PCI Card Help? FX5200 or Matrox G450...

thelastbigfall · 02-12-2005, 10:24 PM

Like another poster I am saddled with a computer that has no AGP slot and am forced to buy a PCI Card.

Also like that poster this comp was a gift for my girlfriend. What are the odds? Anyway...

My comp is a Dell Dimension 2400
80GB Space
640MB RAM (soon to be about 1.5 GB)
Pentium 4 2.4 Processor

My questions are which card i should go for? I have read numerous topics that said that the GeForce FX5200 PCI card (128MB) is a relatively decent card and that they have had little or no problems (installation or preformance) with it.

My other consideration is the Matrox Millenium G450 32MB.

Mainly our computer is used for 2D Design (Photoshop 7, Painter IX) and though i wouldn't mind playing an occasional game or two that is not the main use for our desktop.

Also we are considering adding a Dual Monitor setup. I know that both cards allow for this.

Can anyone comment on which of these two cards might get me the best performance given our limited amount of options? Both cards seem to be priced right around the same... $99-$110 (without hunting down deals).

ANY feedback at all would be greatly appreciated.

PS. I have also heard the GeForce FX5600 mentioned but never actually heard anyone talk about it that didn't have numerous problems with the card... hence me sticking to the two above.

Thanks for any advice you can give me.

~Fall

**UncleMacro** · 02-13-2005, 01:17 AM

A Matrox G450 will not be able to play ANY recent games. I have an old machine which I use to play old games with a G400 (which is quicker than a G450) and I doubt it could play any modern games.

If you want a decent PCI video board which can also do some gaming then your only real choices are GeForce FX5200, GeForce FX5700LE, or an FX5600 if you can find one. Those are in order from slowest to fastest assuming the FX5700LE has 128 bit memory (some are 64 bits which is v...e...r...y... s...l...o...w...). The basic difference between the three is how they handle DirectX9 vertex and pixel shaders. If you're not into arcane 3D technology, DirectX9 shaders are the most advanced way to draw graphics. An FX5200 can really only do the older DirectX8 kind of graphics. FX5700LE and FX5600 are both fairly good at the more advanced DirectX9 stuff. If you're not a hard-core gamer then the DirectX8 stuff is probably good enough although some games a couple years down the road may not run without decent DirectX9 support which an FX5200 doesn't have.

As far as the FX5600 is concerned, you need to keep in mind that people tend to post only when they have problems. All three of these FX boards are based on the same architecture so there really aren't a lot of differences between them except for speed and power consumption. The power consumption gets more people into trouble than you would think. The FX5600 boards can suck up a lot of power.

But if I were in your situation I would probably just get an FX5200 and make sure it is the 128 bit memory model rather than a 64 bit memory model. It's hard to find FX5700LEs which use 128 bit memory now and you definitely don't want one with 64 bit memory if you're going to run any games. And the FX5600 (despite the number) is actually more powerful than the FX5700LE at DirectX9 stuff which you probably don't need. FX5600s haven't been made for a while and you can only buy them from small, obscure companies. You usually order from those places and cross your fingers that nothing goes wrong.

Basically you should just order this one from newegg. It costs $73. It's uses 128 bit memory which is decent for games. It's made by a name manufacturer so hopefully it's 2D output quality will be good (some cheapy boards skimp on the output filters). That particular model has one VGA output and one DVI output and it doesn't come with a DVI-to-VGA converter so if you want to use two VGAs you'll have to buy one. It's hard to find this kind of board in retail stores so you pretty much have to buy it over the Internet. Retail stores sometimes carry PCI boards but they are almost always the 64 bit memory models which you need to avoid.

thelastbigfall · 02-13-2005, 01:35 AM

Thanks so much UncleMacro. A long reply to answer a long rambling question. I appreciate your honesty and your advice quite a bit.

In all honesty that was the exact 5200 i bookmarked on Newegg a few days ago. I know this sounds stupid but i just wasn't sure what one brand of 5200 (Chaintech vs. PNY vs. XFX...) had that another didn't... i mean is it primarily quality of parts or what? Would you say Chaintech is a reliable one?

Oddly enough the other card i was looking at was at a local Office Depot and i didn't notice until just now (on their site) that it only has one port... and won't work if i want to use a Dual Display setup. In addition it is 20 dollars more than the one you linked me to.

Again, thanks so much for your elaborate advice. I plan on getting a monitor from Newegg and this will be in the shopping cart right along with it.

Much Appreciated.

I will keep you informed on how it works out in a week or so^^

EDIT: Sorry forgot about one more question. Will i notice any difference in the performance of my 2D programs? I will still need this card for Dual Display capabilities either way, but i was just curious how it would affect programs such as Photoshop and Corel Painter.

**UncleMacro** · 02-13-2005, 04:47 AM

The truth is that nowadays there is very little difference between video boards from major manufacturers. NVIDIA and ATI put out reference designs and the video board manufacturers usually use them unmodified. There are usually a few different versions over the lifetime of a particular model so you can see some variety in the boards but there's basically no reason for the board manufacturers to make anything other than cosmetic changes to them. Generally people are best advised to pick the least expensive board from a manufacturer which has been in the business for a while. It's often a good idea to avoid no-name manufacturers because there are some corners they can cut. Chaintech is a big taiwanese outfit which also makes motherboards and they've been in the biz for a while. Some of the other ones on newegg are a bit more obscure although their boards are probably virtually identical.

Since you are doing 2D work, you are probably picky about the quality of the 2D output. It used to be that Matrox was the only choice if you were extremely picky about 2D. They build their own boards and have excellent output filtering. You could always crank them up to maximum resolution and still have excellent, sharp output. That's one place where companies used to cut corners. A few years back Matrox was the best, followed by ATI which mostly made its own boards which had pretty good 2D output, then followed by NVIDIA boards made by lots of different companies whose 2D output varied in quality from bad to okay. Then a few years back NVIDIA started busting heads with the Geforce 4 TiXXXXs and made sure that the board makers followed their reference designs and improved their 2D output. Since then most NVIDIA boards have been just fine even if they were second tier manufacturers. Some cheapy chinese crap has still been known to save a little money on cheap PC boards and crappy output filtering.

In terms of speed running 2D there hasn't been any performance difference between boards for many years. They're all just different shades of instantaneous. I've been using computers long enough (started with an apple II) that I can remember watching word processors take a second to draw a page of word processing with lots of images on it. And that was after installing the brand new high-speed video board. A second was a big improvement over the board it replaced. Nowadays it doesn't make any difference. Technically things slow down when you're running two monitors especially with ATI boards (or it did the last time I read a review which checked) but with both monitors running at high resolution the speed is actually limited by your CPU. And of course your CPU is probably 20 times as fast as needed for the job.

Looking back at my previous (as usual long-winded) comment I noticed that I didn't mention that you do have to be a bit careful if you intend to use the DVI output at a high resolution like 1600X1200. That's one place where there's still a difference between video boards. Lots of video boards have problems meeting the DVI spec at high speeds. This only affects you if you intend to run a super-duper LCD panel at some point. I think NVIDIA's 2D output on that can have some problems. Personally if I was doing artwork I wouldn't be messing with LCD panels but if you're going with hi-res LCDs you still have to be careful these days. There's an article here that goes into gory detail on the subject. If it's something you care about I think it's a little better to go with ATI these days than NVIDIA. It's kind of hard to get information on the subject. I think ATI's TMDS transmitter (a DVI thingamabob) is a little better than NVIDIAs these days but they both usually work okay.

thelastbigfall · 02-13-2005, 06:01 PM

Ah yet more to consider i see...

Well first of all i am still researching monitors. Currently i have the factory default Dell 15" LCD monitor that shipped with my girlfriends system. I have (up to this point) narrowed my choices for monitors down to the following Flat Panels:

Samsung 710-N
Samsung 910-T
Viewsonic VG710b w/ 16ms Response
Viewsonic VP191b
Dell UltraSharp 1704FPV

I don't expect you to research all of those links if you don't feel like it. I just wanted to let you know which monitors are on my list at the moment. You can see they range in price and all fall in the 17"-19" range. I believe almost all of them have a DVI Port.

This is what i started out with as far as Video Card info:

Sudhian PCI Tests

Now clearly the results show that the top two cards seem to be the GeForce FX5200 and the Radeon 9100. I initially leaned towards the 5200 because of its availability, and the fact that read about fewer intall and performance problems. However, both seem to fall well within my Power Supply range (250w i believe) and the 9100 outperforms the 5200 more often. The only problem is that the 9100 is harder to find and also this comment about it:

Quote:

The only chinks I can find in the 9100’s armor is its lack of a TV/out function, which many people enjoy and use, and its use of the DVI-D connection. Had Visiontek decided to use a DVI-I connection instead, you could plug in two VGA monitors with the use of a DVI-VGA adapter.

So i am lead to believe that if my feeble dual display plan is to go forward i would need to stick with the 5200?

Again UncleMacro i appreciate the HUGE amount of knowledge you have been sharing with me on this toic. Thanks again.

thelastbigfall · 02-14-2005, 05:23 PM

Sorry for the double post. Uncle Macro, if you are still out there... can you see any major differences between this card and the one you posted earlier? Know anything about this manufacturer? I just noticed this has a few more ratings (not that that matters so much) and it comes with a few accessories (the DVI to VGA) adapter and all weighs in at a lower price.

If you are still around and checking this topic... let me know.

Thanks.

**Fr4665** · 02-14-2005, 06:05 PM

Hello,

I just saw this thread and though why not check by. I checked the last post and you asked whats the difference betweent he two cards. Right now thers not a big difference(unless unclemarco finds one) There is two things that i saw to consider. The chaintech one(i would prefere cause i never heard of the otehr companie) only has the memory speed clock at 332mhz but it clearly states that the memory config is at 128bit. where the other card manufacturer XXX doesnt list the memory config but states that the memory clock is set at 400mhz.

Memory clock can be increased easy by Overclocking it. So all in all i would go with the chaintech one. I have a 5200 chaintech agp and it works well for me. I never actually worked with PCI cards cause i only have one (ATI Rage Pro PCI) ill keep on checking in here.

Go with the chaintech

thelastbigfall · 02-14-2005, 08:12 PM

That actually brings up another point i was meaning to mention.

Again, i understand that the reviews are not to be taken as gospel but i DID notice this in one of them:

Quote:

I bought this card for about $75. It was a nice upgrade from my previous card (a Geforce 2 MX 200 PCI). For a PCI card you cannot expect too much, but this did give more than I expected. I am yet to use a DX 9 game, it should give decent performance though. Overall I say it was a good card.

*Note: This cards memory uses a 64-bit interface*

It is the last line that concerns me. Does that refer to the point you brought up? About the MHz? Just wondering what this means to me exactly.

Thanks Fr4665.

**UncleMacro** · 02-14-2005, 09:11 PM

Basically the whole MHz and memory width business that people have to deal with comes from the fact that you can easily end up with a hobbled video board if you're not careful. When you get a low-end video board you have to watch out for models which come with 64 bit wide memory. If you're going to play games on a low-end video board you have to make sure it has enough memory bandwidth. That's calculated as (memory width in bytes)*(clock rate)*(2 if it's double data rate or 1 if it's single data rate). We've been avoiding 64 bit boards because they're only a little cheaper but they cripple your frame rate. Lot's of boards (including that ProLink) don't tell you how wide their memory is. All you know is that it's 200MHz as opposed to the 166MHz with the Chaintech board. On the other hand, the Chaintech is 128 bits (99% likely anyway - newegg has been known to be wrong) and there's no way to tell what the ProLink is (and I've downloaded its manual to try to find out). In my experience, if they don't tell you the memory width in a low end video board, you should assume the worst. I'd avoid the ProLink.

On the subject of DVI interfaces, I should probably point out that I've never actually used one. I'm exclusively a CRT guy so I can't speak from personal experience here. All of the monitors which you listed are 1280X1024. I doubt that you would run into the DVI non-compliance problem at that resolution. The problem seems to occur with 1600X1200 when run at the maximum 162MHz maximum data rate. But if you want to play it safe there is always this board. It is an ATI and so should have the slight advantage in DVI output if you push it to the 162MHz limit. It also looks like it would be a bit faster than the Chaintech in games because its memory bandwidth is a bit higher. Note that the 256MB is a complete waste. It will gain you nothing over 128MB but newegg doesn't have the 128MB version. You might be able to chase one down somewhere.

Oh, and by the way, before installing your video board you'll want to have a look at this. If you're currently running integrated video (ACK!!!) then you may have to do things a bit differently when you install your video board.

thelastbigfall · 02-14-2005, 10:43 PM

You continue to be an excellent help Macro.

I was looking at this card earlier on Newegg, since all the 9200's are out of stock. I should have no issues with this one correct? I guess i don't know what wattage i should avoid when it comes to PCI cards that i can use.

And as for that second link from Dell, i had that printed out and ready to go a week ago when i started looking into all of this =____=

As i will be installing my new RAM at the same time i wanted as much "How To" info as possible so that the install goes as smooth as it can.

I now have this and the Chainlink (which i am suspecting is 64 bit) to choose between. If there is no reason that this ATI wouldn't work then i will be leaning that way.

As always thank you so much for the help. You have no idea how much i appreciate it. This is the ony board (including Dells) that i have found that offers such quick and great advice.

And... not once have i heard "just get a new comp"... which is out of the question.

[EDIT]Hmmm, well after doing a bit more reading on the Dell Forums i haven't been able to find one single poster saying that they have been able to get the 9250 to work. 9200 yes, FX5200 yes, but not the 9250. So, i suppose i will look around for a 9100 or a 9200 and if not i will just go with the FX5200. I am starting to think that the quote i posted above was saying that he personally was using a 64mb version of the Chainlink, and not that the one advertised was actually a 64mb. Who knows? By this time next week i will i guess...

**UncleMacro** · 02-14-2005, 11:33 PM

If you found that Dell FAQ then you're pretty well prepared. When it comes to hardware upgrades, being more prepared is a good thing but only up to a certain point. It helps you make better choices and increases the likelihood of a successful installation. But once you pass that point, the only thing that more preparation does is scare you. And it doesn't make things any more likely to work. I think you've reached that point. The truth is that no amount of worrying can tell you whether your power supply is about to give up the ghost. The kinds of boards you're considering don't use much power so they rarely cause problems. And RAM doesn't use much either. But there's no such thing as a 100% guaranteed installation. If I told you some of the horror stories I've heard, your brain would melt and start pouring out your ears. There just seems to be a certain fraction of installations which fail due to microscopic computer gremlins. Sadly, they don't seem to care how prepared you are. And you never know when they're going to show up. I've had a couple of bouts despite the fact that I'm usually prepared to the point of complete paranoia.

That 9250 should work fine in your machine (note the use of the word "should" instead of "will"). As far as I know, a 9250 is the exact same chip as a 9200. They just clock it at 240MHz instead of 250MHz. There shouldn't be any compatibilty difference. It's the most known quantity but that Chaintech is probably also just fine (and I'm 95% sure that it's 128 bits).

thelastbigfall · 02-15-2005, 04:32 PM

Ok, i have reached that line of no return! If i think about this anymore i will indeed have to worry about my brains melting.

So i have firmly decided to go with the Chaintech. I just don't have any faith that the 9250 will work. Yes there is no "technical" reason that i can find saying otherwise... but i have just heard far too many stories about those gremlins you mentioned.

I mean, in all honesty, i don't plan on jumping right in to FarCry or FFXI so there really isn't any reason i need to worry about that kind of thing (not that it is even likely or possible).

My main concerns are only 1) That this card works, 2) that it is even SLIGHTLY better than the integrated card, 3) that it runs dual monitors, and 4) that it continues to do 1-3 consistantly. =)

That being said i have just decided to go with the FX5200 and i will of course return and let you know how it all works out.

And again, thank you both so much.

02-12-2005, 10:24 PM	#1 (permalink)
thelastbigfall Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 7 OS: XP Home	PCI Card Help? FX5200 or Matrox G450... Like another poster I am saddled with a computer that has no AGP slot and am forced to buy a PCI Card. Also like that poster this comp was a gift for my girlfriend. What are the odds? Anyway... My comp is a Dell Dimension 2400 80GB Space 640MB RAM (soon to be about 1.5 GB) Pentium 4 2.4 Processor My questions are which card i should go for? I have read numerous topics that said that the GeForce FX5200 PCI card (128MB) is a relatively decent card and that they have had little or no problems (installation or preformance) with it. My other consideration is the Matrox Millenium G450 32MB. Mainly our computer is used for 2D Design (Photoshop 7, Painter IX) and though i wouldn't mind playing an occasional game or two that is not the main use for our desktop. Also we are considering adding a Dual Monitor setup. I know that both cards allow for this. Can anyone comment on which of these two cards might get me the best performance given our limited amount of options? Both cards seem to be priced right around the same... $99-$110 (without hunting down deals). ANY feedback at all would be greatly appreciated. PS. I have also heard the GeForce FX5600 mentioned but never actually heard anyone talk about it that didn't have numerous problems with the card... hence me sticking to the two above. Thanks for any advice you can give me. ~Fall

02-13-2005, 01:35 AM	#3 (permalink)
thelastbigfall Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 7 OS: XP Home	Thanks so much UncleMacro. A long reply to answer a long rambling question. I appreciate your honesty and your advice quite a bit. In all honesty that was the exact 5200 i bookmarked on Newegg a few days ago. I know this sounds stupid but i just wasn't sure what one brand of 5200 (Chaintech vs. PNY vs. XFX...) had that another didn't... i mean is it primarily quality of parts or what? Would you say Chaintech is a reliable one? Oddly enough the other card i was looking at was at a local Office Depot and i didn't notice until just now (on their site) that it only has one port... and won't work if i want to use a Dual Display setup. In addition it is 20 dollars more than the one you linked me to. Again, thanks so much for your elaborate advice. I plan on getting a monitor from Newegg and this will be in the shopping cart right along with it. Much Appreciated. I will keep you informed on how it works out in a week or so^^ EDIT: Sorry forgot about one more question. Will i notice any difference in the performance of my 2D programs? I will still need this card for Dual Display capabilities either way, but i was just curious how it would affect programs such as Photoshop and Corel Painter. Last edited by thelastbigfall; 02-13-2005 at 01:38 AM.

02-14-2005, 06:05 PM	#7 (permalink)
Fr4665 aka mr.fraggs Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USA or Germany Posts: 2,965 OS: Win XP,Vista,Android My System	Hello, I just saw this thread and though why not check by. I checked the last post and you asked whats the difference betweent he two cards. Right now thers not a big difference(unless unclemarco finds one) There is two things that i saw to consider. The chaintech one(i would prefere cause i never heard of the otehr companie) only has the memory speed clock at 332mhz but it clearly states that the memory config is at 128bit. where the other card manufacturer XXX doesnt list the memory config but states that the memory clock is set at 400mhz. Memory clock can be increased easy by Overclocking it. So all in all i would go with the chaintech one. I have a 5200 chaintech agp and it works well for me. I never actually worked with PCI cards cause i only have one (ATI Rage Pro PCI) ill keep on checking in here. Go with the chaintech __________________ I don't subscribe to threads please PM me if i miss a reply. ------- Everest SensorView Pro DriverCleaner how to fix your game

02-14-2005, 10:43 PM	#10 (permalink)
thelastbigfall Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 7 OS: XP Home	You continue to be an excellent help Macro. I was looking at this card earlier on Newegg, since all the 9200's are out of stock. I should have no issues with this one correct? I guess i don't know what wattage i should avoid when it comes to PCI cards that i can use. And as for that second link from Dell, i had that printed out and ready to go a week ago when i started looking into all of this =____= As i will be installing my new RAM at the same time i wanted as much "How To" info as possible so that the install goes as smooth as it can. I now have this and the Chainlink (which i am suspecting is 64 bit) to choose between. If there is no reason that this ATI wouldn't work then i will be leaning that way. As always thank you so much for the help. You have no idea how much i appreciate it. This is the ony board (including Dells) that i have found that offers such quick and great advice. And... not once have i heard "just get a new comp"... which is out of the question. [EDIT]Hmmm, well after doing a bit more reading on the Dell Forums i haven't been able to find one single poster saying that they have been able to get the 9250 to work. 9200 yes, FX5200 yes, but not the 9250. So, i suppose i will look around for a 9100 or a 9200 and if not i will just go with the FX5200. I am starting to think that the quote i posted above was saying that he personally was using a 64mb version of the Chainlink, and not that the one advertised was actually a 64mb. Who knows? By this time next week i will i guess... Last edited by thelastbigfall; 02-14-2005 at 10:58 PM.

02-13-2005, 01:17 AM	#2 (permalink)
UncleMacro TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,133 OS: Vista SP1 My System	A Matrox G450 will not be able to play ANY recent games. I have an old machine which I use to play old games with a G400 (which is quicker than a G450) and I doubt it could play any modern games. If you want a decent PCI video board which can also do some gaming then your only real choices are GeForce FX5200, GeForce FX5700LE, or an FX5600 if you can find one. Those are in order from slowest to fastest assuming the FX5700LE has 128 bit memory (some are 64 bits which is v...e...r...y... s...l...o...w...). The basic difference between the three is how they handle DirectX9 vertex and pixel shaders. If you're not into arcane 3D technology, DirectX9 shaders are the most advanced way to draw graphics. An FX5200 can really only do the older DirectX8 kind of graphics. FX5700LE and FX5600 are both fairly good at the more advanced DirectX9 stuff. If you're not a hard-core gamer then the DirectX8 stuff is probably good enough although some games a couple years down the road may not run without decent DirectX9 support which an FX5200 doesn't have. As far as the FX5600 is concerned, you need to keep in mind that people tend to post only when they have problems. All three of these FX boards are based on the same architecture so there really aren't a lot of differences between them except for speed and power consumption. The power consumption gets more people into trouble than you would think. The FX5600 boards can suck up a lot of power. But if I were in your situation I would probably just get an FX5200 and make sure it is the 128 bit memory model rather than a 64 bit memory model. It's hard to find FX5700LEs which use 128 bit memory now and you definitely don't want one with 64 bit memory if you're going to run any games. And the FX5600 (despite the number) is actually more powerful than the FX5700LE at DirectX9 stuff which you probably don't need. FX5600s haven't been made for a while and you can only buy them from small, obscure companies. You usually order from those places and cross your fingers that nothing goes wrong. Basically you should just order this one from newegg. It costs $73. It's uses 128 bit memory which is decent for games. It's made by a name manufacturer so hopefully it's 2D output quality will be good (some cheapy boards skimp on the output filters). That particular model has one VGA output and one DVI output and it doesn't come with a DVI-to-VGA converter so if you want to use two VGAs you'll have to buy one. It's hard to find this kind of board in retail stores so you pretty much have to buy it over the Internet. Retail stores sometimes carry PCI boards but they are almost always the 64 bit memory models which you need to avoid.

02-13-2005, 04:47 AM	#4 (permalink)
UncleMacro TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,133 OS: Vista SP1 My System	The truth is that nowadays there is very little difference between video boards from major manufacturers. NVIDIA and ATI put out reference designs and the video board manufacturers usually use them unmodified. There are usually a few different versions over the lifetime of a particular model so you can see some variety in the boards but there's basically no reason for the board manufacturers to make anything other than cosmetic changes to them. Generally people are best advised to pick the least expensive board from a manufacturer which has been in the business for a while. It's often a good idea to avoid no-name manufacturers because there are some corners they can cut. Chaintech is a big taiwanese outfit which also makes motherboards and they've been in the biz for a while. Some of the other ones on newegg are a bit more obscure although their boards are probably virtually identical. Since you are doing 2D work, you are probably picky about the quality of the 2D output. It used to be that Matrox was the only choice if you were extremely picky about 2D. They build their own boards and have excellent output filtering. You could always crank them up to maximum resolution and still have excellent, sharp output. That's one place where companies used to cut corners. A few years back Matrox was the best, followed by ATI which mostly made its own boards which had pretty good 2D output, then followed by NVIDIA boards made by lots of different companies whose 2D output varied in quality from bad to okay. Then a few years back NVIDIA started busting heads with the Geforce 4 TiXXXXs and made sure that the board makers followed their reference designs and improved their 2D output. Since then most NVIDIA boards have been just fine even if they were second tier manufacturers. Some cheapy chinese crap has still been known to save a little money on cheap PC boards and crappy output filtering. In terms of speed running 2D there hasn't been any performance difference between boards for many years. They're all just different shades of instantaneous. I've been using computers long enough (started with an apple II) that I can remember watching word processors take a second to draw a page of word processing with lots of images on it. And that was after installing the brand new high-speed video board. A second was a big improvement over the board it replaced. Nowadays it doesn't make any difference. Technically things slow down when you're running two monitors especially with ATI boards (or it did the last time I read a review which checked) but with both monitors running at high resolution the speed is actually limited by your CPU. And of course your CPU is probably 20 times as fast as needed for the job. Looking back at my previous (as usual long-winded) comment I noticed that I didn't mention that you do have to be a bit careful if you intend to use the DVI output at a high resolution like 1600X1200. That's one place where there's still a difference between video boards. Lots of video boards have problems meeting the DVI spec at high speeds. This only affects you if you intend to run a super-duper LCD panel at some point. I think NVIDIA's 2D output on that can have some problems. Personally if I was doing artwork I wouldn't be messing with LCD panels but if you're going with hi-res LCDs you still have to be careful these days. There's an article here that goes into gory detail on the subject. If it's something you care about I think it's a little better to go with ATI these days than NVIDIA. It's kind of hard to get information on the subject. I think ATI's TMDS transmitter (a DVI thingamabob) is a little better than NVIDIAs these days but they both usually work okay.

02-14-2005, 05:23 PM	#6 (permalink)
thelastbigfall Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 7 OS: XP Home	Sorry for the double post. Uncle Macro, if you are still out there... can you see any major differences between this card and the one you posted earlier? Know anything about this manufacturer? I just noticed this has a few more ratings (not that that matters so much) and it comes with a few accessories (the DVI to VGA) adapter and all weighs in at a lower price. If you are still around and checking this topic... let me know. Thanks.

02-14-2005, 09:11 PM	#9 (permalink)
UncleMacro TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,133 OS: Vista SP1 My System	Basically the whole MHz and memory width business that people have to deal with comes from the fact that you can easily end up with a hobbled video board if you're not careful. When you get a low-end video board you have to watch out for models which come with 64 bit wide memory. If you're going to play games on a low-end video board you have to make sure it has enough memory bandwidth. That's calculated as (memory width in bytes)(clock rate)(2 if it's double data rate or 1 if it's single data rate). We've been avoiding 64 bit boards because they're only a little cheaper but they cripple your frame rate. Lot's of boards (including that ProLink) don't tell you how wide their memory is. All you know is that it's 200MHz as opposed to the 166MHz with the Chaintech board. On the other hand, the Chaintech is 128 bits (99% likely anyway - newegg has been known to be wrong) and there's no way to tell what the ProLink is (and I've downloaded its manual to try to find out). In my experience, if they don't tell you the memory width in a low end video board, you should assume the worst. I'd avoid the ProLink. On the subject of DVI interfaces, I should probably point out that I've never actually used one. I'm exclusively a CRT guy so I can't speak from personal experience here. All of the monitors which you listed are 1280X1024. I doubt that you would run into the DVI non-compliance problem at that resolution. The problem seems to occur with 1600X1200 when run at the maximum 162MHz maximum data rate. But if you want to play it safe there is always this board. It is an ATI and so should have the slight advantage in DVI output if you push it to the 162MHz limit. It also looks like it would be a bit faster than the Chaintech in games because its memory bandwidth is a bit higher. Note that the 256MB is a complete waste. It will gain you nothing over 128MB but newegg doesn't have the 128MB version. You might be able to chase one down somewhere. Oh, and by the way, before installing your video board you'll want to have a look at this. If you're currently running integrated video (ACK!!!) then you may have to do things a bit differently when you install your video board.

02-14-2005, 11:33 PM	#11 (permalink)
UncleMacro TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,133 OS: Vista SP1 My System	If you found that Dell FAQ then you're pretty well prepared. When it comes to hardware upgrades, being more prepared is a good thing but only up to a certain point. It helps you make better choices and increases the likelihood of a successful installation. But once you pass that point, the only thing that more preparation does is scare you. And it doesn't make things any more likely to work. I think you've reached that point. The truth is that no amount of worrying can tell you whether your power supply is about to give up the ghost. The kinds of boards you're considering don't use much power so they rarely cause problems. And RAM doesn't use much either. But there's no such thing as a 100% guaranteed installation. If I told you some of the horror stories I've heard, your brain would melt and start pouring out your ears. There just seems to be a certain fraction of installations which fail due to microscopic computer gremlins. Sadly, they don't seem to care how prepared you are. And you never know when they're going to show up. I've had a couple of bouts despite the fact that I'm usually prepared to the point of complete paranoia. That 9250 should work fine in your machine (note the use of the word "should" instead of "will"). As far as I know, a 9250 is the exact same chip as a 9200. They just clock it at 240MHz instead of 250MHz. There shouldn't be any compatibilty difference. It's the most known quantity but that Chaintech is probably also just fine (and I'm 95% sure that it's 128 bits).

02-15-2005, 04:32 PM	#12 (permalink)
thelastbigfall Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 7 OS: XP Home	Ok, i have reached that line of no return! If i think about this anymore i will indeed have to worry about my brains melting. So i have firmly decided to go with the Chaintech. I just don't have any faith that the 9250 will work. Yes there is no "technical" reason that i can find saying otherwise... but i have just heard far too many stories about those gremlins you mentioned. I mean, in all honesty, i don't plan on jumping right in to FarCry or FFXI so there really isn't any reason i need to worry about that kind of thing (not that it is even likely or possible). My main concerns are only 1) That this card works, 2) that it is even SLIGHTLY better than the integrated card, 3) that it runs dual monitors, and 4) that it continues to do 1-3 consistantly. =) That being said i have just decided to go with the FX5200 and i will of course return and let you know how it all works out. And again, thank you both so much.