Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Vertigo1 on May 13, 2002, 06:26:56 pm
-
http://www.descentbb.net/ubb/Forum8/HTML/004393.html
:cool:
-
That price looks very attractive considering all the great specs; looks like nVidia may finally have a good competitor. ;) The multiple-monitor thing is less useful in my opinion, though, since who really has the money to pay for three large monitors... :p
-
Damn! Look at the heatsink on that card!
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/pc/docs/2002/0514/matrox_2.jpg
-
LOL you should see the fan I have on my GF3; it covers up almost the whole card. :D (6.2-inch diameter :D)
That looks pretty big for a stock fan, though. :nod:
-
Originally posted by MD-2389
Damn! Look at the heatsink on that card!
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/pc/docs/2002/0514/matrox_2.jpg
Wouldn't fit in my case, unless I decided to vacate the two PCI slots below the AGP slot, but I don't think I'll be doing that for a mere Matrox. (-:
--TurboNed
-
Originally posted by TurboNed
Wouldn't fit in my case, unless I decided to vacate the two PCI slots below the AGP slot, but I don't think I'll be doing that for a mere Matrox. (-:
--TurboNed
If I remember correctly, THAT Matrox card comes in a triple-head model. I'm already wasting the next two PCI slots on video cards. I wouldn't lose anything and I'd gain two interrupts. *heh*
-
It's good to see Matrox back in the 3D game. With Creative pushing out 3DLabs P10(?) this x-mas, things should get interesting in the 3D graphics market. :nod:
I wonder about the nv30 and next card fro ATI, though.
-
here you have given us a link to another link, to another link. Couldn't you just quote??
Anyway, seems like it could be :yes: :yes: :yes: , especially for the price.
-
Just wait till wEvil arrives and start saying it's a piece of crap... :D
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Just wait till wEvil arrives and start saying it's a piece of crap... :D
He'll be absolutely correct--from the professional 3d point of view. From the productivity point of view, Matrox are the best cards out there, since they have the best 2d image quality, bar none. From the gamer point of view, I'd say they'll be so-so.
Of course, didn't wEvil point to this card recently as an example of the right direction for a video card to go?
-
Hmm, they say that it's not for the masses, but it's a very high-end card (they say that it's faster than GF4Ti4600). We'll see the price...
Originally posted by CP5670
looks like nVidia may finally have a good competitor. ;) The multiple-monitor thing is less useful in my opinion, though, since who really has the money to pay for three large monitors... :p
Well, ATI is also quite a good competitor, at least it was before GF4's were released, but it still is. :nod:
Also, some people have three monitors... and of course you could use older monitors, though they're not often too good.
Originally posted by MD-2389
Damn! Look at the heatsink on that card!
:nod: It's big, but I'm pretty sure that the retail version will not have that big.
Originally posted by Ryx
I wonder about the nv30 and next card fro ATI, though.
:nod: Same here. ;)
-
Well, its official now. :) Check out Matrox's site.
-
:D
The g1k certainly looks like a cool card but the direction Matrox tend to take works more towards the slightly gimmiky (whats with all this halo stuff for instance?)
My money is on the P10 simply because i want a pro card, and the G1k won't be engineered to the tolerances I need - still, with any luck it will push Nvidia out a bit.
I never like Nvidia products and the fact they have a virtual monopoly I find extremely irritating.
-
Well, I'm not upgrading my gf3 till the winter (maybe), so I imagine I'll have a wide selection, including the p10 if Creative delivers.
Like I said earlier, Interesting. :nod:
-
depends if yer after a gaming card or the pro version.
I'd imagine the Oxygen2 7100 will be out whithin one or two months ;)
-
We haven't seen any benchmarks on Parhelia yet, so we can't know the performance.
Originally posted by wEvil
depends if yer after a gaming card or the pro version.
I'd imagine the Oxygen2 7100 will be out whithin one or two months ;)
Well, if he has a GF3... :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
That price looks very attractive considering all the great specs; looks like nVidia may finally have a good competitor. ;) The multiple-monitor thing is less useful in my opinion, though, since who really has the money to pay for three large monitors... :p
I do. I'm already running with three monitors. The nice thing about monitors is that you can drop $1400 on 3 nice 19" monitors and they will remain 3 nice 19" monitors for a good long time. You'll pay twice as much as that for video cards over the lifespan of three monitors.
-
I do. I'm already running with three monitors. The nice thing about monitors is that you can drop $1400 on 3 nice 19" monitors and they will remain 3 nice 19" monitors for a good long time. You'll pay twice as much as that for video cards over the lifespan of three monitors.
Well that's true, but monitors are still the most expensive of any computer components out there. ;) Personally, I would rather spend the same money on a single 23" or so monitor, but that's just me. ;)
Well, I'm not upgrading my gf3 till the winter (maybe),
Same here, probably. This thing is working quite well at the moment especially with the overclocks, but if I can't get UT2003 and U2 to run well, then I might consider upgrading earlier. ;)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Well that's true, but monitors are still the most expensive of any computer components out there. ;) Personally, I would rather spend the same money on a single 23" or so monitor, but that's just me. ;)
A 23" monitor is about 264.5 square inches of screen space.
Three 19" monitors total to about 541.5 square inches. I know which one I'm going for. ;) Lightwave on center monitor. Lightwave toolboxes, Hardlight, ICQ, mail on left monitor. Reference material on right monitor.
It makes for very good workflow.
-
Hehe, I know what you mean there, but I personally tend to only work on one thing at a time, and it looks kind of weird when one window is split across three screens. Also, the triple-monitor setup is pretty useless in games unless you can actually see from different angles using the side monitors, but I don't think many games support that. The last problem is that I don't have the room for two more monitors on the table here, but that's just a problem with my setup. :p ;)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Hehe, I know what you mean there, but I personally tend to only work on one thing at a time, and it looks kind of weird when one window is split across three screens. Also, the triple-monitor setup is pretty useless in games unless you can actually see from different angles using the side monitors, but I don't think many games support that. The last problem is that I don't have the room for two more monitors on the table here, but that's just a problem with my setup. :p ;)
The monitor case bars are a problem, indeed, but you don't have to spread windows across all the screens. The mode I run in keeps the desktops mostly seperate. If I maximise Hardlight, it fills the left monitor. If I maximise Lightwave, it fills the middle monitor.
For games, I can only play on one monitor, since I currently use three video cards. With this Matrox, I could use one videocard, and tell it that the three monitors comprise one display. This would be kinda nasty for some games, but in Jedi Knight, for example, I could set the FOV about 220 and be able to get the left and right flanks on the left and right monitors. There'd be some distortion to the top and bottom, but I think I could deal with that. ;)
In the case of flight sims, most of your serious flight sims will output views to secondary monitors. Some will even output views to secondary systems on your network.
-
For a gaming angle, which of these two is better:
GeForce4 for $135 us
http://www.leadtek.com/graphics/a170ddrt/a170ddrt.htm
Or the GeForce3 for $210?
http://www.leadtek.com/graphics/gf3ti200/ti200.htm
Titles aside, the statistics listed between the two are really close.
But the pricetags are really different.
-
Originally posted by Kitsune
For a gaming angle, which of these two is better:
GeForce4 for $135 us
http://www.leadtek.com/graphics/a170ddrt/a170ddrt.htm
Or the GeForce3 for $210?
http://www.leadtek.com/graphics/gf3ti200/ti200.htm
Titles aside, the statistics listed between the two are really close.
But the pricetags are really different.
The GF3 is the better card since ANY GF4 MX is just a re-dressed GF2.
btw, that price for the GF3 is all wrong. I can get one for ~ the same price you listed for the GF4 MX440.
Just remember folks, any MX card = evil. Sure, it costs less, but you get what you pay for.