I have a P3 450 MHz with 128 MB of RAM running Windows 98. I just got a Nokia 445xpro 21 inch monitor. The monitor information says that I should be able to get up to 1800 x 1440 resolution with a refresh rate up to 80 Hz. I would at least like to get 1600 x 1200 with 90 Hz.
I spend most of the day in graphics programs such as Photoshop, Illustrator, and Macromedia Director, so 2d performance is what I need.
The company just got me a Diamond Viper V770 card and it doesn't cut it. I can get 100 Hz at 1152 x 864, but the color isn't very crisp. Even the grays in the browser window aren't solid. Nothing looks good at 1280 x 1024. It looks better at 1600 x 1200, but I can't get a refresh rate above 75 Hz, so the screen flickers.
1) can I do anything with the board I have to get better performance?
or 2) what other board would you suggest?
I'm not sure what the refresh of the G400 is at 12x16, but you won't get better 2D quality than Matrox, that's for sure. I'd bet the G400 would be exactly what you're looking for.
I use a PIII-550 with 256mb, Viper 770 TNT2 Ultra, NT 4 SP5 and a Dell 21" monitor.
If you just absolutely get stuck with the 770 Ultra, make sure you get the Detonator drivers. I'm not sure if it will help your 2D, but it launched my OpenGL performance by about 500% in the apps that I use, so it wouldn't hurt to give it a try. It improved my productivity just getting those drivers.
Before we hear everyone spout "Matrox," let me say I've done a side by side comparison of a G200 and Trident 9750+Voodoo 2. Both monitors were .26 pitch 17", the one with the G200 was actually nicer (it was NEC, vs a Viewtronics). I couldn't tell the difference, nor could the G200 owner honestly.
Sorry, I don't really buy into the whole Matrox image quality thing. Any company can slap a term on the box and say image quality is higher.
My advise: Get a Trinitron. They most definitely DO have much better image quality.
I've got a Matrox G400MAX and a Nokia 446Xpro monitor (Nokia rox!).
My resolution is 1600x1200, which is the best this 17" has to offer. Well, the G400MAX by far exceeds those lame 90Hz you were talking about, and does this with a image quality and sharpness that can only be godsent. :-)
Buy the MAX. cya.
75hz is 75hz, be it 640x480, or 1600x1200. The refresh rate is a measure of how fast the screen get filled. A card hast to significantly faster to maintin 75hz at 1600x1200, then it would 640x480. Most new cards can support 75hz at 1600x1200, but it takes a high end card to doit any higher.
The human eye should be unable to detect any flikering caused by refresh rate at 75hz... before droping the bucks for a new card, check other posible causes for the flicker:
Electro-Magnetic-Interfearance is a common culprate, or perhaps floresent lights are flickering, also try degaussing your monitor, or even borowing a freinds to see if the monitor is bad. Then if you still see the flicker, go ahead and fork over the cash.
Baloneyflops, Matrox has always pushed their "image quality" more than the other graphics chip manufacturers. "Vibrant Color Quality˛ rendering"
I think anyone who has done a side by side comparison (as I have) will tell you it's bull. Monitor quality (dot pitch, refresh rate, flatness, good OSD, high output brightness capable, etc, etc) makes a lot more difference than the card.
You don't have to like Matrox, it matters not to me.
Now, if you can't tell the difference between a Matrox and another card on a 17 inch monitor, then I'm not surprised.
BUT, crank up the resolution and put that same image on a 21 inch monitor, now stare at it for 8-14 hours.
This is quite a bit different than your little impromptu test. This is a test that graphics professionals have been doing for years. 5+ days a week. 4 weeks a month. 12 months a year. Year after year. So, if it's just bull, why do so many graphics professionals like Matrox cards? Must be the hype, huh? Not hardly.
I'll say it again, Matrox earned their reputation for image quality. End of story.
True, the gap has narrowed over the last several years to the point that the difference in 2D quality between the top-tier cards may not be immediately discernable; especially not in a "nope, they look the same to me" kind of evaluation.
Matrox is the high watermark by which the image quality of all other cards are compared. Several cards may look as good in subjective observations, but none look any better.
Why do you seem to have a problem with professional pixel and polygon pushers recommending Matrox cards? Hey, use whatever looks good to you. Face it, lots of graphics professionals like Matrox cards, and for good reason. Everyone's free to use whatever they like, and lots of us like to use Matrox; what's wrong with that?
[This message has been edited by Baloneyflaps (edited 10-06-99).]
While the 3d quality of the G400 remains in question, the 2d for almost every Matrox card has never been questioned. I've used a broad range of cards from almost every company and chipset maker including: ATI, Nvidia, Creative Labs, 3dfx, Cirrus Logic, Intel, Diamond Multimedia, etc... I'm not a particularly strong supporter of Matrox but having worked with so many different brands of cards I can vouch for the quality of their product.
"We're going to get another one next year, again -- back to back to back."