 to 12 foot long quite regularly but the Shiraz RIP software sizes them up and feeds them to the printer without any graphics card intervention, but it does give the CPU and the hard drive a bending. Just an interesting quick note guys, being as Grover brought the subject of image size up, just before Christmas a woman asked me to produce 3 of the same full colour prints for some kind of shop display. She wanted the prints to be 40" wide by about 7 foot long and turned up with the artwork on a floppy disk. The file was one of those freebee jpg files you get with Win XP in \my pictures. Infact you may have seen it, it's a picture of some icebergs. She just looked at me rolling around on the floor laughing my head off and said what's the matter ?
I said you want it how big ? Anyway, to cut a long storey short I told her that I would use Shiraz to blow the image up to the size she wanted (with just a little bit of distortion, but who can tell the difference with icebergs) and print the first couple of feet to let her see how bad it looked. She absolutely loved it, I ran the 3 off, she paid me and went away very happy. Such a huge print from such a minute file, and to be honest the prints were great, I could not believe it. Moral of storey......just do as the woman tells you ! DuronClocker, your modification is right up my street. I would take immense pleasure in pulling off a mod like that, if I knew how to. I will pick up a Matrox G450 or 550 ASAP and keep a look out for a second hand GF2MX to mod. And maybe if you get the chance you could give me a few pointers on how to do the mod (I'm not bad with a soldering iron), cheers. MuFu thanks again for your comments, the Matrox votes followed yours thick and fast. I noted that you had a problem with the GF2MX but what about the mod that DuronClocker mentioned ? The final accolade must go to a13antichrist, boy has this guy got a way with words. Your comments about Matrox are almost poetry (you don't work for them do you). After a recommendation like that I would be a fool not to take it, thanks buddy.
If I missed anybody,sorry, catchya next time.

[DuronClocker]

Well, personally, I've never done the mod, but I read about it while trying to decide what type of video card I wanted for my next upgrade. I decided upon the Radeon 64DDR VIVO card because of the decent performance (though some hate it) and the VIVO capabilities. It should be arriving here at my house sometime tomorrow, so that will be fun to play with my first VIVO card.

Actually I first read about this mod when looking into the GF4MX, I saw a review about someone doing this to a GF4MX, but it had no performance gain at all. Apparently, nVidia learned and separated their core designs after the whole GF2-Quadro mod thing. The GF2 modded over to the QuadroMXR actually outperformed the GF3Ti500, Radeon8500, and Ti4400 in some of the reviews I've read in some of the OpenGL graphics programs. However, this mod does not affect gaming performance or DirectX performance.

I am still looking for a PCI GF2-based card (MX or not, it doesn't matter) for under $50. I can find AGP GF2 cards all over the place, but I need a PCI. It should be awesome to use in conjunction with my RadeonVIVO, especially since I want to start getting into digital editing and special effects just for fun. This should give me an awesome OpenGL-based 3D editing card.

I'll look for some more information on it for us because I can't remember the site (and don't think I saved it, but I'll check). It sounded like a very easy mod, with only like 2 soldering points required (one resistor), or 3 soldering points to add a switch from standard GF2 to Quadro2, which I think would be a very nice feature. I'll try to find out which cards it would be able to work with as well (should be any GF2 card) because it requires flashing the video card's BIOS, but usually not a problem!

Also, MuFu is exactly right about the low-pass filter installed on all GF2 and GF3 series cards, well at least those that are approved by nVidia. Some companies don't use them. However, it is a very easy mod and does improve the IQ (image quality) drastically. I did it on my Viper V770 (TNT2) because for some reason my TNT2 card had this filter on it as well. The problem arises when manufacturers use cheap capacitors to cut manufacturing costs. These cheap capacitors don't offer as clean a signal, therefore having slight IQ problems. I'll be getting my ATI Radeon tomorrow (I think), so I'll be comparing the IQ of the Radeon and my hacked TNT2. One last comment on the nVidia IQ problems...the GF4Ti/MX cards seem to have fixed this problem, whether by applying stricter standards to the low-pass filter or removing it completely..

------------------
MSI K7T Turbo-R w/ 2.35v/4.05v mods
Certified as "Turbo2-R" by me
AthlonXP 1600+ @ 1.55v
256MB Corsair? PC133 CL3
Soon Radeon64DDR VIVO

[sjracer]

Have to put my 2 cents in You cannot beat the quality of a Matrox card. I have used many of their cards, and you cannot get a better quality from any other card on the market. They may not be the fastest, but the quality is worth the trade off. My G400MAX is still in my kids puter. Im anxiously awaiting the release of their new card. Only 6 more days!!!!!

SJRACER

------------------
Abit KR7A-133 Raid
Athlon 1900+
Enlight 7237 Case
Enermax 350W
512 MB PC2100 DDR
Maxtor 40 Gig 7200RPM
ASUS V7100 Pro
SB Live 5.1
3Com NIC
HP 9100 CDRW
Sony 52X CDrom