Ryu, did you try an ATi card with that setup? AFAIK, ATi doesn't allow independent resolutions in W2K, but as you have identical monitors, I wouldn't think that'd be a problem. A 9700 seems like a much better price/performance proposition ATM. Assuming you value gaming performance, that is.
The 8500 and below do not properly support dual independent in Windows 2000. They do of course support stretched desktops quite well. Problem is I
hate stretched desktops. If your first experience with dual monitors was under a stretched environment I suppose you might get used to it, but I personally think stretched desktops are just asstastic.
The 9700 does support full dual indepedent in Windows 2000, but I was tired of playing around* and these graphics from TecChannel pretty much put any debate I had to rest.
ATI RADEON 8500
Matrox Parhelia
The built by ATI 8500 signal quality isn't bad there. The rise and fall times are a bit wide and thus there can be some spatial resolution problems. Also the swing on the mV is a little high meaning the colors will be slightly washed by too much brightness. Albeit the brightness thing would become a subjective point of view. Some people will prefer the more washed look.
The Parhelia signal by comparison is pristine, the rise and fall times are nearly identical and the mV swing range is just right. Not too dark and not too bright.
Yes, the 9700 is a different card with a different price tag and I'm sure that ATI probably did go with slightly better filters on the 9700 if only because of the faster RAMDAC. I still have my doubts as to whether or not it would be as good as the Parhelia.
*By playing around I mean buying new NVIDIA video cards. People had been going on and on about how the GF4 series was much better than the GF3 or GF2 series in 2D quality. So I bought that GF4 Ti4200 from Gainward and a new Visiontek MX420 PCI. The Gainward 4200 stunk, it was simply no better than the GF3 from MSI. And the Visiontek MX420 PCI wouldn't work in my MSI K7N420 Pro due to some BIOS issue. I exchanaged the Visiontek MX420 for a PNY model and faced the same issue. I eventually gave up and just moved the card to my server as an option to running dual monitors there. I had wasted the money, I had tested the waters, and I didn't like what I had found.
With regard to the 3D performance argument, I found the whole argument against Parhelia a little overblown. The only time I ever game is on the weekends/LAN parties. I don't game alone and I don't buy games that only have single player. In fact I prefer co-op games. System Shock 2 co-op was the most enjoyable experience I think I've ever had. So when I looked at the facts for me, the 9700 was just seemed silly. It was yet another expensive purchase that had the potential of not doing what I needed to do. I need to drive two 21" monitors at 1600x1200@85 with cyrstal clarity under Windows 2000 with dual independent. It sounds like a simple problem, but it's more difficult than most people realize.
You also have to remember that the viewable areas of most games are locked. Meaning that wether you are running 640x480 or 1600x1200 you see the exact same amount of the screen. At this point in time it's easier to lower the resolution and increase the amount of AA and AF on the screen. The Parhelia is more than adequate at lower resolutions and I pretty much game exclusively at 800x600 (have for years now, ever since my Voodoo 2 days) and kick in all the AA and AF options.
Still, sounds like an incredible setup.
It is amazing and it is something I feel everyone would immediately appreciate. It's not quite like RAID or SMP where the benefits are sometimes obscured.
Typedef, no doubt SG is a game-changing experience. But Ryu is only using two analog monitors, so I think a 9700 is a legitimate option. Both cards have their minor limitations, but the Parhelia just gets eaten alive by the 9700 in every benchmark I've seen (Tech-Report has a new one).
I'm in no way implying that the Parhelia is a bad card, but your response seems pretty strong for my innocent questions. Have you tried a 9700 with your setup (comparing digital to analog 2000FP quality), to compare it to your Parhelia? A 4200 to a Parhelia is about as big a step as you can take in regards to signal quality at 16x12, if what I've read is true (namely, the latest TR 4200 roundup that said all the cards in their roundup were abysmal at 16x12).
That would be true. The 4200 cards are just terrible at high resolutions. The 4400 cards waffle between good and poor in this area and the 4600 cards are typically good to very good. The RADEON 8500 cards manage to be good to quite good. When compared at an objective level though, very few acheive the perfection of the Parhelia output. As I have already stated I suspect the 9700 will stand up at least in the same class as the 8500, maybe even a bit better, but finding out cost money and with most places charging a restocking fee for returns and places like NewEgg not accepting any returns at all on the 9700 Pro (unless it's a lemon), testing a 9700 is an expensive proposition. For that matter being slightly better than the 8500 still doesn't put it into the same league as the Parhelia. Why mess around when I know objectively that the Parhelia is going to do the better job?
I would try a 9700 if someone sent one to me for free. That's not going to happen though, so it's somewhat a moot point. When a AIW 9700 Pro built by ATI hits the market I may test the waters, but right now the 9700 is just a really expensive venture that may or may not do what I need it to do, but it games really fast.
Not having one makes number two pointless. Especially seeing as the only real appeal to the 9700 Pro is being able to game at resolutions like 1600x1200. Well if the 2D quality sucks hind tit at that level don't expect the 3D quality to be much better.
If you are a hardcore gamer. If framerate is life for you buying an LCD and going DVI is simply the only smart choice. Leave the bonds of analog behind and laugh at all the people who have to make the choice. Unfortunately I don't like LCDs for numerous reasons, but if you want your cake and to eat it too, DVI allows for gamers to have the most power without worrying about 2D analog quality.
