PDA

View Full Version : Best 2d and 3d graphic card


melad007
05-26-2004, 11:57 PM
Hi there I need help from u to know which 3d graphic card and dv should I choose for 3d workstation I found the following cards:

1) FireGL x2 256T AGP Dual DVI - I

2) Matrox RTx 100 xtreme Pro

3) Nvidia Quadro Fx 4000

4) Matrox Parhelia 256MB and PCI 256MB

I am so confused on which one is the best for graphic workstation and I need the following in graphic card hope that u help me.

The card(s) should have a dv input and audio, high end 3d and 2d processing for graphics and supporting 2 or 3 monitors

Seeking ur help PLS...thanks

thedaemon
05-27-2004, 02:06 AM
3) Nvidia Quadro Fx 4000

reason: opengl is best in quadro from my experience.

Ice Czar
05-27-2004, 02:18 AM
Quadro FX

you can eliminate the Matrox RT good 2D good video, sucks at 3D, same with the Parhelia, has been decertified for most 3D aps)

3Dfx_Sage
05-27-2004, 10:41 PM
what programs are you planning on using?

Okan
05-27-2004, 11:00 PM
It doesn't matter which software he is gonna use.. Quadro FX for sure :p

3Dfx_Sage
05-27-2004, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by Okan
It doesn't matter which software he is gonna use.. Quadro FX for sure :p

yeah, it does matter. would you tell someone using Cinema 4D or Lightwave to spend the extra money on a Quadro when those apps make no use of the extra quadro features and will recieve no benefit what so ever?

Ice Czar
05-28-2004, 12:00 AM
true, but then there is the flexability of having the Quadro and it was presented as pick one of the above and they are all the top of the line models from the various manufacturers (more or less) :p

Rule out the 2D video Cards

then as 3Dfx_Sage has pointed out choose between the
Nividia and the ATI based on the 3D ap

of course neither the Nvidia or the ATI will have DV capture
for that youd use another card (PCI)

its a tradeoff, either its video based or its 3D
anything with both will be a compromise,
and generally its a pretty serious one

GregHess
05-28-2004, 11:47 AM
Matrox has not been competitive in the 3d market place since the G200...and even then they were still slow.

I wouldn't consider matrox a current player, and eliminate any of their video cards from the list.

However if your dealing primarily with video, some of their solutions are quite nice...just not 3d...not 3d AT ALL.

A Matrox Parhelia 512MB is roughly equivilant to a geforce 2, and about 20x more expensive.

Your best solution (which is hard to say as you haven't given much info) is probably a DV capture card, along side a dedicated 3d accelerator.

I question the need for the Quadro 4000, as its a VERY expensive card. A Quadro 1100 FX might suit your needs, and leave your pocketbook a bit fuller :).

3Dfx_Sage
05-28-2004, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by GregHess
Matrox has not been competitive in the 3d market place since the G200...and even then they were still slow.
now that's not really true. At the time of the G400 it was the fastest thing around, and was the first chip capable of EMBM and Dot3 bump mapping, if I remember correctly. It was an aweseom card, however it was difficult to get ahold of.

GregHess
05-28-2004, 01:17 PM
Your correct. I forgot about the 3 month span of time where the G400 was superior :).

CGTalk Moderation
01-18-2006, 07:00 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.