Recommendation - mostly 2D

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox (More info?)

Building a new system around an Asus P4C800E. It will mostly be used for 2D
work, ranging from text to Photoshop, to the occasional (??) game. On most
of the systems I've built to date I've used Matrox boards, largely for the
high-quality 2D performance and general stability. However, on recent
systems the Matrox and Asus boards do not necessarily play nicely together
in certain graphics modes.

Bottom line - for general purpose use, but very high quality and stability
2D (NOT high-performance, high-end gaming), what board(s) out there would
you all recommend? I'm leaning toward considering an Asus board for
possibly better compatibility. For this system, I'd like to keep the price
to a max of about $150 (Web price, OEM or retail). Any recommendations
appreciated.

Thanks.
14 answers Last reply
More about recommendation
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox (More info?)

    I've used,
    Matrox G400
    Voodoo5
    Nvidia 5200
    ATI 9100
    and now an ATI 9600 PRO AIW.
    So I would say to get an ATI 9600 PRO or even an 9600 XT

    "ke" <elliottk@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:prXdc.3279$zj3.1523@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > Building a new system around an Asus P4C800E. It will mostly be used for
    2D
    > work, ranging from text to Photoshop, to the occasional (??) game. On most
    > of the systems I've built to date I've used Matrox boards, largely for the
    > high-quality 2D performance and general stability. However, on recent
    > systems the Matrox and Asus boards do not necessarily play nicely together
    > in certain graphics modes.
    >
    > Bottom line - for general purpose use, but very high quality and stability
    > 2D (NOT high-performance, high-end gaming), what board(s) out there would
    > you all recommend? I'm leaning toward considering an Asus board for
    > possibly better compatibility. For this system, I'd like to keep the
    price
    > to a max of about $150 (Web price, OEM or retail). Any recommendations
    > appreciated.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    >
    >
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox (More info?)

    > Building a new system around an Asus P4C800E. It will mostly be used for
    2D
    > work, ranging from text to Photoshop, to the occasional (??) game.

    Doesn't sound worth doing to me. If you are not a gamer,
    why go to an expensive mobo? I've got Gigabyte integrated
    mobos ( run around $45 to $65 ) that are really stable running
    AutoCAD, Solidworks, and Office, and they are holding up
    well. The Intel Application Accelerator that comes with those
    boards, make booting and loading of apps quick, and the
    integrated graphics runs most OpenGL games very well. They
    are good little workhorses, and very affordable. A fully
    integrated board like that, has been tested completely, and
    tends to be bug free. On the ones I'm using, I can install
    Linux Redhat 9 without a hitch and all functions working
    and stable. Now that is a test of reliability if there ever was
    one, because RH 9 is a joke regards compatibility with
    most hardware. I've had dual boot with WinXP up and
    running for months without RH crashing and burning.
    Think about it :-)

    johns
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox (More info?)

    johns <johns123@moscow.com> wrote:
    >> Building a new system around an Asus P4C800E. It will mostly be
    >> used for 2D work, ranging from text to Photoshop, to the occasional
    >> (??) game.
    >
    > Doesn't sound worth doing to me. If you are not a gamer,
    > why go to an expensive mobo?

    One word: Photoshop.

    > I've got Gigabyte integrated
    > mobos ( run around $45 to $65 ) that are really stable running
    > AutoCAD, Solidworks, and Office, and they are holding up
    > well. The Intel Application Accelerator that comes with those
    > boards, make booting and loading of apps quick,

    Intel Application Accelerator is just a replacement ATA driver with extra
    buffer cache -- you can do the same with third party utilities, or even
    better[1] by setting Windows to do aggressive ("server") caching. Extra
    RAM-eaters is NOT what you want if you run Photoshop, cause you want all the
    memory to be available to PS to do its own caching.
    Oh, and besides that, IAA is incompatible with a whole bunch of programs,
    including (but not limited to) Veritas/Stomp BackupMyPC, various packet
    writing software for CDs/DVDs and ejectable harddrives.

    [1]: For one thing, Windows FS caching will release the memory when it's
    needed for other things.

    Regards,
    --
    *Art
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox (More info?)

    On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 09:42:43 -0400, "Arthur Hagen"
    <art@broomstick.com> wrote:

    | johns <johns123@moscow.com> wrote:
    | >> Building a new system around an Asus P4C800E. It will mostly be
    | >> used for 2D work, ranging from text to Photoshop, to the occasional
    | >> (??) game.
    | >
    | > Doesn't sound worth doing to me. If you are not a gamer,
    | > why go to an expensive mobo?
    |
    | One word: Photoshop.
    |
    | > I've got Gigabyte integrated
    | > mobos ( run around $45 to $65 ) that are really stable running
    | > AutoCAD, Solidworks, and Office, and they are holding up
    | > well. The Intel Application Accelerator that comes with those
    | > boards, make booting and loading of apps quick,
    |
    | Intel Application Accelerator is just a replacement ATA driver with extra
    | buffer cache -- you can do the same with third party utilities, or even
    | better[1] by setting Windows to do aggressive ("server") caching. Extra
    | RAM-eaters is NOT what you want if you run Photoshop, cause you want all the
    | memory to be available to PS to do its own caching.
    | Oh, and besides that, IAA is incompatible with a whole bunch of programs,
    | including (but not limited to) Veritas/Stomp BackupMyPC, various packet
    | writing software for CDs/DVDs and ejectable harddrives.

    IAA is also incompatible with Intel's 865 and 875 series of chipsets.

    Larc


    §§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox (More info?)

    "Larc" <larc-news@jupiterlink.net> wrote in message
    news:uqel70h7popkjjktvoasj7tulo1tcbt460@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 09:42:43 -0400, "Arthur Hagen"
    > <art@broomstick.com> wrote:
    >
    > | johns <johns123@moscow.com> wrote:
    > | >> Building a new system around an Asus P4C800E. It will mostly be
    > | >> used for 2D work, ranging from text to Photoshop, to the occasional
    > | >> (??) game.
    > | >
    > | > Doesn't sound worth doing to me. If you are not a gamer,
    > | > why go to an expensive mobo?
    > |
    > | One word: Photoshop.
    > |
    > | > I've got Gigabyte integrated
    > | > mobos ( run around $45 to $65 ) that are really stable running
    > | > AutoCAD, Solidworks, and Office, and they are holding up
    > | > well. The Intel Application Accelerator that comes with those
    > | > boards, make booting and loading of apps quick,
    > |
    > | Intel Application Accelerator is just a replacement ATA driver with
    extra
    > | buffer cache -- you can do the same with third party utilities, or even
    > | better[1] by setting Windows to do aggressive ("server") caching. Extra
    > | RAM-eaters is NOT what you want if you run Photoshop, cause you want
    all the
    > | memory to be available to PS to do its own caching.
    > | Oh, and besides that, IAA is incompatible with a whole bunch of
    programs,
    > | including (but not limited to) Veritas/Stomp BackupMyPC, various packet
    > | writing software for CDs/DVDs and ejectable harddrives.
    >
    > IAA is also incompatible with Intel's 865 and 875 series of chipsets.

    Not true.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox (More info?)

    Ron Reaugh <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
    > "Larc" <larc-news@jupiterlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:uqel70h7popkjjktvoasj7tulo1tcbt460@4ax.com...
    >> IAA is also incompatible with Intel's 865 and 875 series of chipsets.
    >
    > Not true.

    You can't just make a statement like "Not true" without qualifying it -- you
    make yourself look like an idiot.

    For i865/875 with a plain ICH5, or with an ICH5R without running RAID,
    there's no compatible IAA.

    There's something called "Intel Application Accelerator Raid Edition" for
    i865/875+ICH5R with RAID 0 or 1, but that's just Intel's RAID driver with a
    new name, and has nothing to do with IAA as discussed here.

    --
    *Art
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox (More info?)

    Get a P650 and do all the stuff that Matrox's TS says and then it works for
    2D. I'm running two P4C800E Deluxes(1016)(XP, W2K3) with P650s.

    "ke" <elliottk@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:prXdc.3279$zj3.1523@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > Building a new system around an Asus P4C800E. It will mostly be used for
    2D
    > work, ranging from text to Photoshop, to the occasional (??) game. On most
    > of the systems I've built to date I've used Matrox boards, largely for the
    > high-quality 2D performance and general stability. However, on recent
    > systems the Matrox and Asus boards do not necessarily play nicely together
    > in certain graphics modes.
    >
    > Bottom line - for general purpose use, but very high quality and stability
    > 2D (NOT high-performance, high-end gaming), what board(s) out there would
    > you all recommend? I'm leaning toward considering an Asus board for
    > possibly better compatibility. For this system, I'd like to keep the
    price
    > to a max of about $150 (Web price, OEM or retail). Any recommendations
    > appreciated.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    >
    >
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox (More info?)

    On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 02:36:19 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
    <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

    | > IAA is also incompatible with Intel's 865 and 875 series of chipsets.
    |
    | Not true.

    You can check at Intel for yourself:

    http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/IAA/sb/CS-009312.htm

    Included on this page listing chipsets IAA supports is the following
    statement:

    Note: The Intel Application Accelerator is not compatible with the
    Intel® 875P, 865G/P/PE, 852/855 GM/GME, 855MP, 848P, 815EM chipset,
    the Intel® 440 chipset family, or any earlier Intel chipsets.

    Larc


    §§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox (More info?)

    Kind of where I was leaning (Matrox 650). But I wanted to get some input to
    assess whether it made any sense to consider an Asus video board, in the
    (unfounded) hope that there would be more seamless compatibility with the
    Asus P4C800. I've been using older Matrox boards (400, 450, 550) with Asus
    mobos, with generally solid results, but recently built a system around a
    P4C533 and a Matrox 550 that experienced a hard crash (full power down)
    whenever WMP 9 was used to view a video. (realPlayer handles the same video
    with no issues). Never solved the issue, regardless of drivers used, etc.
    This and other little annoyances led me to look at options other than the
    Matrox 650 before plunking down the $.

    Thanks for the input.


    "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
    news:0pIec.13486$K_.431473@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > Get a P650 and do all the stuff that Matrox's TS says and then it works
    for
    > 2D. I'm running two P4C800E Deluxes(1016)(XP, W2K3) with P650s.
    >
    > "ke" <elliottk@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:prXdc.3279$zj3.1523@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > > Building a new system around an Asus P4C800E. It will mostly be used
    for
    > 2D
    > > work, ranging from text to Photoshop, to the occasional (??) game. On
    most
    > > of the systems I've built to date I've used Matrox boards, largely for
    the
    > > high-quality 2D performance and general stability. However, on recent
    > > systems the Matrox and Asus boards do not necessarily play nicely
    together
    > > in certain graphics modes.
    > >
    > > Bottom line - for general purpose use, but very high quality and
    stability
    > > 2D (NOT high-performance, high-end gaming), what board(s) out there
    would
    > > you all recommend? I'm leaning toward considering an Asus board for
    > > possibly better compatibility. For this system, I'd like to keep the
    > price
    > > to a max of about $150 (Web price, OEM or retail). Any recommendations
    > > appreciated.
    > >
    > > Thanks.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox (More info?)

    Hi Ke,

    I have the P4C800E Deluxe (i think that is what it is :-) ) with the
    Parhelia and I am very pleased with it, which I use for Digital Darkroom
    working on DSLR files.

    I can't think of any problems and I have had this for some time now.

    Good luck

    Henrik
    "ke" <elliottk@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:prXdc.3279$zj3.1523@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > Building a new system around an Asus P4C800E. It will mostly be used for
    2D
    > work, ranging from text to Photoshop, to the occasional (??) game. On most
    > of the systems I've built to date I've used Matrox boards, largely for the
    > high-quality 2D performance and general stability. However, on recent
    > systems the Matrox and Asus boards do not necessarily play nicely together
    > in certain graphics modes.
    >
    > Bottom line - for general purpose use, but very high quality and stability
    > 2D (NOT high-performance, high-end gaming), what board(s) out there would
    > you all recommend? I'm leaning toward considering an Asus board for
    > possibly better compatibility. For this system, I'd like to keep the
    price
    > to a max of about $150 (Web price, OEM or retail). Any recommendations
    > appreciated.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    >
    >
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox (More info?)

    "ke" wrote in message...
    > Kind of where I was leaning (Matrox 650). But I wanted to get some
    > input to assess whether it made any sense to consider an Asus video
    > board, in the (unfounded) hope that there would be more seamless
    > compatibility with the Asus P4C800.

    What makes you think there's some sort of chronic incompatibility between
    Matrox cards (in general) and the board you're considering? It would appear
    that your previous experience is overwhelmingly positive, no?

    At end of day the best board for your chosen application would appear to be
    the Millennium P650, and there's no reason to expect any compatibility
    issues with it.
    --


    Richard Hopkins
    Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
    (replace .nospam with .com in reply address)

    The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
    Get the most out of your digital photos www.dabsxpose.com
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox (More info?)

    Historically my experience with Matrox boards has been positive, but recent
    problems unique to the combination of a G550 and an Asus P4B533 have caused
    me to consider other video options for a new system based on the Asus
    P4C800E. While the problems experienced (system crashes caused by certain
    video calls) can easily be worked around by an experienced user, since I
    need to supply this system to non-technically oriented customer(s) who would
    understandably be apoplectic if the system does not function flawlessly in
    any and all applications they are likely to run.

    Hence the interest in trying to ensure the video element of the system is
    relatively bulletproof. While the end user is likely to run his common
    applications day in and day out for weeks or months at a time with the
    Asus-Matrox combo without a hiccup, I'd like to avoid any callbacks due to
    system crashes when the end user happens to open a video using WMP 9 (or
    whatever other application may access the same video call(s) that cause a
    system crash in WMP9).

    Thanks for the input.


    "Richard Hopkins" <richh@dsl.popex.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:407ef2ef$0$17912$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
    > "ke" wrote in message...
    > > Kind of where I was leaning (Matrox 650). But I wanted to get some
    > > input to assess whether it made any sense to consider an Asus video
    > > board, in the (unfounded) hope that there would be more seamless
    > > compatibility with the Asus P4C800.
    >
    > What makes you think there's some sort of chronic incompatibility between
    > Matrox cards (in general) and the board you're considering? It would
    appear
    > that your previous experience is overwhelmingly positive, no?
    >
    > At end of day the best board for your chosen application would appear to
    be
    > the Millennium P650, and there's no reason to expect any compatibility
    > issues with it.
    > --
    >
    >
    > Richard Hopkins
    > Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
    > (replace .nospam with .com in reply address)
    >
    > The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
    > Get the most out of your digital photos www.dabsxpose.com
    >
    >
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox (More info?)

    On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 16:05:57 +0800, "Henrik Tived"
    <tived@iinet.net.au> wrote:

    >Hi Ke,
    >
    >I have the P4C800E Deluxe (i think that is what it is :-) ) with the
    >Parhelia and I am very pleased with it, which I use for Digital Darkroom
    >working on DSLR files.
    >
    >I can't think of any problems and I have had this for some time now.
    >
    >Good luck
    >
    >Henrik
    >"ke" <elliottk@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    >news:prXdc.3279$zj3.1523@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    >> Building a new system around an Asus P4C800E. It will mostly be used for
    >2D
    >> work, ranging from text to Photoshop, to the occasional (??) game. On most
    >> of the systems I've built to date I've used Matrox boards, largely for the
    >> high-quality 2D performance and general stability. However, on recent
    >> systems the Matrox and Asus boards do not necessarily play nicely together
    >> in certain graphics modes.
    >>
    >> Bottom line - for general purpose use, but very high quality and stability
    >> 2D (NOT high-performance, high-end gaming), what board(s) out there would
    >> you all recommend? I'm leaning toward considering an Asus board for
    >> possibly better compatibility. For this system, I'd like to keep the
    >price
    >> to a max of about $150 (Web price, OEM or retail). Any recommendations
    >> appreciated.
    >>
    >> Thanks.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    I'm using a G400 Max and if you're interested in 2D, that's about all
    you'll need. Great 2D and I have no problem playing dvds, etc.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox (More info?)

    On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:59:56 GMT, robin <robinddvd@yahoo.com> wrote:

    | I'm using a G400 Max and if you're interested in 2D, that's about all
    | you'll need. Great 2D and I have no problem playing dvds, etc.

    I'm not sure they're still available new, but Newegg has the G450 for
    $89 including shipping. I just bought another one.

    Larc


    §§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§
Ask a new question

Read More

Matrox Asus Graphics