Could someone please clarify a point of confusion for me.
My video needs are almost 100% business (software development), so I think 3D is not relevant to me. Oh, I have been known to play a round of DOOM or Flight Simulator late at night, but VERY rarely. As a software developer who uses his PC all day long, I would never sacrifice the quality of my 2D performance for the off-chance of playing a game.
However, it’s not clear to me EXACTLY where the line between 2D and 3D lies. Something tells me that while I may be exclusively a business user, the side-effects of a lack-luster 3D video card will “creep” into my everyday life. For example, while I am NOT a gamer, I DO like to watch streaming media, play a DVD occasionally, tele-conference from home to the office, etc. The major problem I currently have with these applications is dropped frames, the result of an old PC (Pentium 120MHz and Matrox Millennium).
Most of these reviews and benchmarks focus on the FPS (frame/sec) by running GAME simulations. Well…, heck, I’m interested in FPS too! But I’m NOT a gamer. I don’t know whether the performance with respect to the FPS is ONLY a function of games, i.e., 3D (and by extension, CAD, animation rendering, etc.), OR, multi-media applications generally (e.g., Real, MS Media Player, tele-conferencing, etc.). These reviews just don’t make that clear.
I don’t want to buy something in the Matrox line (which seems ideal for my needs), only to find out later that I’m still dropping frames in Real and other streaming applications! Am I gonna get high-quality, 30-40 FPS (hopefully even better) performance w/ the Matrox line for MY business needs?
Are streaming media applications, DVD, tele-conferencing, etc. classified as 2D or 3D, at least for these benchmarks? And even if they are classified as 2D, does a lack-luster 3D performance bode poorly for these 2D applications (I’m especially thinking of the Matrox here)? It’s hard to tell because whenever FPS are discussed, it ALWAYS in terms of 3D, never 2D. I’m wondering whether I’m suppose to ASSUME that lack-luster FPS w/ 3D applies equally to 2D applications.
Yeah, I know, I could go w/ quality GeForce2 card to be safe, but frankly, I find the Matrox dual head quite appealing. And the GeForce2 TwinHead seems limited and immature at this time. Plus, I might lose something on the 2D side (e.g., sharpness, speed). If I did bypass the Matrox, I would probably consider the ATI All In Wonder since the TV feature is quite appealing (I can live w/ it’s middle-of-the-pack 3D performance).
Thanx.
My video needs are almost 100% business (software development), so I think 3D is not relevant to me. Oh, I have been known to play a round of DOOM or Flight Simulator late at night, but VERY rarely. As a software developer who uses his PC all day long, I would never sacrifice the quality of my 2D performance for the off-chance of playing a game.
However, it’s not clear to me EXACTLY where the line between 2D and 3D lies. Something tells me that while I may be exclusively a business user, the side-effects of a lack-luster 3D video card will “creep” into my everyday life. For example, while I am NOT a gamer, I DO like to watch streaming media, play a DVD occasionally, tele-conference from home to the office, etc. The major problem I currently have with these applications is dropped frames, the result of an old PC (Pentium 120MHz and Matrox Millennium).
Most of these reviews and benchmarks focus on the FPS (frame/sec) by running GAME simulations. Well…, heck, I’m interested in FPS too! But I’m NOT a gamer. I don’t know whether the performance with respect to the FPS is ONLY a function of games, i.e., 3D (and by extension, CAD, animation rendering, etc.), OR, multi-media applications generally (e.g., Real, MS Media Player, tele-conferencing, etc.). These reviews just don’t make that clear.
I don’t want to buy something in the Matrox line (which seems ideal for my needs), only to find out later that I’m still dropping frames in Real and other streaming applications! Am I gonna get high-quality, 30-40 FPS (hopefully even better) performance w/ the Matrox line for MY business needs?
Are streaming media applications, DVD, tele-conferencing, etc. classified as 2D or 3D, at least for these benchmarks? And even if they are classified as 2D, does a lack-luster 3D performance bode poorly for these 2D applications (I’m especially thinking of the Matrox here)? It’s hard to tell because whenever FPS are discussed, it ALWAYS in terms of 3D, never 2D. I’m wondering whether I’m suppose to ASSUME that lack-luster FPS w/ 3D applies equally to 2D applications.
Yeah, I know, I could go w/ quality GeForce2 card to be safe, but frankly, I find the Matrox dual head quite appealing. And the GeForce2 TwinHead seems limited and immature at this time. Plus, I might lose something on the 2D side (e.g., sharpness, speed). If I did bypass the Matrox, I would probably consider the ATI All In Wonder since the TV feature is quite appealing (I can live w/ it’s middle-of-the-pack 3D performance).
Thanx.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram