Videocards for dual displays

[zx]

Hi.

I will be getting a new video card soon. The main reason is I have an old 17" monitor in good condition that i'd like to use as a second monitor.

What videocard(s) are best for dual monitor configurations. I'd like the video card to have good 2D quality, acceptable 3D performance (along the lines of a geforce4MX), video out, and of course, dual monitor support.

I must be able to run both monitors in different resolutions, say 1280X1024 for the main one and 1024X768 for the second one.

Right now, i'm looking at two choices :

- ASUS V9180VS
- ATI radeon 9000 PRO

The price range is 200-250 CAN$. That means about 130-180 US$.

Thank You.

 

[zx]

Of course, feel free to suggest other choices!

 

[Pradeep]

The GF4 MX line has pretty bad 2D quality, at least compared to ATI. The non-MX is apparently OK.

What is your primary monitor? I assume an LCD because 1280*1024 on a 4:3 CRT monitor is going to give you oval circles on screen. Do you need DVI?

 

[Dozer]

It all depends on what you're looking at accomplishing. You don't necessarily have to buy a dual monitor card. I am using my higher quality vid card for my main monitor, and a cheap PCI card for the other monitor. My second monitor mostly serves as a secondary browser display for when I'm watching TV on my main monitor, and it serves as a tool pallet for Photoshop work. If you are planning to use it for more graphics-intensive functions, then the higher-end dual route may be the way to go.

 

[zx]

The GF4 MX line has pretty bad 2D quality, at least compared to ATI. The non-MX is apparently OK.

What is your primary monitor? I assume an LCD because 1280*1024 on a 4:3 CRT monitor is going to give you oval circles on screen. Do you need DVI?

I am not using an LCD. Never noticed the ovals you are talking about. (lol?) :roll: But I never stopped to think what resolution was better. I just saw that my screen's optimal resolution was 1280X1024@85Hz. I'm trying 1280X960 right now....

I do not need DVI.

It all depends on what you're looking at accomplishing. You don't necessarily have to buy a dual monitor card. I am using my higher quality vid card for my main monitor, and a cheap PCI card for the other monitor. My second monitor mostly serves as a secondary browser display for when I'm watching TV on my main monitor, and it serves as a tool pallet for Photoshop work. If you are planning to use it for more graphics-intensive functions, then the higher-end dual route may be the way to go.

I will use my dual monitor much like you do. Example, for programming, i'd put the specifications on the secondary monitor and the development environment in my main monitor. I do not use any high end graphic applications.

You suggestion of a PCI video card is interesting. I saw that the Radeon 7000 has a PCI version. Are there any others?

 

[timwhit]

You can get Geforce4 MX440 that are PCI. But, who knows how good their 2D quality is.

I never have seen any problems with the output of either my old Geforce2 Pro, or my never Radeon 7000. I don't have the newest screen, but it is decent (Sony 220GS).

 

[Dïscfärm]

The "pricey" Matrox Parhelia 256 can meet these specs -- certainly in the 2-D speed and quality department. Its 3-D speed is not cutting edge, but somewhere in the lower range of GF3. It has 3 monitor outputs-- triple-RGB, dual-DVI and TV-out. The pricing of a Parhelia 256 and Parhelia 128 may be a bit better these days, though.

http://www.matrox.com/mga/workstation/3dws/home.cfm

http://www.matrox.com/mga/products/home.cfm

 

[Mercutio]

If all you want on the second display is high-quality 2D, I'll bet you can find a four or eight MB Matrox Millenium or Millenium II for next-to-nothing. Don't even try to do 3D on them, but 2D display on those cards is damn near perfect.

I'd also second the idea of any recent-ish dualhead Radeon card, or the 7000 PCI, if 3D on the second display is an issue (why??).

 

[Explorer]

If all you want on the second display is high-quality 2D, I'll bet you can find a four or eight MB Matrox Millenium or Millenium II for next-to-nothing. Don't even try to do 3D on them, but 2D display on those cards is damn near perfect...

The old Millennium and Millennium II AGP cards were good in their time, but they don't have the modern ultra-clean crystal clear 360 MHz high frequency DACs that are the hallmark of the more-recent G400/450/550 cards, or the Parhelia.

For me, the G450 would be a minimum only because the second monitor port is the full equivalent of the primary monitor port, whereas the G400 had somewhat of a refresh limit on the secondary monitor port.


On a side note: If you are rich and a bit eccentric, one could add a G450/MMS for 4 independent monitor outputs. Actually, the G200 and G450 MMS cards have been a big product over the years in the medical and financial markets. There are PCs running NT4, OS/2, Win2K in the various financial marketplaces that have up to 16 monitors connected to one PC, and these are commonly large monitors *each* being operated at 2048 X whatever pixels at a high refresh rate.

http://www.matrox.com/mga/products/g450_mms/home.cfm

 

[Mercutio]

Yes, Mr. Houston, TX, but I can buy a Millenium II for $8. For awhile I could get AGP G400s for $20, but they've shot back into the stratosphere, pricewise. Not to question that the G4x0 is a better card; It is. But there's a lot of bang for the buck in those older cards, and it's a shame that they aren't used more. IMO they're ideally suited to zx's need IF he doesn't need 3D on a 2nd screen.

 

[zx]

The only reason I would want good 3D is to replace temporarily my Gf2MX until I get a better video card. But the radeon 7000 does not have better 3D performance. Therefore, 3D is not an issue.

I can't seem to find any of those old PCI cards. I suggested the radeon 7000 PCI because it's the only one I found (I live in Canada remember!). However, I’ll look at the used marked...

Now, enough for PCI ! Suppose I decide to get an AGP card, what should I get! From what I understand until now, the Gf4MX has poor 2d display quality, so it's off my list.

 

[Mercutio]

If you're made out of money, the Parhelia.
The Radeon 9000 is competitive with a GF3 (don't ask me which one, but it's about the same as an 8500, which is neck and neck with GF3s on most benchmarks). Dualhead 64MB OEM versions cost about $75 in the US, and have "pretty damn good" 2D output.

I've heard that non-MX GF4s have much better 2D quality than older nvidia cards. I don't know if that's true, but DVI+CRT GF4s seem to be out there as well, and I don't think anyone would argue (even me) that those cards have exceptional 3D output.

 

[blakerwry]

omg.. who started that nvidia quality argument again... If you can show me proof of geforce 4 quality problems across more than 1 brand of geforce4 or geforce4MX's I would like to see it. Cause I have read more than one article that state the contrary. It simply is not true that Nvidia cards have quality problems anymore.


I am using an AGP geforce3 Ti200 and a Matrox Millenium II PCI in my main box... good combo for me, but i dont think the millenium supports overlay so you wont want to try and play videos on it... this is why i would suggest you not get it. (but i got it for just $5 off ebay... pretty tempting)

From 3D mark scores it looks like the geforce4MX 440 is slower or on par with a Ti200... for $60-$80 for brand name I dont know if it's worth it. You can get a 9000 pro for little more and you might be able to soft tweak it to gain extra performance.

If you just want 2D support on your secondary monitor I'd suggest a TNT/Vanta PCI version from ebay... or maybe some other similar card that can be had cheaply.


I don't know if it would be best to run 2 monitors using the same vid card genre(example TNT and Geforce) or not... I've always gone the "not" route... maybe someone else will be able to clue us into drive benefits/conflicts.

 

[Mercutio]

My bias on nvidia is very easy to see, but you can't possibly tell me that the 2D quality of nvidia's pre-GF3s is ANYTHING like those of even a 6 year-old MilleniumII. If you think that, you need a new monitor.
I won't argue the newer ones. I haven't seen enough of them to comment, but I'd subjectively rank the 2D display of GF2s I've seen below even 3rd tier chipsets like the Savage4 or your average intel onboard-whatever.

 

[blakerwry]

Well it just so happens I have a Matrox MilleniumII, a ATi Rage IIC, a Axle(no name as far as I'm concerned) TNT, a Leadtek geforce3 Ti200, a i845GE, and a Matrox dual head g400.

Not to mention a NEC/Mitsubishi monitor that is very sharp.


I haven't done any scientificly sound, objective, measurements or comparisons. But from my swapping of cards that the g400 i got was not as sharp as people tout...

The ATi Rage IIc, Matrox g400, and guillemot(now dead) TNT2m64 were all pretty close, and the Leadtek Geforce3 Ti200 is the sharpest.

The i845GE is pretty bad.. by far the worst.


I have not tested the milleniumII on the same NEC monitor and I have not had a chance to use my new (no name) TNT on this monitor either... but from using both on other monitors I would say that they are sharper than the 845..

 

[blakerwry]

OK, I compared the milleniumII and the geforce3..

I lodaded up this thread on both monitors, then connected the monitor cable to 1 vid card, then the other.. back and forth... comparing different parts of the page, paying extra attention to the sharpness of text...

I can tell no difference betweent the two...

Maybe if I removed this KVM I could.. but as it stands I cannot.

 

[Fushigi]

The Radeon 9000 is competitive with a GF3 (don't ask me which one, but it's about the same as an 8500, which is neck and neck with GF3s on most benchmarks). Dualhead 64MB OEM versions cost about $75 in the US, and have "pretty damn good" 2D output.

What about the Radeon 9100? I see a 128MB dualhead 9100 for $82.

- Fushigi

 

[CougTek]

The Radeon 9000 is competitive with a GF3 (don't ask me which one, but it's about the same as an 8500, which is neck and neck with GF3s on most benchmarks).

Nope. The Radeon 9000, even the 9000 Pro, fells short of a GeFarce 3 and a Radeon 8500 in almost all benchmarks. IIRC, a Radeon 9000 is a 8500 with a crippled memory bus, plus a marketing name. However, the Radeon 9000 has a better 2D quality than most GF3.

The Radeon 8500 used to be a tad slower than the GeFarce 3 in benchmarks (except 3DMark), but since ATI finally focused on making decent drivers for their cards with their CATALYST program, the Radeon 8500 showed its true potential and matches or exceed most GeFarce 3 variants.

The Radeon 9100 is none other than a 8500 with a selling name. I'm not even sure the operating frequency of the core and memory changed.

The 9100 with 128MB and dual-head that Fushigi talked about is a great bargain too, since I cannot get a Radeon 8500LE 64MB for less than ~75$ here.

 

[CougTek]

The Radeon 9000, even the 9000 Pro, fells short of a GeFarce 3 and a Radeon 8500 in almost all benchmarks.

Just in case someone planned to argue the above :

http://www.xbitlabs.com/video/6-value-roundup/index2.html

 

[Handruin]

The Radeon 9000, even the 9000 Pro, fells short of a GeFarce 3 and a Radeon 8500 in almost all benchmarks.

Just in case someone planned to argue the above :

http://www.xbitlabs.com/video/6-value-roundup/index2.html

I won't argue, but agree. I was in disagreement with a friend in regards to his ATI 9000 card because he said it was on par with the GeForce 4.

I gave him links to numerous reviews that show the 9000 pro on par with the GeForce 3 ti 200 and some times below. In many cases the 8500 surpassed both the GeForce 3 and the 9000.

His claim is that ATI excels in 32bpp in comparison to nvidia. I remember this being true 1-2 years ago, but recently both cards seem to be on par with 32-bit color.

 

[Fushigi]

The Radeon 9100 is none other than a 8500 with a selling name. I'm not even sure the operating frequency of the core and memory changed.

The 9100 with 128MB and dual-head that Fushigi talked about is a great bargain too, since I cannot get a Radeon 8500LE 64MB for less than ~75$ here.

Thanks for the info. I found the link to the store at BensBargains: http://store.yahoo.com/livewarehouse/vgal21740.html

And from the discussion on the topic:

The ATI 9100 has the same core as the ATI 8500. ATI originally intended the 9000 to replace the 8500 but it turned out that the older 8500 was a better performer than the 9000. The 9000 wasn't selling, but the 8500 was. So ATI added a couple minor features to the 8500 and released it as the 9100. It's a pretty nice card. Ranks in performance between the GeForce 3 Ti 500 and GeForce 4 Ti 4200. The 9100 is a great card if you need a good cheap gaming video card. It's way better than the comparatively priced GeForce 4 MX cards.

...which backs CougTek's comments. Now for the $82 question: Do I order one?

- Fushigi

 

[blakerwry]

I'd have to say that 3D image quality has come a long way... I'd say Nvidia and ATi are pretty much neck and neck with image quality, the only cards left behind are the "value" type of 3D cards made by intel, SiS, and STMicroelectroncis (Kyro II producer)

interestingly enough... from a review I saw on anandtech the Kyro II has no T&L engine of its own... the next version (Kyro III?) will have integrated T&L. Anand's review also has a quake 3 screenshot... the 32bit mode doesn't show the same banding on the armor/health/ammo count numbers as we saw on the X-bit revie... but it still has very distinct gradients between mip-map levels.. something I think even a TNT could do better at.

 

[zx]

I'm probably going to go for a Radeon 9000 PRO 64MB AGP. A PCI card would be a good idea, but it wastes a PCI slot for nothing.

Does anyone know if the DVI to VGA converter comes in the reatil box of the Radeon 9000 PRO? It costs 13CAN$ for that adapter :excl:

 

[Mercutio]

I've had a couple of the dualheads, from Sapphire and ATI. Both were DVI & CRT, sans converter.

I can get DVI-CRT converters for US$4.99. I'll bet you can find them cheaper than CAN$13.

 

[blakerwry]

I'm probably going to go for a Radeon 9000 PRO 64MB AGP. A PCI card would be a good idea, but it wastes a PCI slot for nothing.

Does anyone know if the DVI to VGA converter comes in the reatil box of the Radeon 9000 PRO? It costs 13CAN$ for that adapter :excl:

good choice for a single card solution. I was thinking the same thing for one of my PC's... however, now that the soft tweek has come out to turn a 9500pro 128 into a 9700 I think the 9500pro 128 is looking more attractive than the 9000 pro.

 

[CougTek]

now that the soft tweek has come out to turn a 9500pro 128 into a 9700 I think the 9500pro 128 is looking more attractive than the 9000 pro.

No no no no NO! You have gotten it all wrong. You can't change a 9500 Pro into a Radeon 9700. The 9500Pro doesn't share the same design as the 9700. The 9500 (non-Pro), however, features the same design and therefore, can be modified into a 9700. I thought it was clear.

Don't say you haven't been warned.

 

[blakerwry]

sorry... why don't you just make it nice and easy for us simple folk...


ex:

Radeon 9500 64MB  -> 9500 pro
Radeon 9500 128MB -> 9700