Graphics Cards

I'm looking to add a graphics card to my Compaq PC for image editing.

Does anyone have any recommendations?

Matrox Parhalia. Not that new in design but very stable in terms of colour rendition. NOT good for games however.

Matrox are great cards but also expensive cards.. If you do any gaming also look into the RADEON 9800 series cards.

The 9800XT and the 9800 PRO are both great cards, and come equipt with 256MB DDR Frame Buffers. The memory clock on the XT is 730MHz and the Pro is 700MHz. Both cards kick some butt.

If you are looking for strictly image editing, and are not a hardcore gamer, then I'd second the vote for a Matrox.

You don't need an expensive Matrox card if your not gaming...
If image editing is all you want then dro $30.00 on a G450 @ www.compgeeks.com

That $30.00 card will still blow away any other card made at 2D editing. No kidding.

check you can add a graphics card on the PC - a lot of manufacturers compaq/HP Dell etc ut intergrated graphics card and do not provide an AGP slot for additional graphics and then you need PCI cards etc.
model of PC

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
You don't need an expensive Matrox card if your not gaming...
If image editing is all you want then dro $30.00 on a G450 @ www.compgeeks.com

That $30.00 card will still blow away any other card made at 2D editing. No kidding.

I agree with CDS. I have several G400/G450 cards, and since they were mainly designed for video editing and business type graphics, they are tuned for 2D work. My primary card is a G450 Dual Head DVI, which I think is well under $100 now, and can drive two DVI or analog displays. I use it for photo and video editing, mated to a Matrox RT2500 real time MPEG card with a special cable that ties the two together.

Does the graphics card make photoshop any faster? Or is it just for color reproduction?

Yes,. a graphics card can make PS run faster... but what aspects of the card that make 2D apps faster are TOTALLY different from the aspects that make 3D games faster,. thus about three years ago CPU magazine did a side by side with a Matrox G450 with 32MB ram Vs. an Nvidia GForce4 TI4600 with 128MB RAM..

In Photoshop.. the Matrox with 1/4 the RAM Smoked the GF4

Matrox G450 dual head,. just $19.99
http://www.geeks.com …vtid=G45MDHA16D​-R&cat=VCD

Too bad,. you just missed the 32MB version for under $30.00 (sold out)

How are the matrox cards for gaming? I only do a little gaming, PS is more important to me. I'll have to look for recent reviews before I get my new machine.

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
Matrox G450 dual head,. just $19.99
http://www.geeks.com …vtid=G45MDHA16D​-R&cat=VCD

Too bad,. you just missed the 32MB version for under $30.00 (sold out)

That's the analog version of the G450 though. Which is fine, but I really prefer digital DVI, which I've seen for around $80-90 lately. Imagine never seeing any sort of ghosting again. It's what L is to Canon lenses. Tack sharp. I use one head to drive my LCD, and the other to drive a 120" DLP projector. You can tell the difference between the analog and digital versions of the G450 by the connectors. The G450 analog has two analog connectors, and the digital only has one DVI connector, and comes with a cable that splits the DVI output into two analog VGA outputs, or you can buy an optional cable to split it into two DVI digital outputs. I think I paid $90 for the dual DVI cable way back when, but I'm sure that's down in price too. Is that complicated enough?

For Gaming?

they suck!

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
For Gaming?

they suck!

Sucks is not the word. Between my G450 DVI and RT2500, I have about $1300-1400 in graphics cards in this machine, and think about how ridiculous it is when I go to install a new $40 game for my 10 year old and it tells me my graphics card is not powerful enough to run the game, and it won't even install!!!!!

If u want a purely editing card, go with a digital matrox. If you want imaging and games/multimedia, then go with a ATI 9800 or higher or a Nvidia Geforce 6600 or higher.