Recommendation for best card for both 3D and 2D?

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:35:21 GMT
enigma wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:55:53 -0800, "Rick" wrote:

3D performance on the Parhelia series and other current Matrox
products is pathetic compared to current products from ATI and
Nvidia. Matrox is three generations behind in that technology.

For video editing, forget about an all-in-one video card solution
(most are exercises in compromise) and get a separate video
capture card. E.g. Canopus' ADVC-100 is very highly regarded
and not expensive.
What's the advantage of your recommended Canopus, or other such, over
an AIW? Also, I'm planning on getting a digital camcorder soon, so was
thinking of simply using that as a passthrough for my analog
transfers. Do the dedicated cards do anything I can't with that or the
AIW? Thanks again for all the help.

Using a digital camcorder for passthrough to Firewire works fine--just
make sure the one you get does support that, some of the lower-end
models don't. The Canopus does pretty much the same thing that the
camcorder would. The advantage of either over the AIW is that
analog-to-digital conversion takes place in dedicated hardware and the
computer only has to read and store the digital stream over the Firewire
port--capture using the AIW is CPU-intensive and every machine that I've
tried it on has dropped frames when used at the higher resolution
settings.

2D image quality isn't an issue among the three manufacturers,
they all use comparable RAMDACs and output filters. The
Parhelia will provide slightly better 2D output at resolutions
above 1600x1200, otherwise you won't see any difference
between controllers from the three major manufacturers.

Rick

"KJ" wrote in message
m... If you can
swing the expense, the Matrox Parhelia series is EXCELLENT for 2D &
video editing, and had good 3D performance (though not as fast as
the newer ATi's or nVidia on 3D cards). MUCH more stable than the
ATi products, and much "cleaner" than the nVidia products from my
experience.
"enigma" wrote in message
...
I'm looking for a card that can handle 3D decently (flight sims
and most recent kids games like Harry Potter are the most
intensive it will be used for), but also would like to do video
editing. Is there one that can do both well? If not, is an
alternative to put one in the AGP slot and another in the PCI
slot? TIA!






--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

KJ wrote:
I had and 8500 AIW prior to my current Parhelia. I tell you I am MUCH
happier having ditched the AIW (though the remote was cool) in place
of a Matrox solution. Just my personal experience.

I can second that. I get a much steadier picture on high resolutions and
refresh rates (better components?) than the old ATI, and can individually
adjust the colour tuning for each monitor, which more than makes up for the
somewhat slower 3D of the Parhelia.
For a non-gamer (or a flight sim gamer who REALLY benefits from 3 monitors),
the Parhelia is a very good choice. The real downside is the price. It's
too expensive, especially after 18 months on the market. Then again,
compared to the price of Adobe Photoshop or Premiere, it's cheap...

Regards,
--
*Art

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:35:20 -0500, "J.Clarke"
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:35:21 GMT
enigma wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:55:53 -0800, "Rick" wrote:

3D performance on the Parhelia series and other current Matrox
products is pathetic compared to current products from ATI and
Nvidia. Matrox is three generations behind in that technology.

For video editing, forget about an all-in-one video card solution
(most are exercises in compromise) and get a separate video
capture card. E.g. Canopus' ADVC-100 is very highly regarded
and not expensive.
What's the advantage of your recommended Canopus, or other such, over
an AIW? Also, I'm planning on getting a digital camcorder soon, so was
thinking of simply using that as a passthrough for my analog
transfers. Do the dedicated cards do anything I can't with that or the
AIW? Thanks again for all the help.

Using a digital camcorder for passthrough to Firewire works fine--just
make sure the one you get does support that, some of the lower-end
models don't. The Canopus does pretty much the same thing that the
camcorder would. The advantage of either over the AIW is that
analog-to-digital conversion takes place in dedicated hardware and the
computer only has to read and store the digital stream over the Firewire
port--capture using the AIW is CPU-intensive and every machine that I've
tried it on has dropped frames when used at the higher resolution
settings.

2D image quality isn't an issue among the three manufacturers,
they all use comparable RAMDACs and output filters. The
Parhelia will provide slightly better 2D output at resolutions
above 1600x1200, otherwise you won't see any difference
between controllers from the three major manufacturers.

Rick

"KJ" wrote in message
m... If you can
swing the expense, the Matrox Parhelia series is EXCELLENT for 2D &
video editing, and had good 3D performance (though not as fast as
the newer ATi's or nVidia on 3D cards). MUCH more stable than the
ATi products, and much "cleaner" than the nVidia products from my
experience.
"enigma" wrote in message
...
I'm looking for a card that can handle 3D decently (flight sims
and most recent kids games like Harry Potter are the most
intensive it will be used for), but also would like to do video
editing. Is there one that can do both well? If not, is an
alternative to put one in the AGP slot and another in the PCI
slot? TIA!

Thanks again for the help. Do I understand this correctly? If I use a
digital camcorder capable of it, I can use that to transfer my analog
tapes to digital, and then wouldn't need a dedicated capture card? If
not, what are the other functions of the capture card?
Then, I would need an appropriate video card, with good 2D performance
and preferably dual monitor support.
If I do that, can I use the AGP/PCI slot for that, and the other for a
card better suited to gaming? If so, would it be best to have the
gaming one in the AGP, and the 2D in the PCI? Do most cards come in
both interfaces? Thanks again for all the help.

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:10:29 GMT
enigma wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:35:20 -0500, "J.Clarke"
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:35:21 GMT
enigma wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:55:53 -0800, "Rick" wrote:

3D performance on the Parhelia series and other current Matrox
products is pathetic compared to current products from ATI and
Nvidia. Matrox is three generations behind in that technology.

For video editing, forget about an all-in-one video card solution
(most are exercises in compromise) and get a separate video
capture card. E.g. Canopus' ADVC-100 is very highly regarded
and not expensive.
What's the advantage of your recommended Canopus, or other such,
over an AIW? Also, I'm planning on getting a digital camcorder soon,
so was thinking of simply using that as a passthrough for my analog
transfers. Do the dedicated cards do anything I can't with that or
the AIW? Thanks again for all the help.

Using a digital camcorder for passthrough to Firewire works
fine--just make sure the one you get does support that, some of the
lower-end models don't. The Canopus does pretty much the same thing
that the camcorder would. The advantage of either over the AIW is
that analog-to-digital conversion takes place in dedicated hardware
and the computer only has to read and store the digital stream over
the Firewire port--capture using the AIW is CPU-intensive and every
machine that I've tried it on has dropped frames when used at the
higher resolution settings.

2D image quality isn't an issue among the three manufacturers,
they all use comparable RAMDACs and output filters. The
Parhelia will provide slightly better 2D output at resolutions
above 1600x1200, otherwise you won't see any difference
between controllers from the three major manufacturers.

Rick

"KJ" wrote in message
m... If you can
swing the expense, the Matrox Parhelia series is EXCELLENT for 2D
& video editing, and had good 3D performance (though not as fast as
the newer ATi's or nVidia on 3D cards). MUCH more stable than
the ATi products, and much "cleaner" than the nVidia products from
my experience.
"enigma" wrote in message
...
I'm looking for a card that can handle 3D decently (flight
sims and most recent kids games like Harry Potter are the most
intensive it will be used for), but also would like to do video
editing. Is there one that can do both well? If not, is an
alternative to put one in the AGP slot and another in the PCI
slot? TIA!

Thanks again for the help. Do I understand this correctly? If I use a
digital camcorder capable of it, I can use that to transfer my analog
tapes to digital, and then wouldn't need a dedicated capture card?

You are correct.

If
not, what are the other functions of the capture card?
Then, I would need an appropriate video card, with good 2D performance
and preferably dual monitor support.
If I do that, can I use the AGP/PCI slot for that, and the other for a
card better suited to gaming? If so, would it be best to have the
gaming one in the AGP, and the 2D in the PCI? Do most cards come in
both interfaces? Thanks again for all the help.

If you're doing video editing 8 hours a day for a living or are in film
school or something then go with a Matrox board, otherwise an ATI or
nvidia should be fine--any contemporary board should support dual
monitors and the 2D performance and image quality are fine for all but
the most critical applications.

None of the current-generation "gaming" boards are available as PCI
boards except the extreme low-end--if that's good enough for you then go
with current-generation Matrox, which should give about the same
performance. If you need more than that then you've got no choice but
putting the "gaming" board in the AGP slot, and once you've done that
there's no real point to a second board--the most recent PCI Matrox is a
G450, which, while it's a nice board, doesn't give you any better image
quality than the current (three generations newer) ATI and nvidia
boards.

Note that the difference in image quality between a Matrox and a current
ATI or nvidia board is going to be small in any case--it's there but it
doesn't jump out at you.


--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J.Clarke" wrote in message d...
None of the current-generation "gaming" boards are available as PCI
boards except the extreme low-end--if that's good enough for you then go
with current-generation Matrox, which should give about the same
performance.

That's not quite true. ATI makes PCI Radeons which are a
_much_ better single solution for 2D/3D.

Rick

J.Clarke wrote:

None of the current-generation "gaming" boards are available as PCI
boards except the extreme low-end--if that's good enough for you then
go with current-generation Matrox, which should give about the same
performance. If you need more than that then you've got no choice but
putting the "gaming" board in the AGP slot, and once you've done that
there's no real point to a second board--the most recent PCI Matrox
is a G450, which, while it's a nice board, doesn't give you any
better image quality than the current (three generations newer) ATI
and nvidia boards.

There's also the Matrox Parhelia PCI 256MB, which is good enough to play the
majority of games. (There's also the Matrox Parhelia HR256 PCI, but that's
just too expensive at $2500 for the card plus another $5000+ for 9MP
monitors.)

Regards,
--
*Art

Rick wrote:
"J.Clarke" wrote in message
d...
None of the current-generation "gaming" boards are available as PCI
boards except the extreme low-end--if that's good enough for you
then go with current-generation Matrox, which should give about the
same performance.

That's not quite true. ATI makes PCI Radeons which are a
_much_ better single solution for 2D/3D.

_Much_ better than the Parhelia PCI 256?

--
*Art

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:48:03 -0500
"Arthur Hagen" wrote:

Rick wrote:
"J.Clarke" wrote in message
d...
None of the current-generation "gaming" boards are available as PCI
boards except the extreme low-end--if that's good enough for you
then go with current-generation Matrox, which should give about the
same performance.

That's not quite true. ATI makes PCI Radeons which are a
_much_ better single solution for 2D/3D.

_Much_ better than the Parhelia PCI 256?

Item the first, if he is going for a single slot solution then he does
not need a PCI board to begin with. Item the second, the most capable
ATI board that is currently available with PCI is the Radeon 7500, which
is at this point four generations old and wasn't all that good a 3D
performer to begin with--it is _not_ more capable than the current
generation of Matrox boards.

--
*Art


--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J.Clarke" wrote in message d...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:48:03 -0500
"Arthur Hagen" wrote:

Rick wrote:
"J.Clarke" wrote in message
d...
None of the current-generation "gaming" boards are available as PCI
boards except the extreme low-end--if that's good enough for you
then go with current-generation Matrox, which should give about the
same performance.

That's not quite true. ATI makes PCI Radeons which are a
_much_ better single solution for 2D/3D.

_Much_ better than the Parhelia PCI 256?

Item the first, if he is going for a single slot solution then he does
not need a PCI board to begin with. Item the second, the most capable
ATI board that is currently available with PCI is the Radeon 7500, which
is at this point four generations old and wasn't all that good a 3D
performer to begin with--it is _not_ more capable than the current
generation of Matrox boards.

If he's going with a single slot solution, ATI makes AGP cards
that are _much_ faster in 3D and equal in 2D display quality, at
least up to 1600x1200. If he's looking for a separate PCI card
ATI's 7500 is much faster in 3D than any Matrox PCI model.

There's nothing worse than paying top dollar for a card and then
having to turn all the eye candy off just to get acceptable frame
rates. You'll find many posts to that effect in Matrox's Parhelia
forum.

Rick

Rick wrote:

"J.Clarke" wrote in message
d...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:48:03 -0500
"Arthur Hagen" wrote:

Rick wrote:
"J.Clarke" wrote in message
d...
None of the current-generation "gaming" boards are available as PCI
boards except the extreme low-end--if that's good enough for you
then go with current-generation Matrox, which should give about the
same performance.

That's not quite true. ATI makes PCI Radeons which are a
_much_ better single solution for 2D/3D.

_Much_ better than the Parhelia PCI 256?

Item the first, if he is going for a single slot solution then he does
not need a PCI board to begin with. Item the second, the most capable
ATI board that is currently available with PCI is the Radeon 7500, which
is at this point four generations old and wasn't all that good a 3D
performer to begin with--it is _not_ more capable than the current
generation of Matrox boards.

If he's going with a single slot solution, ATI makes AGP cards
that are _much_ faster in 3D and equal in 2D display quality, at
least up to 1600x1200. If he's looking for a separate PCI card
ATI's 7500 is much faster in 3D than any Matrox PCI model.

Why it took a month for this to show up on my server I don't know, but it
did.

If he has a fast board in the AGP slot and he doesn't need three monitors
then what point is there to putting a board in the PCI slot? And is the
PCI 7500 better in any manner whatsoever than an AGP Parhelia?

There's nothing worse than paying top dollar for a card and then
having to turn all the eye candy off just to get acceptable frame
rates. You'll find many posts to that effect in Matrox's Parhelia
forum.

Further, if you will go over to google groups and find the second post on
this thread you will find that I told him to use an ATI board. Why you're
off on this tangent of putting a Radeon in a PCI slot I don't
know--discussion of the 3D performance of PCI boards is like discussion of
the chastity of prostitutes. If he needs to have both what a Radeon does
good and what a Matrox does good and it's sufficiently critical to have
both to justify putting both boards in the machine then he's better off to
put the Radeon in the AGP slot and the Matrox in the PCI slot.

Rick

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)