If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
8X APG not working | shmortz | Asus Motherboards | 6 | December 8th 04 11:57 PM |
Graphic Card Recommendation | Grinder | General | 10 | September 5th 04 05:33 AM |
A7N8X-X and AGP confusion (by me) | Paul | Asus Motherboards | 2 | August 26th 04 08:44 AM |
Need Video Card Recommendation? | Jim Fox | Homebuilt PC's | 19 | February 2nd 04 02:29 AM |
Good PC RAID card recommendation | John Smith | Homebuilt PC's | 2 | October 7th 03 12:33 PM |