I was just thinking that since I stare at my computer screen for near 8 hours at work, I should get a G400 or 450 card at my own expense and have the administrator install it. If I switch jobs, take it with me and either install it myself (taking a chance), or obtain permission for it to be installed. Everybody raves about the great 2D quality. I'm sure it's an investment that will serve me for years and years. I wouldn't consider it for home since I am a gamer and I already have a Geforce (but I may stick it in to see how it compares).
So what card should I get? Isn't the G450 supposed to be an improvement over the G400? Heck, the G400 hasn't dropped much in price. Didn't somebody here say the G400 is better for gaming? Is the image quality of the G450 as good or better than the G400?
What kind of computers do you use at work anyway. It couldn't make that much of a difference unless you cant increase the refresh rates over 60. 2D is pretty much 2D. I don't care what anyone tells you.
Yes mx-6*, 2d is 2d. But what DTK4 seems to be talking about is eye strain, and ways of reducing it.
Increased refresh rate is one way of dealing with it. As well as sharp display. Funnily enough, the G400/G450 offer both of these.
Before you go out and buy a new video card at your own expense though, try increasing the refresh rates as high as they'll go. If it's a little blurry, drop it back a setting or two. What resolution and refresh rate are you running in DTK4?
Anyway, a new video card may not solve the problem. Monitors also play a part, as to how glare resistant they are, and what 'Dot Pitch' rating they have. The smaller the 'Dot Pitch' the clearer the display, therefore the easier it is on the eyes.
Hmmm mx-6* has obviously never seen one side-by-side with a different card.
There is a diference. And you can see it. It's more the little things.. icons so clearly defined, text seems to jump out at you, & colours are much more vibrant. Kinda like the differnce between a budget-grade, $2-a-roll film & a press-grade $10 one.
As for the G450, it's slower in games than the G400. It's the same chip with a die shrink, memory bandwidth cut in half but DDR added, and a lot of the features of the G400 intergrated into the chip. For a much better idea what it's all about, check out Anand's review of it.
If you're not going to do any gaming at all, then yeah go for the G450 since it costs less. Otherwise get a MAX, or a vanilla G400 which you can then o/c using Matrox's own tweak tool. My vanilla G400 is currently running at about 10% above the MAX's speed.
So they're not the fastest gaming cards. But as I mentioned in a thread in the video forum, I'm quite willing to give up a few fps in exchange for an orgasm every time I look at the thing.
[Heheh *doh* this is the video forum... .. the Nvidia thread I think it was in.]
How can we see where we are going, if we don't open our eyes??
[This message has been edited by a13antichrist (edited 12-20-2000).]
Bink, Didn't I say that the refresh rate is what matters?
A13antichrist, Did you know that I have 3 computers in my house and they all have different video cards in them?
I also have an old Matrox Mystique card from 4 years ago. Guess what? In 2d there is negligible difference between them and there is no strain on the eyes at 85Hz.
Besides, hes talking about buying a card for work. My computers at work have 2 year old cards in them. Ati 8meggers. They are good for 2d. Not the best but pretty good. Good enough for any work.
Anyway if you do buy one please reply later with whether or not you see any difference. You might be better than my 20x20 vision and can actually see the difference but I'd bet it was your imagination. The monitor will negate much of any difference.
[This message has been edited by mx-6* (edited 12-20-2000).]
Yep, you mentioned refresh rates mx-6*, but in a very offhand manner, giving an impression that anything above a lowly 60Hz is fine.
I don't care what anyone tells you.
Work on your PR skills
DTK4 obviously has a problem with his display at work. He's after some help yet once again it seems you believe since you have no problems, there's nothing to worry about.
Everyone has experienced eye strain at some stage if they've been in front of a computer screen long enough. It's inevitable. The eyes and brain weren't meant for such things.
The fact is some people are more sensitive to this then others.
Just as another suggestion DTK4, you may wan't to consider one of those anti-glare UV filters that fit onto the front of the monitor. They can sometimes help reduce eye-strain. Also, make sure your monitor isn't backing onto anything bright, such as an open window or lights. As it will only make it harder for you to focus on the screen and increase eye strain.
Actually, I just realized my work computer did have a G200 up until a couple of months ago. The system went down and now it has an S3, not sure exactly what card, plus a different MB. I think my machine is an LX board with 300 Pentium II. The video card is probably a Savage with 8 MB ram. Plus I got a cheapo 15" Princeton monitor. No, don't think they will be bringing in 1 gig Dells tommorrow.
When the G200 was in there, the 2D was definitely better, but not by a tremendous amount. Granted, it's not a G400.
The G400 bulks are around $138 here in Japan, and that's for the 32 MB. If they drop down near $100, I may consider it. Or the 16 MB should do. But yeah, I wouldn't spend $240 retail for one like in the states.