Matrox gurus, please advise

[12th_Man]

Now that I have started to get into all this build-it-yourself stuff, my dad wants me to build him a PC.

He's a doctor, but also a very avid amature photographer and he spends many hours tweaking his images in Photoshop. In fact I would venture to guess that this machine will be running PS 80% of the time that it is in use.

He wants to go with a dual monitor set up (probably both will be fairly large high res LCDs). He likes to run at the highest res possible (he's got his 14" laptop screen at 1600x1200). And I think the last game he played was Pong.

Price isn't a huge factor, but I think he would prefer to go with a system in the 60-70th percentile that he can upgrade every 1-2 years instead of a 95-100th percentile system that he would keep for 3-4 years.

I'm pretty sure everyone will agree that Matrox cards are the way to go, the question is should I get him the G550 or wait for the P650? Anyone know when the P650 is comming out? I haven't seen much about it other than the features list.

I'm very much open to any other ideas. Matrox, nVidia, ATi, whatever. I'm just looking for the best solutions.

Thanks

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

MATROX? Why would you want one of THOSE!

Matrox is the REAL deal. ATI's are good, but MAtrox is just MADE for this $h!t ! The FX's aren't bad but I still haven't seen anyone say their IQ is equal to Matrox's or even better than ATIs.

Well you can pre-order a P650 right now for $235CDN/169US straight from Matrox (meaning you will likely see them by mid-late August), and it's just a few buck more than the G550. It's still not as expensive as a P750 ($326CDN/235US) or Parhelia ($450+ for 128mb/ 900+ for 256) so it's mid-grade/range Matrox, but GOOD, and if hwe doesn't need triple head (p750/parhelia have that) then the P650 is perfect.

The P650 has twice the memory (64mb) as a G550 (32mb obviously) and that WILL be an issue if running DUAL Large resolution images (higher supported theoretical maxs too). The memory on the P650 is also 128 bit vs the 64bit 550 which also helps. The P650 also has better RAMDACs which is good for the quality of the picture (should be better than the G550 [if possible].
Also the P650 has 2 DVI connectors, therefore no need for a DUAL dongle which is what the 550 uses of it's single connector, not that it's a big deal, but it's a nice touch.

Anywhoo, until there are concrete reviews there's no way to tell you if all this theory really adds up to a better card. Odds are it does, However I would say that you should wait 'til you can buy the P650 before buying/ordering anything. Wait for a good comparitive reviews too (I haven't seen one yet). Explain to your Dad the value of that if he asks why not now.
The only ATI's I would recommend would be the R9000PRO and R9100. Get the 128mb versions to allow for the best resolutions.
They are cheaper than the P650, but not as good IMO, and not as feature rich. If you want DUAL DVI you will have to go with a 'Powered by' partner like TYAN, HIS, Gigabyte, Sapphire, etc. At this level (rather low) there will be little difference between OEM partner.
I still say the Matrox is tops. Wait for Reviews and see for yourself.

Anywhoo, that's my two frames worth; not that it really told you much you don't already know.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK

 

[Kristersaurus]

One time, a long time ago, I had a Matrox Mystique.

 

[jmecor]

I have a Matrox Extinque "extinct".
Matrox seems out of the game again. Until Perhelia1024 comes out.

"I Don't Got It,
Cause You Didn't Get It" - Anonymous

 

[flamethrower205]

Dude, don't over shoot this. A matrox G450 will be fine, and an 550 even better if u want it. At work we have a 10x18.1" lcd display, using 2 pci matrox cards (G450) that can output to 4 monitors each. So don't wait for the new one, go with a dual display G550- you'll be very happy.

All the things I really like to do are either illegal, immoral, or fattening.

 

[Willamette_sucks]

A 14" laptop screen at 1600x1200? Bullshit.

U show me what he has.

"Mice eat cheese." - Modest Mouse

"Every Day is the Right Day." -Pink Floyd

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Maybe it's a 15in, but IBM and Dell have had UXGA(16x12) for over a year now on their TOP laptops. IBM even had a sweet laptop, the A31, with a mobile FireGL coupled with a UXGA LCD screen. <A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/mobile/20020306/a31p-06.html" target="_new">HERE's</A> a link to an old review by THG.

I'd buy one of those off E-bay if it were the right price (none at IBM's warehouse outlet in T.O last I checked).


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK

 

[david__t]

In my experience CRTs are far better for image editing and they are also much cheaper - it will be a while yet before LCDs are as good as CRTs for image editing / not blurring. Plus you have the old issue of dead pixels on a TFT screen. Just think - you could have 2 20 inch Iiyamas rather than 2 costly 18.1 inch TFTs. The colours would be brighter and sharper etc... Then you could spend the extra cash on the guts of the PC - the best 20" CRTs are around £350 whereas you are looking at double that for 20" TFTs.

Just my 2 pennys worth...

4.77MHz to 4.0GHz in 10 years. Imagine the space year 2020

 

[12th_Man]

I'm sorry it is a 15", but it's closer to 14" viewable. He's got an Dell Inspiron 4000 I think, could be a 4100 or something, but it's in the 4000 series.

I've got an Inspiron 8000 (paid way too much) and I run at 16X12 too. Text is pretty small, but I don't have a problem with it.

 

[12th_Man]

Yeah, I agree about the price, my dad seems to think he'll be hurting for physical desk real estate if he gets 2 CRT's.

Also, he's told me that LCDs are easier on his eyes and that he thinks the image quality is better. I'll see if I can convince him otherwise. I will personally be sticking with CRTs for my system.

 

[Willamette_sucks]

Yeah I know that grape, but he says its on a P2 system!
And 14" is what he said.

"Mice eat cheese." - Modest Mouse

"Every Day is the Right Day." -Pink Floyd

 

[Willamette_sucks]

And 12th, on TFTs/LCDs, there is no difference between the rated size and the viewable size (such as 19" has 18" viewable on most CRTs). They are the same.

But if they can make these new 15" laptop screens do 1600x1200, why cant all the reasonably priced 17" LCDs out there right now do it too! That makes me mad! I want 1600x1200 too!

"Mice eat cheese." - Modest Mouse

"Every Day is the Right Day." -Pink Floyd

 

[CaptainNemo]

For most users (i.e. people who don't use laptops for CAD), 1600x1200 on anything other than 20"+ screen is just too much. As TFTs are effectively fixed to one resolution (they can't display any others properly), it makes sense to match them to the screen resolution that is acceptable for most people. In my opinion, anything higher than 100 pixels per inch of screen is silly...

I have a 21" CRT, but only switch to 1600x1200 when I desperately need the space; for 99.9% of tasks, 1280x960 suits me (and my eyes) fine...

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Captainnemo on 07/21/03 05:23 PM.</EM></FONT></P>