What PC Video Card??

[robh]

My PC is a few years old now (766Mhz Celeron) and starting to struggle somewhat with XP and Photoshop CS (especially since I have got my Pro1 and the file sizes are now much larger). I am planning what to get as an update, have just about everthing worked out, except which video card I should go for. I do not use the PC to play video games only Graphical stuff (ie. Photoshop/Illustrator). Need to be able to run 1024x768 (85hz) at true colour, also use a fairly new Philips 17" monitor.

Any suggestions welcome (please don't go overboard..)

...Rob

[Lagged2Death]

I feel like I'm only marginally qualified to answer this, but no one else has either, soooo...

These days pretty much any video card will do pretty much any resolution you'd want with a high refresh rate and 32-bit color. The speed differences between one card and another, as far as 2D work goes, just aren't important anymore, they're all very, very fast. Unless your current video card is truly wretched, I'd be surprised if upgrading it sped up your Photoshopping at all. Your money might be better spent on more RAM, and your time better spent on a disk cleanup/defrag.

Anyway, that leaves two things to differentiate one card from another: absolute image quality and driver quality.

As far as image quality goes, there are quite a few people who swear that Matrox cards are head-and-shoulders above the competition for 2D image quality. Supposedly Matrox pays more attention to D/A converters and producing a clean signal for your monitor. I've never owned one myself. ATI cards are also supposed to have pretty good image quality. Nvidia-based cards come from an ever-shifting cast of board-makers, and the image quality can vary from maker to maker and from model to model. I've owned both Nvidia and ATI based cards, and I can't say I've noticed any difference in image quality.

As far as driver quality goes... I don't know. NVidia usually has the most stable, most frequently updated 3D drivers, but I don't know if that indicates anything about the quality of the 2D drivers or not. I am having more stability problems with my current ATI card than I had with my Nvidia cards, but nothing very serious, just annoying.

Good luck!

[dn7elson]

Any suggestions welcome (please don't go overboard..)

I would suggest that you look at the Matrox G550. Matrox provides some of the best 2D imaging around, and this card is relatively inexpensive at $125 list price. Mail order price should be at or under US$100

http://www.matrox.com

[CyberDyneSystems]

Matrox.


Matrox, Matrox, Matrox, Matrox.

By far the best looking and performing card for 2D graphics work.

[iwatkins]

As above, Matrox all the way.

I've actually tested a few cards out (at work), including Sapphire ATI 9700 series, nVidia (various) and the Matrox stuff (Parhelia in this case) blows them out of the water for 2D speed and colour accuracy.

The only card that beat the Parhelia for speed was the nVidia Quadro4 Pro (IIRC), but that is expensive and the colours were poor to say the least.

I've used Matrox on my own machine at home for many years and don't see any reason to change.

Cheers

Ian

[robh]

Thanks everyone for your comments.

It seems Matrox is the way to go.

... Rob

[Belmondo]

I put the Matrox Parhelia in my new system because of the three outputs. I really only needed two, but who knows? It is a great card.

[dn7elson]

I put the Matrox Parhelia in my new system because of the three outputs. I really only needed two, but who knows?

Think of the great panoramic shots that you could display with three screens across :lol:

[John_T]

I have bought every new Matrox card for at least the last ten years and never regretted any of them. I now have a Parhelia 256, a 128 and a G450. I have tried other cards and got bit in one way or the other. If you are a gamer, it's another matter altogether. Matrox is focussed on professional 2D and video graphics.

Though a Matrox card will certainly improve your current display, what ever it is, if you want full benifit you should consider a commensurate quality new monitor and calibration gear. Monitor displays deteriorate over time and are at the end of their accurate life after three to five years. You will find that with a new card, new quality monitor and calibration, your graphic world will be revolutionized.

Next comes your computer. AGP 4x & 8x, minimum 1GB RAM, 2-3 GHz CPU, HD++, etc., now the fun really takes off! 8)

[robh]

Have just got my new PC today. P4 2.8 HT Prescott processor, 1Gb Dual Channel DDR Ram and serial ATA HDD. The one thing my PC dealer could not deliver at present was the Matrox video card (will have to wait a week or so for it, has an ATI 9600 video card at present).

Can't beleive how much faster the new machine is, had to wait ages for PSCS to covert my Pro1 RAW files with my old system, now takes only a few seconds. I was relatively happy with the old system until using the new one (guess it's like going from dial up to broadband..)

Thanks again for the advice on the video card, I will be interested to see what difference its makes as the ATI card seems to function very well.

...Rob

[HKMonkey]

You may already know this, but I'll remind you anyway. Remember to set the color settings in Photoshop so the results you see on the screen will end up being the results you see in print. In Scott Kelby's book "The Photoshop Book For Digital Photographers" says that you should use the Adobe RGB (1998) color space if your photos will end up in print, as it has the widest gamut of colors and is the most popular setting for digital photographers. Photoshop's default color space (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) is designed for web designers and is based on a low-quality monitor from 4 or 5 years ago. Definately not what you want for your professional photos. Enjoy your new computer!

[robh]

Thanks HKMonkey,

I always save using the Adobe RGB colour space from my Pro1 (and when converting from RAW). PSCS is set up with Adobe RGB as my default and I convert to sRGB for shots destined for the web or PC viewing.

Am certainly enjoying my new PC (as well as my new Pro1).

... Rob

[John_T]

Hi Rob!

Amazing coincidence. Today I just finished ugrading my system from an aging, but fast P4 3.06, 1GB Rambus with about 400GB mixed IDEs and RAID 0 to P4 3.4, 2GB PC400 Dual Channel DDR RAM and 480GB SATA RAID arrays plus 280GB IDE/Firewire backups. My Matrox Parhelia 256 can now breathe now.

Here I am posting this to you when I haven't even looked at an image yet nor installed PS and the rest. Nuts, but just wanted to let you know I'm sharing the joy with you!

[robh]

John,

Am trying today to set my new and old PC's up in a network (just to see how it's done), but am having some difficulties with the firewall (Zonealarm). No doubt a few hours of head scratching will solve the problem.

Better get out and take some more photo's as I have been neglecting this for a few days now.

Enjoy your new PC too.

... Rob

[John_T]

Yeah, as soon as I finish installing and testing everything, I'll be networking my laptop in. Networks is one thing that drives me up the wall. It either works right off the bat or becomes a vicious circle of refusals to work.

Let me know when you get your Matrox card. I wouldn't do too much monitor calibration until you do. Unless you have calibration hardware/software, you will probably want to use the Coloreal software that comes with the Matrox. Coloreal is about the only software that will calibrate dual monitors half-way decently. If you do get into it with the ATI, it may become complicated to undo when you get the Matrox. Adobe Gamma isn't bad as far as it goes, but will only do one monitor.

[Andy_T]

Now you guys really got me interested ... what's a good price for a used Parhelia in good condition?

I've started monitoring them on eBay, they seem to go for about 180 US$.

New ones are 250$+ (I'm just quoting the prices that are actually EUR prices, but the exchange rate difference should make up for the generally higher prices in Europe)

180 looks like a good price, what do you think? Go ahead, push me in the right direction :lol:!

Best regards,
Andy

[John_T]

Dunno. I've got a Parhelia 256 installed right now. Won't part with that!

...but I've got a used Parhelia 128 in the drawer I might be pressured into parting with... :twisted:

[Andy_T]

The card I'm referring to is called the Parhelia 512 (has 128 MB of RAM).

How does this compare to your card and why did you upgrade from the 128 to the 256?

I'm looking for a card that also does well at the occasional game ... been looking something like the ATI 9600 series before considering the Parhelia.

Point is ... I always was a Matrox fan and had their cards up to the G400 ... but then I switched to a PC with Nvidia motherboard with the integrated GPU. I didn't know that Matrox was still around and even made cards useful for playing games.

Best regards,
Andy

[John_T]

Well, that's a very good question. Why did I get a 256 when I already had a 128? Dunno, just guess I had to do it. Why do I have a Parhelia? Better question. Because_you_just_can't_get_better_image_quality!

Other than the differences in video DDR, there's not much difference between the two cards. The 256 is a professional card, and apparently a bit more conservative. The 128 might be a tiny, tiny tad faster.

I run one billion colors 1600x1200 @ 100Hz without a hiccup. I don't have to think about the graphics card being a problem, whatever I throw at it. Of course it helps to have a good monitor to see the stuff...

As for gaming, I guess it depends whether you are a LAN party freak pixelpeeping at FPS, or just a casual gamer. It's not meant to be a gamer's card, but you can certainly play games on it.

Here's the link:

http://www.matrox.com/mga/products/parhelia/256mb.cfm

[Andy_T]

Hi John,

thanks, the link clarified it for me. You're referring to a card with 256 MB RAM.

The card I'm referring to has only 128 MB RAM. Still, they name it '512' in the eBay ads as the name of the GPU is 512. But obviously it's your card.

I sent you a PM!

Best regards,
Andy