Video Card Help

Akashio · Post by **Akashio** » Sun Apr 20, 2003 1:38 am

I want to buy a 128mb G4 with Tv/Out, but I also want a video card that can support two monitors... what should I do?

AbsoluteDestiny · Post by **AbsoluteDestiny** » Sun Apr 20, 2003 1:55 am

You mean a geforce 4?

The simple answer to this problem is - don't.

ATI currently have a better equivalent card in every price range and their dual monitor support is better too. There is little reason to get a geforce at the moment.

dwchang · Post by **dwchang** » Sun Apr 20, 2003 2:24 am

AbsoluteDestiny wrote:You mean a geforce 4?

The simple answer to this problem is - don't.

ATI currently have a better equivalent card in every price range and their dual monitor support is better too. There is little reason to get a geforce at the moment.

At the same time, if you can wait, I'd wait for the NV40 or if you want...call it the GeForce FX. It *should* be better than any Radeon (or future Radeons). I also dislike ATI drivers. I had a friend who worked for a game company and he says ATI SUCKS with their support. nVidia Detonator drivers are like a free 10 - 15% performance upgrade.

AbsoluteDestiny · Post by **AbsoluteDestiny** » Sun Apr 20, 2003 3:06 am

ATI drivers have really changed for the better in the last year. They are on par with nvidia for stability and updates.

As for the geforce FX, it still doesn't beat an ati card at the moment. Plus the nvidia cards have much poorer 2d. If you are buying right now, ati cards are the best option.

Pwolf · Post by **Pwolf** » Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:16 am

actually i believe the GF FX is only slightly better then the Radeon 9700 either that or the new ati card (forgot its name i think its r300 or r350).

I am using a radeon 9700 pro with dual monitors... works great! It also has tv out. I have yet to test the tv out.

Pwolf

dwchang · Post by **dwchang** » Sun Apr 20, 2003 12:25 pm

AbsoluteDestiny wrote:ATI drivers have really changed for the better in the last year. They are on par with nvidia for stability and updates.

As for the geforce FX, it still doesn't beat an ati card at the moment. Plus the nvidia cards have much poorer 2d. If you are buying right now, ati cards are the best option.

OIC. Yeah my friend coded for them about year or two ago so I wouldn't be surprised if they got better.

Don't get me wrong, RIGHT NOW if you were going to buy a card the 9700 (I believe 9800 is coming out soon) is the best choice. I was just saying that if you can wait...wait for the NV40.

AbsoluteDestiny · Post by **AbsoluteDestiny** » Sun Apr 20, 2003 12:29 pm

Yeah, but the pre-release NV40's have received terrible press all over the place. They don't sound worth waiting for.

dwchang · Post by **dwchang** » Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:15 pm

AbsoluteDestiny wrote:Yeah, but the pre-release NV40's have received terrible press all over the place. They don't sound worth waiting for.

I think you mean the NV30/31. Those weren't that great (especially with all the hype it got).

Please take a look at this article to get details on the NV40.

From an architectural standpoint, the NV/Geforce FX has more potential to it then the Radeon (although I hear they're working on something), so hopefully the 40 incarnation will bring them the performance crown.

Akashio · Post by **Akashio** » Mon Apr 21, 2003 12:52 am

Pwolf wrote:actually i believe the GF FX is only slightly better then the Radeon 9700 either that or the new ati card (forgot its name i think its r300 or r350).

I am using a radeon 9700 pro with dual monitors... works great! It also has tv out. I have yet to test the tv out.

Pwolf

Are you sure the Radeon 9700 pro supports dual monitors? It doesn't say it does in Radeon's description of the card.

klinky · Post by **klinky** » Mon Apr 21, 2003 1:32 am

Most ATI Radeons sport a CRT & a DVI interface. DVI stands for Digital Video Interface, simply enough. It's digital and does not work with analog monitors(it's meant for LCDs). Though most include a little converter dongle, so you can use two CRTs ;o.

I have a Radeon 9100 and I am pretty happy with it, I think the 2D does look a bit crisper than my Geforce2 did.

I believe, actually, the CRT + DVI connectors and dual monitor support is STANDARD on all new Radeon cards.

Also you may want to check out lower powered cards like a Radeon 9100, unless you're a heavy gamer. I play games off and on and my 9100 performs really nicely, I think. It was only $70 as well. A 9700/PRO will put you back about $200 - $300 =\.

My 9100 did not come with a DVI - to - CRT converter, so I would have to purchase one if I wanted to hook up another monitor.

~klinky

dwchang · Post by **dwchang** » Mon Apr 21, 2003 11:37 am

klinky wrote:My 9100 did not come with a DVI - to - CRT converter, so I would have to purchase one if I wanted to hook up another monitor

or you could just buy a DVI LCD like me

. I love my LCD

...sorry for the bragging (ducks)....However, if you have the money, honestly, an LCD is very convenient in size and much better quality video (if DVI and good refresh rate).

madmallard · Post by **madmallard** » Mon Apr 21, 2003 5:10 pm

buy a Matrox Parhelia.

NicholasDWolfwood · Post by **NicholasDWolfwood** » Mon Apr 21, 2003 5:56 pm

Erm...not everbody has $400 to blow on a video card. I mean, triple-monitor support is good an all, but not everybody can afford a Parhelia.

klinky · Post by **klinky** » Mon Apr 21, 2003 6:47 pm

Parhelia is a waste.

Also LCDs still are having some 'response time' issues

. So they're not that great for gaming ;o.

You can get a nice 21" CRT for the price of a LCD, but of course the small footprint of a LCD is nice, but I would take the screen-estate over small footprint.

~klinky

madmallard · Post by **madmallard** » Mon Apr 21, 2003 7:30 pm

just a suggestion. Multimonitor and decent gaming performance. Certainly not a waste. . .

While LCDs are nice, nothing justifies the cost difference to me that still exists. I'm not big on color correction, i have a big enough desk, and i'm not having power supply issues. . .so. . .i'm cool with crts still.