G450 vs. GeForce 2 MX

[IntelConvert]

One of my 2 PCs will be used just for image-editing and some business apps., so I was just about to buy a G450 when I read Tom's recent article - where he said:

<<...the Millennium G450 can only be characterized as competitive if the Dual Head Feature comes onto the scene. If you don't care about that, the new Matrox card is either too slow or far too expensive - a GeForce 2 MX board would then be the better choice.>>

Is there anyone out there who thinks that a G450 still makes better sense than an "MX" for my needs, even if I'm only going to be using a single monitor?

 

[yoda271828]

IMHO, Matrox makes the best 2-D vid cards. If you aren't going to do any 3-D stuff then the G450 is probably what you want due to its superior 2-D image quality.

 

[Guest]

Man , if you do want 2D image quality , buy a Matrox G450 , if you want 3D performance and an average 2D quality for a reasonable price , go and buy a Geforce 2MX .
Currently I have a Asus V7100 (Gf 2MX)

 

[phsstpok]

Why are the G450's cheaper than the G400's? (Just curious).

 

[IntelConvert]

That's my hang-up here. I always thought that Matrox was "king of 2D" until reading Tom's article. Isn't he indicating that's no longer true, that the MX is just as good for 2D and cheaper too?

BTW, just in case it would influence your recommendation, I plan to run Win2K on this new box!

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by IntelConvert on 02/11/01 04:17 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[pvsurfer]

I don't have any personal experience with an MX card, but I do have a G450 (in a Win2K box). Doing photo-editing and most MS Office apps, the G450 performs extremely well. IMHO, you would have to spend big bucks to buy a professional graphics card to better the G450 for 2D work.

One final thought. Do yourself a favor and get a quality 19" monitor to go with the G450. I find the flat tube AG-type monitors to my liking, but let your eyes be the judge in choosing one.