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

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!

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:18:03 GMT
enigma wrote:

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!

Just about any random video board works fine for video editing--it's
simply not all that demanding. For flight sims do you mean the latest
version of Microsoft Flight Simulator and the like? If so, an ATI
Radeon 9500 or higher or an nvidia GeforceFX 5700, 5900, or
5950 will do fine for you. If you're talking about older versions of
Microsoft Flight Simulator and other games of that vintage and you're on
a budget then a Geforce Ti4200 would be a good bet.

If you need analog video capture one of the ATI All-in-wonder boards
will work but you'd do better to go with a separate capture
board--Matrox has several of those but they are intended for the
professional market and they are not cheap. If possible, use a digital
source and capture via Firewire.


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

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!

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.

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 ...
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!

I had a Matrox G400
then went to a Voodoo 5
tried two different ATI 9100s
then a Nvidia 5200
went back to a Sapphire ATI 9100 128MB

2D is at least 90% as good as a Matrox
Hopefully I will get an ATI 9600 Pro for Christmas
So go 9100 for about $75
or ATI 9600SE for about $85 (speed crippled with 64 bit memory pathway,
200mhz DDR)
or ATI 9600 Pro $140 (full 128 bit memory pathway that runs faster at
300mhz)



"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!

Rick wrote:
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.

I've heard this, and also that with DVI there is no difference
whatsoever. But what about multi-monitor support? Are Matrox still the
best for this or have the other manufacturers caught up? I want to use
two identical 17" TFT screens at 1280x1024. Asus have a nVidia 5600
board with dual-DVI so it's a choice between that and the Matrox P650.

Paul

Paul Smith wrote:

I've heard this, and also that with DVI there is no difference
whatsoever. But what about multi-monitor support? Are Matrox still the
best for this or have the other manufacturers caught up? I want to use
two identical 17" TFT screens at 1280x1024. Asus have a nVidia 5600
board with dual-DVI so it's a choice between that and the Matrox P650.

The only thing I can think of that might be an issue is that the V9560
VideoSuite (which I assume you're talking about) has only one RAMDAC, while
some other dual-DVI-I cards like the Parhelia has two. Also, it's uncertain
whether dual DVI-I can be used at the same time as the other features like
TV out -- with a single RAMDAC, that's doubtful.
Other than that, there's big differences in the dual-head support programs
for offerings from different manufacturers. Matrox is pretty good, as
multi-monitor support is a prime market for them, while nVidia really has
multi-head as a tertiary market at most. That said, with two identical
monitors running digital, there should be less problems overall anyhow. You
may not get a "copy" mode (show the same on both monitors), and if the
monitors differ slightly in manufacturing, you may not be able to adjust
individual ICC profiles for color/brightness correction.
Otherwise, don't worry too much about the brand in this case.

Regards,
--
*Art

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.

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 ...
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!

"enigma" wrote in message ...
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.

It's not so much what the two solutions can do, it's how well
they do them. A dedicated capture card will give you better
and far more flexible video, better quality audio (all-in-one
video card solutions use your computer's audio card, which
can be a cause of background noise and sync problems) and
can be used with a wide variety of editing software (Vegas,
Sonic, Premiere etc), instead of being limited to always
inferior software which is bundled with all-in-one video cards.
But probably the biggest advantage to a dedicated capture
card is CPU usage -- the Canopus does the bulk of its
processing onboard, while all-in-one video cards use the
system's CPU (don't count on doing much else with your
system while capturing, without dropping lots of frames).

Rick

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.

"Rick" wrote in message
...
"enigma" wrote in message
...
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.

It's not so much what the two solutions can do, it's how well
they do them. A dedicated capture card will give you better
and far more flexible video, better quality audio (all-in-one
video card solutions use your computer's audio card, which
can be a cause of background noise and sync problems) and
can be used with a wide variety of editing software (Vegas,
Sonic, Premiere etc), instead of being limited to always
inferior software which is bundled with all-in-one video cards.
But probably the biggest advantage to a dedicated capture
card is CPU usage -- the Canopus does the bulk of its
processing onboard, while all-in-one video cards use the
system's CPU (don't count on doing much else with your
system while capturing, without dropping lots of frames).

Rick