PDA

View Full Version : Matrox Marvel G450 TV I/O vs NVIDIA or ATI


Don Lindbergh
July 2nd 03, 01:38 AM
I have a Matrox Millenium G400 MAX and am very happy with the quality of the
TV and PC 2D output. I'm currently using a ViewSonic G790 19" monitor and
run 1152x864 True Color (32 bit).

I have a need for video in and so am looking at the Matrox Marvel G450.

I'm not a big gamer, but would be interested in the extra performance an
NVIDIA based or ATI Radeon card with video in/out would offer over the
Marvel G450 for around the same price ($200 street). I don't really need a
TV tuner.

I'm interested in comments from people who've actually used/compared any
such TV I/O capable NVIDIA based or ATI Radeon cards to either the Matrox
Marvel G450 or the Millenium G400 Max, specifically regarding the quality of
the video output and the comparative functionality of things like the Matrox
dualhead modes and DVD Max modes. I very much like being able to drive a TV
monitor simultaneously with a PC monitor from my Matrox G400 Max and have
any video image sent fullscreen to the TV (ie the Matrox DVD Max feature).
Taking Asus as an example, do either/both Asus NVIDIA models with TV in/out
and ATI models with same have this functionality? Does it work as well as
the Matrox stuff does? 2D quality is important to me as well, but I'd be
willing to take a relatively small hit in quality on that to gain
siginificant 3D performance.

I found the below relevant post. Agree/disagree?

thanks for any comments,

--Don
don{at}donlindbergh{dot}com

==
From: steve )
Subject: Re: Matrox 2D image quality so much better?


View this article only
Newsgroups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox
Date: 2003-02-22 15:23:49 PST



As a longtime Matrox user who switched to ATI Radeons (7500, 8500,
9000) for a year or so, I find that the ASUS and Leadtek NVIDIA
GeForce4 cards offer the highest quality 2D; their superiority to ATI
is especially evident as you increase the refresh rate: text displayed
through ATI cards tends to become darker and fuzzier at higher
frequencies while text put through GeForce4 cards seems to get a
little darker but also more sharp.

The cards I've experienced this with are Leadtek A180-DDR-TDH and ASUS
V9180-TD and V9280-TD.

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:22:41 +1100, "Cliff"
> wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>I consistently read that Matrox 2D image quality is so much better than
>other cards...but in what way?
>
>I've been using the G400Max for the past 3 years. The image quality is
>okay, but it doesn't seem anything exceptional. In fact, I've always
>wondered if it was a monitor (LG Flatron 795 Ft Plus) problem - text just
>doesn't seem as razor sharp as I would expect. Without a second monitor,
>it's hard to verify where the problems lies.
>
>Anyway, just curious to know what aspects of image quality to look for when
>comparing other cards.
>
>Also, has there been much improvement in 2D image quality over the past 3
>years. I tend to assume that all the development has gone into the 3D
>gaming side.
>
>Thanks in advance, Cliff

KSlater
July 2nd 03, 02:35 AM
Get something from Nvida then. I still like them better then ATI and only
use ATI if I want the TV tuner.

"Don Lindbergh" > wrote in message
.. .
> I have a Matrox Millenium G400 MAX and am very happy with the quality of
the
> TV and PC 2D output. I'm currently using a ViewSonic G790 19" monitor and
> run 1152x864 True Color (32 bit).
>
> I have a need for video in and so am looking at the Matrox Marvel G450.
>
> I'm not a big gamer, but would be interested in the extra performance an
> NVIDIA based or ATI Radeon card with video in/out would offer over the
> Marvel G450 for around the same price ($200 street). I don't really need
a
> TV tuner.
>
> I'm interested in comments from people who've actually used/compared any
> such TV I/O capable NVIDIA based or ATI Radeon cards to either the Matrox
> Marvel G450 or the Millenium G400 Max, specifically regarding the quality
of
> the video output and the comparative functionality of things like the
Matrox
> dualhead modes and DVD Max modes. I very much like being able to drive a
TV
> monitor simultaneously with a PC monitor from my Matrox G400 Max and have
> any video image sent fullscreen to the TV (ie the Matrox DVD Max feature).
> Taking Asus as an example, do either/both Asus NVIDIA models with TV
in/out
> and ATI models with same have this functionality? Does it work as well as
> the Matrox stuff does? 2D quality is important to me as well, but I'd be
> willing to take a relatively small hit in quality on that to gain
> siginificant 3D performance.
>
> I found the below relevant post. Agree/disagree?
>
> thanks for any comments,
>
> --Don
> don{at}donlindbergh{dot}com
>
> ==
> From: steve )
> Subject: Re: Matrox 2D image quality so much better?
>
>
> View this article only
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox
> Date: 2003-02-22 15:23:49 PST
>
>
>
> As a longtime Matrox user who switched to ATI Radeons (7500, 8500,
> 9000) for a year or so, I find that the ASUS and Leadtek NVIDIA
> GeForce4 cards offer the highest quality 2D; their superiority to ATI
> is especially evident as you increase the refresh rate: text displayed
> through ATI cards tends to become darker and fuzzier at higher
> frequencies while text put through GeForce4 cards seems to get a
> little darker but also more sharp.
>
> The cards I've experienced this with are Leadtek A180-DDR-TDH and ASUS
> V9180-TD and V9280-TD.
>
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:22:41 +1100, "Cliff"
> > wrote:
>
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I consistently read that Matrox 2D image quality is so much better than
> >other cards...but in what way?
> >
> >I've been using the G400Max for the past 3 years. The image quality is
> >okay, but it doesn't seem anything exceptional. In fact, I've always
> >wondered if it was a monitor (LG Flatron 795 Ft Plus) problem - text just
> >doesn't seem as razor sharp as I would expect. Without a second monitor,
> >it's hard to verify where the problems lies.
> >
> >Anyway, just curious to know what aspects of image quality to look for
when
> >comparing other cards.
> >
> >Also, has there been much improvement in 2D image quality over the past 3
> >years. I tend to assume that all the development has gone into the 3D
> >gaming side.
> >
> >Thanks in advance, Cliff
>
>

Don Lindbergh
July 2nd 03, 03:36 AM
"KSlater" > wrote in message
a...
> Get something from Nvida then. I still like them better then ATI and only
> use ATI if I want the TV tuner.

Ok. Can you be more specific? How about some comments on the video i/o
quality and functionality of any particular Nvidia board with respect to
what Matrox has to offer with the G400 Max and Marvel G450?

--Don

Don Lindbergh
July 2nd 03, 03:00 PM
"KSlater" > wrote in message >...
> If the main function you are looking for is Video in go for any ATI All In
> Wonder card that is in your price range. (remember I hate useing ATI cards
> myself). Nvidia is not strong in the Video In portion. I have used both the
> G400 and G450 cards for MS Flight Simming and they worked good but were put
> under (for FS uses) by the GF4 cards (that is what FS 2004 is developed on).
> Matrox Parhelia (at 800 canadian per card) is still a better dual monitor
> card and better video in out card. If you are more interested in crisp
> picture go with the G450. It sucks on 3D stuff. If you want fast 3D and are
> willing to go a little less on the quality of the picture go with Nvidia
> (namely a FX 5200 Video suite or a FX5600 VS card). Otherwise just use a AIW
> card from ATI.

Thanks, I won't rule out ATI yet then.

What NVidia based card(s) with video in have you actually tried/used?
What is/was not good about the video in on those specific cards?

What ATI card(s) with video in have you actually tried/used?
What is/was better about the video in on those specific cards?

Re: NVidia support of video in, isn't this completely dependent on the
manufacturer and/or has nothing to do with NVidia? The Asus cards for
example use a Philips 7108AE for video I/O.

I see no mention of video in capability on either version of the
Matrox Parhelia, where are you getting that?

--Don

KSlater
July 3rd 03, 01:07 AM
The Parhelia is a business card you are right in it not mentioning a video
in. I guess matrox wants you to use the E450. I personally do not use any
video in. I have used the ATI AIW output and inputs as a test (when setting
it up for a customer). I have also done the same with Nvidia GF3 card. I
don't know the model of the ATI card Nor does it really matter. Even still
in the reviews ATI gets better reviews for Video in (and is easier to use in
that). Nvdia I like much better as the drivers work half the time. I have
used the ASUS and MSI branded Nvidia cards. the ATI cards I used were Built
By ATI. I would recommend ATI card if Video in is really important to you.
If you only want to do it now and then the Nvidia is a better choice (IMHO).

KSlater

Cliff
July 3rd 03, 01:57 AM
....another thing I forgot to mention was that I've done a lot of checking
into TV out quality of the newer cards.

I've yet to find a 'stand out' card...they all seem to have issues. For
that reason alone, I'm not prepared to give up on my G400Max.

It's about the only reason I keep patrolling the NVIDIA and ATI
newsgroups...one the elusive search for a good TV out card :)

Cheers, Cliff