Better than a G550

If 3D speed isn't an issue and video playback quality is your primary
concern, find a Matrox G400 Max and scrap everything else. Matrox
switched certain components to an integrated design in later models in
order to reduce costs, and while video quality is still good, later models
don't have the same jump-off-the-screen-and-down-your-throat quality
as the G400 Max.

Rick

"Mike T" <mtallent@u$-i$p.net> wrote in message news:yTfJc.19665146$Id.3257408@news.easynews.com...
 > My experience with the ATI 8500 series and Nvidia Ti 4200 is that the Matrox
 > will have superior TV out quality. The ATI has very poor resolution and the
 > Nvidia was a little better but neither was as good as the G450 that I
 > currently use. I believe that Matrox knows how to "do" video and ATI surely
 > does not. I will be measuring the performance of my FX5600 Ultra for TV out
 > quality soon, no more ATI stuff for me. I measured the TV out using TV test
 > signals recorded on a DVD test disk and a Tektronix TV Waveform monitor.
 >
 > Mike T
 >
 > "Doug Ramage" <RamageXX.RemoveThis@ukacccountant.net> wrote in message
 > news:2lkp64Fdihv7U1@uni-berlin.de...
  > > I am looking to improve video playback quality.
  > >
  > > Currently I am using an FX5200, but I have a G550 and Radeon 9800 Pro not
  > > being used (long story).
  > >
  > > Is the G550 likely to be better than the FX5200?
  > >
  > > Would the 9800 Pro be better than the G550?
  > >
  > > Would a P650 be better than the above?
  > >
  > > Any views/comments?
  > > --
  > > Doug Ramage
  > >
  > > [watch spam trap]
  > >
  > >
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Better than a G550 

In message <2lljq5Fe1b0cU1.TakeThisOut@uni-berlin.de>, Rick <me.TakeThisOut@privacy.net> writes

 >If 3D speed isn't an issue and video playback quality is your primary
 >concern, find a Matrox G400 Max and scrap everything else.


And any ideas for a newer 4/8x AGP board?

The earlier G400 series needs a pin (R68) shorted I believe to give 4x
AGP ?
--
David<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Better than a G550 

"David Livingstone" <number11.DeleteThis@airds.co.uk> wrote in message news:HdQVaHF1Bd9AFwjj@airds.nildram.co.uk...
 > In message <2lljq5Fe1b0cU1.DeleteThis@uni-berlin.de>, Rick <me.DeleteThis@privacy.net> writes
 >
  > >If 3D speed isn't an issue and video playback quality is your primary
  > >concern, find a Matrox G400 Max and scrap everything else.
 >
 >
 > And any ideas for a newer 4/8x AGP board?

With the same video out quality? No.

 > The earlier G400 series needs a pin (R68) shorted I believe to give 4x
 > AGP ?

Yes.

Rick<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Better than a G550 

Thanks, Rick.

Is there more than one version of the G400 Max?
--
Doug Ramage

[watch spam trap]

"Rick" <me.RemoveThis@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2lljq5Fe1b0cU1@uni-berlin.de...
 > If 3D speed isn't an issue and video playback quality is your primary
 > concern, find a Matrox G400 Max and scrap everything else. Matrox
 > switched certain components to an integrated design in later models in
 > order to reduce costs, and while video quality is still good, later models
 > don't have the same jump-off-the-screen-and-down-your-throat quality
 > as the G400 Max.
 >
 > Rick
 >
 > "Mike T" <mtallent@u$-i$p.net> wrote in message
news:yTfJc.19665146$Id.3257408@news.easynews.com...
  > > My experience with the ATI 8500 series and Nvidia Ti 4200 is that the
Matrox
  > > will have superior TV out quality. The ATI has very poor resolution and
the
  > > Nvidia was a little better but neither was as good as the G450 that I
  > > currently use. I believe that Matrox knows how to "do" video and ATI
surely
  > > does not. I will be measuring the performance of my FX5600 Ultra for TV
out
  > > quality soon, no more ATI stuff for me. I measured the TV out using TV
test
  > > signals recorded on a DVD test disk and a Tektronix TV Waveform monitor.
  > >
  > > Mike T
  > >
  > > "Doug Ramage" <RamageXX.RemoveThis@ukacccountant.net> wrote in message
  > > news:2lkp64Fdihv7U1@uni-berlin.de...
   > > > I am looking to improve video playback quality.
   > > >
   > > > Currently I am using an FX5200, but I have a G550 and Radeon 9800 Pro
not
   > > > being used (long story).
   > > >
   > > > Is the G550 likely to be better than the FX5200?
   > > >
   > > > Would the 9800 Pro be better than the G550?
   > > >
   > > > Would a P650 be better than the above?
   > > >
   > > > Any views/comments?
   > > > --
   > > > Doug Ramage
   > > >
   > > > [watch spam trap]
   > > >
   > > >
  > >
  > >
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Better than a G550 

There was more than one version of the G400. If I remember
correctly there was only one version of the G400 Max.

If it's AGP4X compatibility you're concerned about, check the
part number and look for a "4A", e.g. G4+MDH4A32GB.

Rick

"Doug Ramage" <RamageXX RemoveThis @ukacccountant.net> wrote in message news:2ln107Felms2U1@uni-berlin.de...
 > Thanks, Rick.
 >
 > Is there more than one version of the G400 Max?
 > --
 > Doug Ramage
 >
 > [watch spam trap]
 >
 > "Rick" <me RemoveThis @privacy.net> wrote in message
 > news:2lljq5Fe1b0cU1@uni-berlin.de...
  > > If 3D speed isn't an issue and video playback quality is your primary
  > > concern, find a Matrox G400 Max and scrap everything else. Matrox
  > > switched certain components to an integrated design in later models in
  > > order to reduce costs, and while video quality is still good, later models
  > > don't have the same jump-off-the-screen-and-down-your-throat quality
  > > as the G400 Max.
  > >
  > > Rick
  > >
  > > "Mike T" <mtallent@u$-i$p.net> wrote in message
 > news:yTfJc.19665146$Id.3257408@news.easynews.com...
   > > > My experience with the ATI 8500 series and Nvidia Ti 4200 is that the
 > Matrox
   > > > will have superior TV out quality. The ATI has very poor resolution and
 > the
   > > > Nvidia was a little better but neither was as good as the G450 that I
   > > > currently use. I believe that Matrox knows how to "do" video and ATI
 > surely
   > > > does not. I will be measuring the performance of my FX5600 Ultra for TV
 > out
   > > > quality soon, no more ATI stuff for me. I measured the TV out using TV
 > test
   > > > signals recorded on a DVD test disk and a Tektronix TV Waveform monitor.
   > > >
   > > > Mike T
   > > >
   > > > "Doug Ramage" <RamageXX RemoveThis @ukacccountant.net> wrote in message
   > > > news:2lkp64Fdihv7U1@uni-berlin.de...
   > > > > I am looking to improve video playback quality.
   > > > >
   > > > > Currently I am using an FX5200, but I have a G550 and Radeon 9800 Pro
 > not
   > > > > being used (long story).
   > > > >
   > > > > Is the G550 likely to be better than the FX5200?
   > > > >
   > > > > Would the 9800 Pro be better than the G550?
   > > > >
   > > > > Would a P650 be better than the above?
   > > > >
   > > > > Any views/comments?
   > > > > --
   > > > > Doug Ramage
   > > > >
   > > > > [watch spam trap]
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > >
   > > >
  > >
  > >
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Better than a G550 

"Mike T" <mtallent@u$-i$p.net> wrote
   > > > > Matrox will have superior TV out quality.

"Rick" <me.DeleteThis@privacy.net> wrote
   > > > find a Matrox G400 Max and scrap everything else.


If a G400 Max can't be found, which one would you suggest
between the G550 and the P650, as asked by the original poster ?
Can you tell any performance difference of these two in TV-out,
or in image detail ?

I've read about compatibility problems between ASUS motherboards and the
P650, would I be safer by sticking to the older G550 ?
Do Abit motherboards work well with it ?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Better than a G550 

Rick, my research seems to confirm your recollection that there is only a
single version of the G400 Max. But all G400s appear to be AGP 2x and 4x
compatible - although this may mean just the later ones?
--
Doug Ramage

[watch spam trap]

"Rick" <me.TakeThisOut@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2ln4evFe2gk1U1@uni-berlin.de...
 > There was more than one version of the G400. If I remember
 > correctly there was only one version of the G400 Max.
 >
 > If it's AGP4X compatibility you're concerned about, check the
 > part number and look for a "4A", e.g. G4+MDH4A32GB.
 >
 > Rick
 >
 > "Doug Ramage" <RamageXX.TakeThisOut@ukacccountant.net> wrote in message
news:2ln107Felms2U1@uni-berlin.de...
  > > Thanks, Rick.
  > >
  > > Is there more than one version of the G400 Max?
  > > --
  > > Doug Ramage
  > >
  > > [watch spam trap]
  > >
  > > "Rick" <me.TakeThisOut@privacy.net> wrote in message
  > > news:2lljq5Fe1b0cU1@uni-berlin.de...
   > > > If 3D speed isn't an issue and video playback quality is your primary
   > > > concern, find a Matrox G400 Max and scrap everything else. Matrox
   > > > switched certain components to an integrated design in later models in
   > > > order to reduce costs, and while video quality is still good, later
models
   > > > don't have the same jump-off-the-screen-and-down-your-throat quality
   > > > as the G400 Max.
   > > >
   > > > Rick
   > > >
   > > > "Mike T" <mtallent@u$-i$p.net> wrote in message
  > > news:yTfJc.19665146$Id.3257408@news.easynews.com...
   > > > > My experience with the ATI 8500 series and Nvidia Ti 4200 is that
the
  > > Matrox
   > > > > will have superior TV out quality. The ATI has very poor resolution
and
  > > the
   > > > > Nvidia was a little better but neither was as good as the G450 that
I
   > > > > currently use. I believe that Matrox knows how to "do" video and
ATI
  > > surely
   > > > > does not. I will be measuring the performance of my FX5600 Ultra
for TV
  > > out
   > > > > quality soon, no more ATI stuff for me. I measured the TV out using
TV
  > > test
   > > > > signals recorded on a DVD test disk and a Tektronix TV Waveform
monitor.
   > > > >
   > > > > Mike T
   > > > >
   > > > > "Doug Ramage" <RamageXX.TakeThisOut@ukacccountant.net> wrote in message
   > > > > news:2lkp64Fdihv7U1@uni-berlin.de...
   > > > > > I am looking to improve video playback quality.
   > > > > >
   > > > > > Currently I am using an FX5200, but I have a G550 and Radeon 9800
Pro
  > > not
   > > > > > being used (long story).
   > > > > >
   > > > > > Is the G550 likely to be better than the FX5200?
   > > > > >
   > > > > > Would the 9800 Pro be better than the G550?
   > > > > >
   > > > > > Would a P650 be better than the above?
   > > > > >
   > > > > > Any views/comments?
   > > > > > --
   > > > > > Doug Ramage
   > > > > >
   > > > > > [watch spam trap]
   > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > >
   > > >
  > >
  > >
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Better than a G550 

All G400's can work at either AGP2X (3.3v) or AGP4X (1.5v)
signaling. But Matrox had a hardware error in the original G400's
which prevented them from autoswitching to 1.5v. Shorting free
resistor slot R68 on the board was the workaround for the problem.
Matrox incorporated the fix in later revisions of the card and
eventually added a "4A" to the part number to denote full AGP4X
compatibility.

Rick

"Doug Ramage" <RamageXX DeleteThis @ukacccountant.net> wrote in message news:2ln6n3Feu35vU1@uni-berlin.de...
 > Rick, my research seems to confirm your recollection that there is only a
 > single version of the G400 Max. But all G400s appear to be AGP 2x and 4x
 > compatible - although this may mean just the later ones?
 > --
 > Doug Ramage
 >
 > [watch spam trap]
 >
 > "Rick" <me DeleteThis @privacy.net> wrote in message
 > news:2ln4evFe2gk1U1@uni-berlin.de...
  > > There was more than one version of the G400. If I remember
  > > correctly there was only one version of the G400 Max.
  > >
  > > If it's AGP4X compatibility you're concerned about, check the
  > > part number and look for a "4A", e.g. G4+MDH4A32GB.
  > >
  > > Rick
  > >
  > > "Doug Ramage" <RamageXX DeleteThis @ukacccountant.net> wrote in message
 > news:2ln107Felms2U1@uni-berlin.de...
   > > > Thanks, Rick.
   > > >
   > > > Is there more than one version of the G400 Max?
   > > > --
   > > > Doug Ramage
   > > >
   > > > [watch spam trap]
   > > >
   > > > "Rick" <me DeleteThis @privacy.net> wrote in message
   > > > news:2lljq5Fe1b0cU1@uni-berlin.de...
   > > > > If 3D speed isn't an issue and video playback quality is your primary
   > > > > concern, find a Matrox G400 Max and scrap everything else. Matrox
   > > > > switched certain components to an integrated design in later models in
   > > > > order to reduce costs, and while video quality is still good, later
 > models
   > > > > don't have the same jump-off-the-screen-and-down-your-throat quality
   > > > > as the G400 Max.
   > > > >
   > > > > Rick
   > > > >
   > > > > "Mike T" <mtallent@u$-i$p.net> wrote in message
   > > > news:yTfJc.19665146$Id.3257408@news.easynews.com...
   > > > > > My experience with the ATI 8500 series and Nvidia Ti 4200 is that
 > the
   > > > Matrox
   > > > > > will have superior TV out quality. The ATI has very poor resolution
 > and
   > > > the
   > > > > > Nvidia was a little better but neither was as good as the G450 that
 > I
   > > > > > currently use. I believe that Matrox knows how to "do" video and
 > ATI
   > > > surely
   > > > > > does not. I will be measuring the performance of my FX5600 Ultra
 > for TV
   > > > out
   > > > > > quality soon, no more ATI stuff for me. I measured the TV out using
 > TV
   > > > test
   > > > > > signals recorded on a DVD test disk and a Tektronix TV Waveform
 > monitor.
   > > > > >
   > > > > > Mike T
   > > > > >
   > > > > > "Doug Ramage" <RamageXX DeleteThis @ukacccountant.net> wrote in message
   > > > > > news:2lkp64Fdihv7U1@uni-berlin.de...
   > > > > > > I am looking to improve video playback quality.
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > > Currently I am using an FX5200, but I have a G550 and Radeon 9800
 > Pro
   > > > not
   > > > > > > being used (long story).
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > > Is the G550 likely to be better than the FX5200?
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > > Would the 9800 Pro be better than the G550?
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > > Would a P650 be better than the above?
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > > Any views/comments?
   > > > > > > --
   > > > > > > Doug Ramage
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > > [watch spam trap]
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > >
   > > >
  > >
  > >
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Better than a G550 

Rick, thanks again for the info.
--
Doug Ramage

[watch spam trap]

"Rick" <me.DeleteThis@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2ln8qcFepa3qU1@uni-berlin.de...
 > All G400's can work at either AGP2X (3.3v) or AGP4X (1.5v)
 > signaling. But Matrox had a hardware error in the original G400's
 > which prevented them from autoswitching to 1.5v. Shorting free
 > resistor slot R68 on the board was the workaround for the problem.
 > Matrox incorporated the fix in later revisions of the card and
 > eventually added a "4A" to the part number to denote full AGP4X
 > compatibility.
 >
 > Rick
 >
 > "Doug Ramage" <RamageXX.DeleteThis@ukacccountant.net> wrote in message
news:2ln6n3Feu35vU1@uni-berlin.de...
  > > Rick, my research seems to confirm your recollection that there is only
a
  > > single version of the G400 Max. But all G400s appear to be AGP 2x and
4x
  > > compatible - although this may mean just the later ones?
  > > --
  > > Doug Ramage
  > >
  > > [watch spam trap]
  > >
  > > "Rick" <me.DeleteThis@privacy.net> wrote in message
  > > news:2ln4evFe2gk1U1@uni-berlin.de...
   > > > There was more than one version of the G400. If I remember
   > > > correctly there was only one version of the G400 Max.
   > > >
   > > > If it's AGP4X compatibility you're concerned about, check the
   > > > part number and look for a "4A", e.g. G4+MDH4A32GB.
   > > >
   > > > Rick
   > > >
   > > > "Doug Ramage" <RamageXX.DeleteThis@ukacccountant.net> wrote in message
  > > news:2ln107Felms2U1@uni-berlin.de...
   > > > > Thanks, Rick.
   > > > >
   > > > > Is there more than one version of the G400 Max?
   > > > > --
   > > > > Doug Ramage
   > > > >
   > > > > [watch spam trap]
   > > > >
   > > > > "Rick" <me.DeleteThis@privacy.net> wrote in message
   > > > > news:2lljq5Fe1b0cU1@uni-berlin.de...
   > > > > > If 3D speed isn't an issue and video playback quality is your
primary
   > > > > > concern, find a Matrox G400 Max and scrap everything else. Matrox
   > > > > > switched certain components to an integrated design in later
models in
   > > > > > order to reduce costs, and while video quality is still good,
later
  > > models
   > > > > > don't have the same jump-off-the-screen-and-down-your-throat
quality
   > > > > > as the G400 Max.
   > > > > >
   > > > > > Rick
   > > > > >
   > > > > > "Mike T" <mtallent@u$-i$p.net> wrote in message
   > > > > news:yTfJc.19665146$Id.3257408@news.easynews.com...
   > > > > > > My experience with the ATI 8500 series and Nvidia Ti 4200 is
that
  > > the
   > > > > Matrox
   > > > > > > will have superior TV out quality. The ATI has very poor
resolution
  > > and
   > > > > the
   > > > > > > Nvidia was a little better but neither was as good as the G450
that
  > > I
   > > > > > > currently use. I believe that Matrox knows how to "do" video
and
  > > ATI
   > > > > surely
   > > > > > > does not. I will be measuring the performance of my FX5600
Ultra
  > > for TV
   > > > > out
   > > > > > > quality soon, no more ATI stuff for me. I measured the TV out
using
  > > TV
   > > > > test
   > > > > > > signals recorded on a DVD test disk and a Tektronix TV Waveform
  > > monitor.
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > > Mike T
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > > "Doug Ramage" <RamageXX.DeleteThis@ukacccountant.net> wrote in message
   > > > > > > news:2lkp64Fdihv7U1@uni-berlin.de...
   > > > > > > > I am looking to improve video playback quality.
   > > > > > > >
   > > > > > > > Currently I am using an FX5200, but I have a G550 and Radeon
9800
  > > Pro
   > > > > not
   > > > > > > > being used (long story).
   > > > > > > >
   > > > > > > > Is the G550 likely to be better than the FX5200?
   > > > > > > >
   > > > > > > > Would the 9800 Pro be better than the G550?
   > > > > > > >
   > > > > > > > Would a P650 be better than the above?
   > > > > > > >
   > > > > > > > Any views/comments?
   > > > > > > > --
   > > > > > > > Doug Ramage
   > > > > > > >
   > > > > > > > [watch spam trap]
   > > > > > > >
   > > > > > > >
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > >
   > > >
  > >
  > >
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Better than a G550 

Does the G400 Max work OK in Windows XP Pro?
--
Doug Ramage

[watch spam trap]

"Rick" <me RemoveThis @privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2lljq5Fe1b0cU1@uni-berlin.de...
 > If 3D speed isn't an issue and video playback quality is your primary
 > concern, find a Matrox G400 Max and scrap everything else. Matrox
 > switched certain components to an integrated design in later models in
 > order to reduce costs, and while video quality is still good, later models
 > don't have the same jump-off-the-screen-and-down-your-throat quality
 > as the G400 Max.
 >
 > Rick
 >
 > "Mike T" <mtallent@u$-i$p.net> wrote in message
news:yTfJc.19665146$Id.3257408@news.easynews.com...
  > > My experience with the ATI 8500 series and Nvidia Ti 4200 is that the
Matrox
  > > will have superior TV out quality. The ATI has very poor resolution and
the
  > > Nvidia was a little better but neither was as good as the G450 that I
  > > currently use. I believe that Matrox knows how to "do" video and ATI
surely
  > > does not. I will be measuring the performance of my FX5600 Ultra for TV
out
  > > quality soon, no more ATI stuff for me. I measured the TV out using TV
test
  > > signals recorded on a DVD test disk and a Tektronix TV Waveform monitor.
  > >
  > > Mike T
  > >
  > > "Doug Ramage" <RamageXX RemoveThis @ukacccountant.net> wrote in message
  > > news:2lkp64Fdihv7U1@uni-berlin.de...
   > > > I am looking to improve video playback quality.
   > > >
   > > > Currently I am using an FX5200, but I have a G550 and Radeon 9800 Pro
not
   > > > being used (long story).
   > > >
   > > > Is the G550 likely to be better than the FX5200?
   > > >
   > > > Would the 9800 Pro be better than the G550?
   > > >
   > > > Would a P650 be better than the above?
   > > >
   > > > Any views/comments?
   > > > --
   > > > Doug Ramage
   > > >
   > > > [watch spam trap]
   > > >
   > > >
  > >
  > >
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Better than a G550 

"Doug Ramage" <RamageXX DeleteThis @ukacccountant.net> wrote in message news:2lo5k0Fev5vfU1@uni-berlin.de...
 > Does the G400 Max work OK in Windows XP Pro?

Yes.

Rick<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Better than a G550 

"Rick" <me RemoveThis @privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2lo661Fev3b7U1@uni-berlin.de...
 > "Doug Ramage" <RamageXX RemoveThis @ukacccountant.net> wrote in message
news:2lo5k0Fev5vfU1@uni-berlin.de...
  > > Does the G400 Max work OK in Windows XP Pro?
 >
 > Yes.
 >
 > Rick
 >
 >

Thanks, Rick.

Also, it seems that the G400 Max is analogue? Will this mean poorer quality
on a TFT monitor compared to the dvi-digital of the G550/P650?
--
Doug Ramage

[watch spam trap]<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Better than a G550 

"Doug Ramage" <RamageXX.DeleteThis@ukacccountant.net> wrote in message news:2lpekpFfh9nlU1@uni-berlin.de...
 >
 > "Rick" <me.DeleteThis@privacy.net> wrote in message
 > news:2lo661Fev3b7U1@uni-berlin.de...
  > > "Doug Ramage" <RamageXX.DeleteThis@ukacccountant.net> wrote in message
 > news:2lo5k0Fev5vfU1@uni-berlin.de...
   > > > Does the G400 Max work OK in Windows XP Pro?
  > >
  > > Yes.
  > >
  > > Rick
  > >
  > >
 >
 > Thanks, Rick.
 >
 > Also, it seems that the G400 Max is analogue? Will this mean poorer quality
 > on a TFT monitor compared to the dvi-digital of the G550/P650?

Most probably, but if you're planning to use a TFT for DVD
output (or 3D gaming), be sure to get one with a fast response
time. Otherwise you'll likely run into ghosting problems.

Rick<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Better than a G550