• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Matrox G550

P

perplex

Gawd
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
773
Has anyone had experience with these (or any) Matrox cards? I just want to know what the 2D image quality is like. I've heard its the best and noticeable.
 
I had used a Matrox Millenium G200 with 16MB SGRAM for playing Final Fantasy VII PC version 6 years ago

that card has wonderfull DX6.1 support
 
I'm using a G550 right now, connected to two 17" CRTs, each set to 1152X864@75Hz.

As far as I'm able to determine, the image quality is absolutely perfect, both in terms of colours as in sharpness.
 
this is off-topic, but I remember back in the day when the G200 (or was it the G400) that was the first 3D card to support environmental-bump mapping....
 
I had a matrox millenium back in the day...


I remember the g200, I remember the whole g series got off to a bad start because matrox could never get their opengl driver working right.

I also remember, though, that when they used to do videocard reviews they used a matrox gSomething card as an image quality reference for 2d and 3d.
 
I used a 550 pci in the past and its razor sharp. You would be hard pressed to find a better performing card for 2d
 
ok thanks for the replies guys, looks like my next computer for 0% gaming will have a Matrox G550 :cool:

however, what about the differences when using DVI are they less noticeable?
 
Bandwidth was quite limited on the G550. I couldn't get it to do 1280x1024x32 on 2 monitors, always had to back down to a lower resolution or use 16-bit colors (ugh).

For one monitor, it is fine.
 
ScourggeFX said:
Bandwidth was quite limited on the G550. I couldn't get it to do 1280x1024x32 on 2 monitors, always had to back down to a lower resolution or use 16-bit colors (ugh).

For one monitor, it is fine.
Click to expand...
There's also the P-series, which are derived from the Parhelia and hence have some more impressive specs. You might even be able to play some of the more recent games on it ;)

DVI usually is easier to implement (correctly) than VGA output, although cheap components and boneheaded designs can screw up things here as well.
 
Elledan said:
...DVI usually is easier to implement (correctly) than VGA output, although cheap components and boneheaded designs can screw up things here as well.
Click to expand...

okey dokey that's what i thought. so even though a cheap card is DVI, digital, technically "perfect" because of the cheap components its not quite as good as a higher quality card DVI out? :confused:
 
perplex said:
okey dokey that's what i thought. so even though a cheap card is DVI, digital, technically "perfect" because of the cheap components its not quite as good as a higher quality card DVI out? :confused:
Click to expand...
Once noise or any other kind of distortion gets into the signal, no amount of digital transmission is going to improve it. If the layout of the traces on the PCB allows for such interference to be picked up, or the manufacturer decided to save some money on supporting components (caps, to name one infamous example) so that noise isn't suppressed as well as it could be, image quality is going to suffer.
 
I once had a 4MB Matrox Mystique 220 PCI, supposedly had great IQ; wouldn't know how it really would have been, since I was running it through my 8MB Diamond Monster 3D-II since the thing couldn't really do much 3D, someone gave it to me for this reason and I installed it in place of a 2MB Cirrus Logic 5446PCI or something to that effect; also Glide was so much cooler than DirectX back in the DX6 days, IMHO......in other words, Matrox is know for image quality; conversely it is also known for relatively weak D3D and OGL support (especially the parahelia which is supposedly a 512bit design; 1161 is top 3DMark03 score on an A64@2.2GHz)..... just my random thoughts......
 
Matrox makes great 2D cards, but they are not that great for 3D gaming. I've had the pleasure of getting to use a P series card, just beautiful 2D in Photoshop.
 
Elledan said:
I'm using a G550 right now, connected to two 17" CRTs, each set to 1152X864@75Hz.

As far as I'm able to determine, the image quality is absolutely perfect, both in terms of colours as in sharpness.
Click to expand...

ditto except its dual 21" CRTs (an Invar Showdowmask & an apeture grille) w\ 1200x3200
This is on my NAS I switch montiors\computers w\ dual (4 port) IOGear Extreme KVMs
most of my vector aps are on that box (Illustrator, Quark, Pagemaker, & Fontographer would be but it chokes on that much memory)


ScourggeFX said:
I couldn't get it to do 1280x1024x32 on 2 monitors, always had to back down to a lower resolution or use 16-bit colors (ugh)..
Click to expand...

????? Im at 32 bit currently, and as mentioned at 2x1200x1600 (1200x3200)

alternatives
2048x1536 @32bit w\ 1600x1200 @ 16bit
2048x1536 @24bit w\ 1600x1200 @ 32bit
2048x1536 @24bit w\ 2048x1536 @ 16bit
1800x1440 @ 32bit w\ 1600x1200 @ 32bit


why you where limited to such a low res & bit depth Im not really sure

monitors are an Eizo F930 & Viewsonic G220fb
 
is the matrox image quality noticeable with DVI on a nice LCD? :rolleyes: i've read that the superior image quality is "only" noticeable on analogue (CRT) :confused: - but i'm assuming it is slightly, even with DVI but not as much? :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top