Splash: What are you using for new systems at work?

[Santilli]

Pradeep:

So the current Computer DVD's are different from our store bought
DVD's?

Funny, I thought the format was the same. I guess using Disk copy
is not going to work with a store bought DVD, until the new Dual layer burners come out???


What was the format used in the industry in the last couple years?
I'm wondering if my old DVD player will still be able to play attempted copies of store bought DVD's???

Splash: Thanks again. The fan links look helpful. Let me know in this thread, if you can, how the Swifttech Xeon fans work. I'm wondering if the fans, plus their heatsinks might be a better, quieter, idea then the Intel retail package setups.

Thanks for the info on the slots. Now I know where to put a variety of cards, so they don't slow each other down.

I keep looking at the Radeon Pro 9800 cards, with 256 mb of ram, and only 310 or so, and, they appear to have about 4 times as much fill rate as the Matrox cards. ??? Anyone used one? Can't find a comparision of high end video cards with these in there...

s

 

[Pradeep]

Most movie DVDs are dual layer (8.5GB). Now usually the movie itself only takes between 4-6GB, the rest is used for worthless bonus feature crap. If under 4.3GB, you can just put the movie on a standard DVD+R or DVD-R disc, it will work fine. If it's bigger than that, you can use free software such as DVDShrink to compress the movie slightly so it will fit. Or split the movie over two discs, with no quality loss. With the DL discs, you won't need to compress anymore.

Some old DVD players have issues with recordable DVDs (DVD-R or DVD+R).

You can't use diskcopy with most movie DVDs, they are encrypted with CSS, you need to use a program to rip the data, circumventing the encryption. DVDShrink will do everything for you.

 

[Santilli]

Splash:
One thing I have noticed is that with the Matrox card, I use MUCH higher resolutions on the two monitors, like 1600X1200, and, I can use them, and still see clearly.

MAJOR advantage in productivity. ATI was likewise crystal clear on the mac side.

Wonder if it's that good on the pc side???

s

 

[Computer Generated Baby]

Wonder if it's that good on the pc side???

There is no PC side / Mac side to this. I'd say you could see the difference between the two (ATI versus P-650) if you had a truly accurate monitor that shows all the good AND BAD in a video signal.

I could go on about a something that happened a year ago at work where some Mac users (i.e. -- live in narrow focus Mac world, don't want to see anything else) that had to spend some appreciable time with someone else generating output -- using a PC with an "older" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro DP2040 22-inch monitor + Millennium G550. After a bit of time they noticed that when they went back to their G4 Mac + 21-inch Apple (Sony) monitor that certain things just did not look as clear, and this had nothing to do with colour management issues (both systems running Kodak Pro RGB Master). So, a few months later one of the two got a DP2040 22-inch monitor for his Mac and it did make a noticeable difference especially in overall text and line sharpness, as well as tiny features like one or 2 pixel dots that were not apparent before.

Back in the G200 days (and once before that well on back in the Millennium I days) I did a demo at work using two identical Pentium II 450 computers running NT 4.0 using Mitsubishi 91TXM Spectraview monitors, one with an ATI Rage something-or-another graphics card and another with a G200. At a distance of 10 paces, you could not really see much difference between the two displayed screen images (a mix of photographic, typographic, and geometric rendered imagery). But up close you could see better shadow detail, slightly less ruddy looking colours, and good clean text on the "Matrox powered" monitor compared to the "ATI powered monitor." 2-D pan and zoom speed was also better on the Matrox powered monitor. Probably the worst thing about the ATI powered monitor was how text and thin lines had a faint softness to them. I pulled the cables off both monitors as they ran and switched them. The problems with the ATI monitor went to the new monitor!

This was a test I put together for a supervisor in a video area. 3 or 4 months later, guess what they spec'd to be in their inexpensive little Real / MPEG / QT / AVI viewing computer? The latest and greatest ATI card!?! They were supposedly not comfortable with putting in a video card from an "obscure" manufacturer. So, the new inexpensive computer shows up with an ATI whatever card in it. It was soon updated with the latest ATI video drivers.

I'll be damned if it wasn't a few days later when I was told they were having BSOD problems when viewing long stretches of MPEG / Real / AVI etc video clips and were now wanting me to "take a look at it." It was diagnosed to be crashing on ATI's "latest" (read: crap) drivers. Even though I re-loaded the "older" V1.0 drivers from the ATI installation CD, it didn't make any difference -- BSOD City every 10 ~ 20 minutes. So, I put in a spare Matrox G200, install the latest Matrox drivers, cleans the ATI drivers, and it was used for a few YEARS without ever BSOD-ing again (to my knowledge). And, yes, the imagery did indeed look better, too!

And, now, if you ask: "What does any of this have to do with gaming?" My answer: "Absolutely Nothing."

 

[Computer Generated Baby]

Let me know in this thread, if you can, how the Swifttech Xeon fans work...

The Swiftech part is ONLY a badass heatsink. The fan part is going to have to be from someone else, and there you can do whatever is needed.

I'm wondering if the fans, plus their heatsinks might be a better, quieter, idea then the Intel retail package setups.

The right fan on this heatsink WILL be quieter. The Intel heatsink + fan setup is smaller overall. The small fan churns like crazy to provide the needed airflow through the "small" heatsink. I believe there was also a Supermicro fan + "wind tunnel" heat sink provided with the mobo. The Supermicro "wind tunnel" cooler setup is meant for low-profile server use, but it's likely just as loud as the "tall" Intel retail cooler setup.

I keep looking at the Radeon Pro 9800 cards, with 256 mb of ram, and only 310 or so, and, they appear to have about 4 times as much fill rate as the Matrox cards. ??? Anyone used one? Can't find a comparision of high end video cards with these in there...

I just recalled that there is a Matrox User's Form here:

http://forums.matroxusers.com/


I have not even been there for a look in about 3 years -- if not more! But, it looks like there are a number of crazy graphics card users there (the type that has one of each kind!) that use the Matrox P-series and Parhelia series as well as ATI and nVidia.

You might want to ask around there for an honest opinion on whatever versus whatever for gaming issues. I noticed at Matrox, Inc's website that they have a set of Beta DX9 drivers. I don't know what the state of Direct-X 9 is with Matrox other than there is now limited support for DX9 and full compliance was finally coming.

 

[Stereodude]

The moral of the story is to use a good LCD panel and use DVI. Then none of this analog video quality matters.

 

[Santilli]

I guess the numbers don't lie.

I just got done reading about the Parahelia and games, and, the guys pretty much said the Parahelia won't run the current generation of games, won't support DX 9, and is questionable for longhorn.

Apparently a new card is due from Matrox, this summer?

What is impressive is the number of patches, and effort put into the Parahelia, to adopt it to games in the past. Rather unique.

Guess I can wait. The G 550, while not blinding, is a great text and graphics card, good for about 95% of what I do, and far better then
any card I've used.

s

 

[Computer Generated Baby]

The moral of the story is to use a good LCD panel and use DVI. Then none of this analog video quality matters.

...and only then if you don't care about the number of displayable colours / shades of grey. Yes, the dark secret of LCD display technology, otherwise, can be very very easy on the desktop space.

 

[Computer Generated Baby]

Apparently a new card is due from Matrox, this summer?

I *strongly* suspect two things:

1.) First and foremost, PCI Express versions of the P-series, Parhelia, and multi-monitor G-something quad display will be introduced -- not necessarily all at once -- starting in Q3, or northern hemisphere Summer.

2.) More than likely there is a Parhelia II well along, likely to be built around 90 nm (0.09µ) fabrication. I'd doubt a release date of 2004, but 1H 2005 would be likely.

By the way, Matrox is nowadays making money hand over fist with video hardware (non-linear motion video editing, or NLE). I'd be willing to bet some of that highly optimised hardware-based motion video technology will rub off on some or all of the P-series / Parhelia cards at some point.

Even farther out, though, the writing is on the wall for all graphics card manufacturers. I'd suspect all of the capabilities we now see on video cards will eventually be entirely within the microprocessor (2010?), with only a frame buffer in the form of a single 256 MB or 512 MB memory chip on the mobo. By that point in time, video card companies will be either doing something else or maintaining computer graphics capabilities for "vintage" computer systems.

The G 550, while not blinding, is a great text and graphics card, good for about 95% of what I do, and far better then any card I've used.

This was my reasoning behind the choice of the P-650 (all P-series are 64 MB) versus a G-550 (16 MB or 32 MB). The P-650 basically does everything faster and better than the G-550.

 

[Pradeep]

Apparenly the latest NV and ATI "GPUs" have over 200 million transistors. That exceeds many general purpose CPUs. I can't see Intel and AMD doubling die size to get the graphics in the CPU, even if the die will be pretty tiny in 10 years time.

 

[Santilli]

Quote:
The G 550, while not blinding, is a great text and graphics card, good for about 95% of what I do, and far better then any card I've used.

This was my reasoning behind the choice of the P-650 (all P-series are 64 MB) versus a G-550 (16 MB or 32 MB). The P-650 basically does everything faster and better than the G-550.

The G 550 I bought was a refurb, for about 60 dollars. Couldn't beat the price, and wanted to see if the cards are THAT good. :wink:
As usual, you are right on the money. This card should work great in my Dell P2 400mhz office computer for my girl friend. When I get the chance, I'll swap out her Kyro II card for this one.

Haven't been able to find a really good deal on the P-650 or 750. 180 dollars is the cheapest I've found.

After taking a long look at the Parahelia, I think waiting for the next generation is an excellent idea, or, if I find one dirt cheap, pick it up.

Thanks again.

 

[Stereodude]

...and only then if you don't care about the number of displayable colours / shades of grey. Yes, the dark secret of LCD display technology, otherwise, can be very very easy on the desktop space.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. You can display 24bit RGB on a LCD monitor. :?:

 

[Computer Generated Baby]

...You can display 24bit RGB on a LCD monitor.

You can "address" (actually, send 24-bit values, or 8 bits per RGB) to an LCD device, but it can't actually display all 16.7 million of them -- actually not even close! I believe the absolute best LCD technology currently available (Sony professional) can push the displayable number of individual colours up to about 100,000.

Conventional broadcast television can only provide around 32K colours within its bandwidth restriction. Thus, television and LCD technology is a great match. Notebooks need a thin, low mass, and power-conservative display technology, once again a great match. A setup with limited or no desktop space, so once again, LCD is the best choice -- or even the only choice. Use of LCD display technology in pre-press, desktop publishing, half-way serious digital photography, even in some video editing applications -- ummm... poor choice.

With scanned or digital photography, it certainly isn't unusual to see muddy shadows and blownout whites on an LCD, but otherwise a perfectly fine rendition on a good quality CRT. LCDs don't have the dynamic range (DMax ~ DMin) of good CRTs with good stable electronics, nor quite the definition throughout the tonal range. As for the future of LCD technology, there's nothing really on the technology horizon that will dramatically improve the situation. I believe Samsung is pushing a new series of LCD out the door within the year that can display a somewhat wider colour gamut than the average off-the-shelf LCD monitor can now.

If you are familiar with the lengths that Pantone goes through to "certify" a device, how many actual scientifically-proven colours a device can print or display (using reflective and transmissive colorimeters) then the entire displayable colour gamut of the best current LCD display unit would easily be engulfed by what the displayable colour gamut of the best current CRT technology around (read: Mitsubishi SpectraView series).

 

[Computer Generated Baby]

...but it can't actually display all 16.7 million of them...

I should elaborate that you can not display more colours than you have pixels (or pels), meaning a display operating at 1280x1024 has 1310720 pixels. However, it is possible to display a single colour across an entire display. The display capability talked about above would be this, using a transmissive colorimeter to sample the rendered display.

 

[Computer Generated Baby]

Apparenly the latest NV and ATI "GPUs" have over 200 million transistors. That exceeds many general purpose CPUs. I can't see Intel and AMD doubling die size to get the graphics in the CPU, even if the die will be pretty tiny in 10 years time.

There are redundancies between GPU and CPU that can be eliminated by moving discrete graphics functionality into a general-purpose microprocessor. It would involve a massive build up of the section of the microprocessor that now does SSE/MMX. There would also be a bunch of new pins/pads, with associated high-speed driver circuitry to communicate with an external display buffer. You just know Intel would love to eliminate the likes of nVidia and ATI. This would do it, unless they also got into the x86 game down the road ...or started licensing AMD64 cores. 8)

 

[Stereodude]

You can "address" (actually, send 24-bit values, or 8 bits per RGB) to an LCD device, but it can't actually display all 16.7 million of them -- actually not even close! I believe the absolute best LCD technology currently available (Sony professional) can push the displayable number of individual colours up to about 100,000.

Conventional broadcast television can only provide around 32K colours within its bandwidth restriction. Thus, television and LCD technology is a great match. Notebooks need a thin, low mass, and power-conservative display technology, once again a great match. A setup with limited or no desktop space, so once again, LCD is the best choice -- or even the only choice. Use of LCD display technology in pre-press, desktop publishing, half-way serious digital photography, even in some video editing applications -- ummm... poor choice.

With scanned or digital photography, it certainly isn't unusual to see muddy shadows and blownout whites on an LCD, but otherwise a perfectly fine rendition on a good quality CRT. LCDs don't have the dynamic range (DMax ~ DMin) of good CRTs with good stable electronics, nor quite the definition throughout the tonal range. As for the future of LCD technology, there's nothing really on the technology horizon that will dramatically improve the situation. I believe Samsung is pushing a new series of LCD out the door within the year that can display a somewhat wider colour gamut than the average off-the-shelf LCD monitor can now.

If you are familiar with the lengths that Pantone goes through to "certify" a device, how many actual scientifically-proven colours a device can print or display (using reflective and transmissive colorimeters) then the entire displayable colour gamut of the best current LCD display unit would easily be engulfed by what the displayable colour gamut of the best current CRT technology around (read: Mitsubishi SpectraView series).

Now you had to know I wasn't going to let you post something like this and get away with it. Cite your sources.

I work in the LCD industry, and I can assure you a LCD panel as the ability to resolve beyond 64k. Some panels can only do 64k via hardware and rely on temporal dithering to get to 16.7M, but there are panels that can do 16.7M natively.

Also, a LCD can meet, or beat a CRT in ANSI contrast. The only place a CRT excels is in full-on/full-off contrast. I don't start at a black screen much, so I'll take my sharper, perfect geometry screen.

 

[Computer Generated Baby]

Now you had to know I wasn't going to let you post something like this and get away with it. Cite your sources.

I don't have the time. Do it yourself. I'm too busy with other things to go around collecting specifications from all the LCD panel manufactures and integrators.

But, I can assure you that over the years, nobody has yet to produce an LCD panel with all the qualities and capabilities that I need. And we didn't even discuss viewing angle problems with LCD technology -- which I don't find to be all that much of a problem on small screens, just the larger ones.

...but there are panels that can do 16.7M natively.

There's a whole bleeding lot that says this, but it's to be taken with a grain of salt. There's a huge difference between addressability and resolvability. If there were such high-end LCD monitors on the market, they would be beating down the doors of every pre-press, graphics, and photography operation trying to sell them one. I got back from...

http://www.pmai.org/

..this a few weeks ago in Las Vegas. If there were any high-end LCD monitors for pre-press, graphics, and/or photography work there, they must have had them hidden somewhere because there weren't any to be found!

Also, a LCD can meet, or beat a CRT in ANSI contrast. The only place a CRT excels is in full-on/full-off contrast.

And, can it ALSO render this contrast range with 256 verifiable shades of grey??? One can stretch the capabilities of a device do this or that, but in the end you are robbing Peter to pay Paul.

 

[Santilli]

Storage solution? sca/ide or sca/scsi? Mirror?

Hi
Well, I'm at the point where the amount of data in pics and scans is getting rather large. I scanned a bit of school work, and it was 708 mb.
That's in one day of scanning.

I'm thinking that two Diamond Max Plus 9's, at 160 gig, in a mirror, inside
a SCA/ide housing might be a good storage solution. About 130 bucks for the drive, I have one already, and the cost of the housing.

My other choice is to go SCSI, since 80 pin drives are all over the place.
I have room in the box for one, 6 drive SCA housing.

Another would be a firewire DVD backup, or, what I do now, backup to CDRW's, using a Liteon Firewire writer. I like the hard drive solution, since it's sooo much faster.

Currently I back up over my house net, but it can take a 1/2 hour, and that's not something I want to do all the time.

Remind me not to mention ATI to Splash. Seems to react about the same way I do to "Promise". :wink: :wink:


s

 

[Santilli]

update on Photoshop on this rig

I'm a bit baffled on this. On my asus 266-7m mobo with Athlon 1.4 ghz processor, Photoshop, and Cannon ScanGear CS-U would take my entire processor, freezing my machine.

On this dual 2.8 ghz, I can scan at 1200 dpi, and never go over 15% processor usage, and with it at about 5-7% most of the time. What it does do is eat pagefile. It's now using 340 mb of page file, and climbing.

Still, I can type this, with no problems, and, last night, watch a DVD at the same time, and still only used about 30-40% of the processors.

Pagefile usage is now at 444 mb, and still climbing.

Thought I'd open a DVD, music DVD, in Media Player classic for fun. 19% processor Now, opened and closed the DVD and that froze, for a second, PS And ScanGear, now back and running. Took 668 mb of pagefile,
peak commit charge is 705076.

Let's see if I open the DVD in a better player what happens.

Power DVD opening, it has better sound support then Media Player Classic.

Full screen takes us up to max 42% processor, average around 29 With sound we are getting near 90% on one processor, average is between 30-45% on the four(read two plus two virtual).

With all this going on, we are at 29-31% processor, 60% max on one,
and 690 mb of Pagefile. Peak commit charge is 710 mb.

Weird as this may sound, it appears Xeons are much better at running photoshop then my Athlon was. On the other hand, I have exactly 4 times as much actual processing power with the two 2.8 ghz Xeons, so
I guess the figures are pretty realistic.
A 1 gig ram drive would be REALLY cool for putting the scratch file on this setup.

Currently it's on an XL 18, 10k. It's running stable at the above numbers.

Splash:

I really get your recommendation now. The 650 would be cheap, yet
much faster then the G 550, and when the new Matrox card comes out, I could switch over. May gamble on the the Matrox Parahelia refurbs, if they are still at newegg.

My girlfriend is sold on this video card, so that's the first step.

Ever had any incompatibility problems with 2000, and a BX 440 motherboard? Problem is, it's a Dell, so I'm worried they put some crap chip on it.

Thanks

This setup is awesome.

s

 

[blakerwry]

At work we have atleast 6 machines that run win2k on 440BX and i810 chipsets. There are a couple more that run winXP on the same chipsets. And probably a couple still running winNT 4.0 on the same.


No problems.

 

[Santilli]

blakewry:
My concern is more the paricular machine, with the Parahelia.
The card has had some driver problems, and I had a no go install on 2000 on my Athlon box.

I suspect it was PEBCAKE, but I'm not THAT bad at part installations.

Worked fine on my Xeon machine, but that was from a clean install.

If I have to do that on her machine, she'll kill me.

s

 

[Pradeep]

So you are scanning your school coursework/notes into the computer? Perhaps a scanner with an ADF -automatic document feeder, would speed things up. Sit 10 or 20 sheets in it, start it up and walk away. No need to nanny the thing and swap page after page. Also there is no reason to be scanning at 1200dpi for text. 300 dpi would be more than sufficient, cutting down on your storage needs.

 

[Santilli]

Pradeep:
I was using the 1200 dpi to test the rig. I like the idea of the auto feeder.
Any suggestions, that don't cost a fortune?

I use 150-300 dpi, and I'm scanning in my kids work, to keep digital record of my progress with them.

GS

 

[Pradeep]

HP tend to be the scanners that are most available with ADFs.

Actually Comp Genny Baby would prob have the most experience with scanners.

 

[Santilli]

Well, I got the 4th Cheetah back from Seagate, and it's a Rev 3, same as the others.

Time to Raid 0 all four, but, I think I'll wait until Monday, and throw the
IDE/sca into the box, at the same time. I've been crippled with only a 90 mb/sec raid. Hope to get back to the 110 or better range.

s

 

[Santilli]

Well, I'm doing the same Photoshop work, with the same scanner and software that used to eat my processor, use it 100%, freezing 2000 from doing anything else, on my Xeon Dual 2.8.
It's doing it way faster, with rarely over 10% processor usage, but it is hitting the pagefile big time, like 400 mb or more.
I can run a DVD, two screens at 1280 or 1600, scan stufff in Photoshop, and do ebay stuff, and still don't get over 20% on the processors, with one of them spiking to 40% every once in awhile.

Funny, but I really noticed a difference adding the 4th drive to the raid. Much snappier.

GS

 

[The JoJo]

Well, I'm doing the same Photoshop work, with the same scanner and software that used to eat my processor, use it 100%, freezing 2000 from doing anything else, on my Xeon Dual 2.8.
It's doing it way faster, with rarely over 10% processor usage, but it is hitting the pagefile big time, like 400 mb or more.
I can run a DVD, two screens at 1280 or 1600, scan stufff in Photoshop, and do ebay stuff, and still don't get over 20% on the processors, with one of them spiking to 40% every once in awhile.

Funny, but I really noticed a difference adding the 4th drive to the raid. Much snappier.

GS

Sounds darn good Greg! I'll bet using that beast makes one smile easily

 

[Santilli]

JoJo:
It sure does make it easier. My Cannon scanner is going out. The connection on the back of the scanner is really flimsy. Think Jumpster(our cat) jumping off it, or hitting the wires has done it in. NOT a happy camper about that part.

I've been looking at scanners this morning, and the Xerox Documate 510 looks really good. Document feeder, good software, but I can't find any reviews on it. Costco carries it, so that's a big plus.
HP makes a similar one, 5550C, but it got terrible reviews, and will only scan at 300 in feeder mode, which is ok for me.

Anyone used the Xerox scanner?

Thanks

s

 

[Platform]

HP tend to be the scanners that are most available with ADFs.

Actually Comp Genny Baby would prob have the most experience with scanners.

Pradeep,

Actually, I now little about consumer grade Automatic Document Feeders.

The only ADFs I ever kept up with (and that was a little while back, now) were high-end Panasonic and Kurtzweil / Xerox units.

 

[Platform]

Generally speaking, my favourite general-purpose flatbed scanners have been Epson.

Epson seems to support their scanners for many years (drivers, etc) as opposed to the majority of others who purposely maroon their scanners after 2 or maybe 3 years.

The last I saw, HP wanted too much money for their scanners.

 

[Santilli]

Well, glad to hear that's your recommendation, Splash.

I decided on this one:

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=35836301

Costco carried it for about 170 bucks, and with tax, and shipping, it's 200 dollars.

Anandtech did a test on the 3200, and I found out that even though the scanner has a firewire port, the scanning was no faster when connected to the firewire port then USB 1.

What really sold me on this one is it's new, fast, following an excellent couple products, the 2400 and 3200, the Epson all in one I have at work is pretty good, too, and finally, it has an optional document feeder that I may pick up later. It's 200 bucks for the feeder, but, that means for 400 I have a 3200x 6400 dpi resolution scanner, with document feeder.

The only thing that bother me was the Xerox 510 had a bunch of really neat software, but relatively low resolution ability.

s

 

[Santilli]

Well, so far things are going pretty well. The Epson is about 4-5 times faster then the Canon scanner. It doesn't give me much time to type stuff.

I just got done burning two CDS, scanning papers as fast as I can, Trying to watch the net, and do email.

The highest the processors went was 14%. This same process photoshop used to take 100% of the processors on the twain copying of stuff.

Decided to watch Selena bounce around, full screen on the larger monitor, on DVD and, my processor is now around 20%. If I crank up the resolution to 1600 X 1200 you can see the cpu's sort of go crazy.

I'm using 275 mb of page file right now.

Found a great deal on the Matrox P650. 112 bucks, refurb and tested.
Can't wait to see what that does.
More later.

gs

 

[Santilli]

Splash:
You were right.

Even though it doesn't have the 128 or 256 mb of vram I was after, the P650 sure is one heck of a video card. It's so clear, it's scary, and, it's fast enough to run most anything I can throw at it.

Been watching DVD's and it's a definite step up from the G550, speed, and quality wise. Have to run some HD TV stuff, and see what id does.

Guess it won't run billions on a couple CRT's?
Doesn't list that as an option.

s

 

[Santilli]

Ok:
Moved the Matrox G550 over to the attorney home/office computer.
When she gets back, she should be in shock, it's so clear.
Typing on it, right now, watching my cat go patszo. She must have house fever, since she's climbing all over everything, and tearing the screens up.
At 2-4 pounds no problem. She's now over ten.

Anyway, this is a major improvement on the Dell/Hitachi 21 inch, clarity wise. Was a Kyro II in there, but nothing beats a Matrox.

It also feels a bit faster. Pretty amazing cards. Wish I had bought in sooner.

s

 

[Platform]

...Guess it won't run billions on a couple CRT's? Doesn't list that as an option.

Hmmm... got me there about 10 Billion x 2 displays.


One thing I was going to mention is that you should definitely update the G-650 Flash BIOS and use the latest driver. It does make a difference.




Download for OS Drivers:
http://www.matrox.com/mga/support/drivers/latest/home.cfm



Download for BIOS:
http://www.matrox.com/mga/support/drivers/bios/home2.cfm

 

[Santilli]

Well, I downloaded the latest bios flash, and the latest beta stuff, and unlike most beta stufff, it all works.

I'm at billions of colors, and, it's about as good as it gets.

The matrox cards are both pretty incredible.

Thanks for the suggestions.

gs

 

[Santilli]

I forgot to mention I've been watching the HD stuff at high resolutions, that sucked on the G550, on the 650, with no problems.

In fact, no problems with any of the stuff that was in the prior thread from MSFT.
I really enjoyed viewing the Step into Liquid in HDTV on this setup. It's crystal clear, and incredible in color.

No lag.
Video card was the key.
s

 

[Santilli]

Just figured out how to enable hardware on the P650 to help in video playback. Now plays DVD's at 1024 X 768 quality.

Really much better then just software viewing.

*.PSAT
Found it. Backed it up, but how do you open it? Copy it back to the same path and replace it?

Thanks

gs

 

[Santilli]

Cable for Matrox P-650 to run three monitors???

Hi
I was wondering if anyone has tried using three monitors with a P-650?
If so, where did you get the cable?

Does the P-650 support three monitors?

From Matrox, it appears it does...

Thanks

gs

 

[Santilli]

Well, I found the "kit".

Seems like they charge a heck of a lot for a couple cables, and I'm wondering if the "utility" is the one downloadable for the Parahelia series, supporting mutiple monitors?
Apptimizer 2005 surround gaming?

http://shopmatrox.com/usa/products/categories.asp?CategoryID=36&Column=2

Isn't 90 bucks kind of steep?

Seems like the P 750 would include the cables, for 235, and, you get a new graphics card for 145 dollars?

HMMMMM :eekers: :?:

s