A Matrox G200 running on a C2D box with W2K. Now that's what I call,
"best bang for the buck". I'm very impressed!
DHSinclair wrote:
Stan,
You have not reason to apologize. Really!
I recall your focus. And, I like your focus. I read. I decide. I do.
I have been an nVidia fan for years, but, I have lost focus. Obviosly!
New stuff to learn.
No harm. No foul.
The new toy is now up and running w2k. I will probably snag your
suggestion just for a start. If nothing else, the card will become my
"when all else fails this video card works!" At least it will be some
generations above my old Matrox cards! LOL!
I have zero experience with anything newer that a PCI or AGP slot!
Yes, painful, but true!
But, the damn new machine is running well with a PCI Matrox G200! Damn!
Best,
Duncan
At 17:44 11/19/2008 -0600, you wrote:
Sorry I went off on a tangent, I just meant to say that nVidia makes
fine video cards as well as AMD.
DHSinclair wrote:
Stan,
I do so get your focus. But, I have moved to Intel C2D, right or
wrong for my updates/upgrades. I will just have to deal with stuff
I miss because of this decision. ATM, Intel represents a larger
choice than AMD does. Yes, I do so want AMD to keep on trucking!
Intel needs all the competition they can get. I have zero bad
comments about any AMD cpu I have ever used in the last 10 years. I
still use two of them ATM, and both run just like torpedoes;
hot-straight-normal ('hot' being a relative term, LOL!).
It is still all good right now. I will look at the ATI video cards
in any case.
Best,
Duncan
At 16:38 11/19/2008 -0600, you wrote:
I agree that either companies products would be fine. Personally
speaking, I've upgraded my gaming box from an AMD 3850 to their
current 4850 using Catalyst drivers going way back with zero
issues. In December AMD is introducing a fascinating new mainstream
feature called, "Stream computing" in version 8.12 which more or
less turns your video card somewhat into a parallel processing
super computer. That MSI card only has 80 streaming processors but
is still (at least for some apps) considerably more powerful than
your core 2 duo. nVidia also does this with CUDA and it should be
interesting to see where this leads in the months and years ahead.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is one stream computing app I've been using for many
months now and its way more powerful than the CPU version. Good Luck!
DHSinclair wrote:
j.,
Yes, thank you. I do understand. I do know that I will be doing
your 'It's simple' kind of test. I do have to test the waters and
form my own opinion. Yes, most is truly better than my very old
Matrox cards. I do accept this. I do know their limitations. But,
in a pinch, they still light up and allow most basic setup
functions (which is what I use them for). I do not have any new
technology spares lying around anymore. I am now brand new to the
new PCI interfaces.
Ouch! New lump on head!!!!!! LOL!
Best,
Duncan
At 11:48 11/19/2008 -0800, you wrote:
Mis-quotes of how bad ATI's driver issues are starting to wear
thin. Both companies have issues that arise, generally with AGP
video support or specific games, then maybe something else like
general stability.
The driver package is the same for the entire product line, true
also with Nvidia.
It's simple: You buy, try, scrutinize, & return within 30 days if
there's trouble. Anything has to be better than old Matrox cards,
as good as they were in their day and at $30 it could cost a lot
more to try.
DHSinclair wrote:
Stan,
Well, yes and no. Yes, I have a new/replacement PC built; a
C2D/P45/DDR3 that is just missing a video card. I do have 3 PCI
cards that I can try, but I have to take another PC down to try.
ATM, my spare G200-PCI may be bad. I will confirm this tonight.
And, no, you missed nothing. I did appreciate the suggestion and
the link to the Anandtech review. I may have to re-read the
review. Perhaps I missed something. I just was not impressed
with the video card's power usage, resources, and the driver
(ATI) issues.
However, as a first time try with a PCI-e card, the price and
features are appealing.
I have listened to the collective banter ATI vs. nVidia through
the last 3 series of video cards. Sorry, I remain hopelessly
confused still. And, now I have to learn/deal with a brand new
card interface also.
My apologies.
Best,
Duncan
At 16:55 11/18/2008 -0600, you wrote:
quote: But, I have this brandy, spanking, new set of toys that
need a video card just to see if it even works...... :)
Did I misunderstand something?
DHSinclair wrote:
J/Stan,
Hey! Hey! It is a Guinea Pig; not a hamster. Yes, I may be 1
or 2 generations behind. I use AMD Barton 2500+'s, an AMD
TBird 1400M, and some Intel P3's. Most of my video cards are
nVidia GeForce 4's or nVidia FX5500's. Yes, not top drawer,
but it all seems to do OK for my needs. I am not into PC-based
HD video. I do not even own a wide-screen flat panel monitor
yet. Sheesh!
Perhaps it is time to banish myself from this collective! LOL!
I did read the Anandtech review of the card Stan suggested.
While it does seem to work OK, it does seem to have several
power and resource negatives. They also mentioned driver
problems with this card also. I have not been an ATI user
either. The only ATI video anything I have is the on-board 3D
Rage IIC PCI chip in the server-works Intel m/b.
And, it is beginning to show signs of serious age and some
video degradation. (This is why I still hoard old PCI Matrox
cards)! But, the server is not the issue at hand. I am
looking for mid-level PCI-X cards now.
When I rebuild my gaming machine, we will talk top drawer cards!
Thank you for the suggestion. I will re-read the review.
Perhaps I am just too new to this new video revolution.
Best,
Duncan
At 01:44 11/18/2008 -0800, you wrote:
Given what he's been running on, I'm sure a hamster on a
wheel is faster! ;)
A review on Anandtech for it:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3444
Stan Zaske wrote:
Duncan just wanted to have a video card that was competent
for web based video and this card is obviously overkill for
that but the price is very reasonable. It should even be
powerful enough for some casual gaming at low resolutions.
maccrawj wrote:
Gotta love how Newegg's specs are always flat out wrong or
have the wrong definition.
The GPU is HD4350 but that's the card model, not the actual
GPU's model, LOL!
For accelerated video, you're probably write but I'd be
suspect just based on how low the price is.
