fanless DVI-D cards, is DVI-D better than analog for LCD?

dan · Post by **dan** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 12:29 pm

hi,
currently i have a 16mb matrox G450 with dual analog VGA connectors. Matrox tells me its power consumption is on the order of 5 watts, and it is passively cooled.

Is going to DVI-D on an LCD a big improvement over analog VGA, and which video card is fanless, inexpensive, lower power consumption, and has DVI-D connector?

my current pc is FANLESS - no CPU fan, no PSU fan, no case fan, no chipset or vga fan.

Post by **NeilBlanchard** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 6:17 pm

Hello:

The Matrox Millennium P650 is passively cooled and has dual DVI outputs. If your LCD has DVI inputs, then I think it is definitely better than RGB. The P650 isn't really inexpensive, but it is a good value.

Post by **Ralf Hutter** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:36 am

dan wrote:hi,Is going to DVI-D on an LCD a big improvement over analog VGA,

Yes, yes, yes!!!

dan wrote:and which video card is fanless, inexpensive, lower power consumption, and has DVI-D connector?

I only know ATi DVI cards and have used the 7500, 8500, 9100 and 9600 running fanless over the past 3 years. They all work great, although I cooled the 8500 with a 5V 80mm L1A just to make sure.

dan · Post by **dan** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 12:48 pm

ok,
thanks for the replies.

i currently have a nec multisyn fe950, but i use my pc mostly for text based work (i.e web browing and word processing) so i am thinking an LCD panel would be better.

i may not need a dual-dvi-d, why should i choose the matrox g650 over ati?

shathal · Post by **shathal** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 1:12 pm

I'd assume mostly image quality. Matrox (justifiably, IMHO) is VERY good at the 2D-stuff.

Also, most cards come out nowadays with dual-ports. It's just handy for when you have 2 monitors (I don't), or 3 (such as in the case of the Matrox Parhelia).

If you're running "normal res" (i.e. not 1600x1200 or higher), I don't think there's anything wrong with the ATI. If that's where you spend most of your PC-time, then go with whichever option is cheaper (to cool quietly).

No need to splash out on stuff you won't use anyway, right?

.

dan · Post by **dan** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 8:34 pm

well the display on my matrox looks exactly like the nvidia TNT1 diamond viper it replaced, both were very good.

i see the matrox p650 is $150+ range. that's quite a bit more than most ati/nvidia cards.

do you know what its power consumption is? thanks

PretzelB · Post by **PretzelB** » Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:55 am

I think the ATI cards still have better image quality than Nvidia. I just switched from an GF4ti200 to an ATI9600xt and while not huge there was an improvement in image quality. But I'm using an Mitsu Diamond Pro CRT and not an LCD.

I haven't owned a Matrox in years so I can't comment on ATI vs Matrox.

With respect to DVI I do know it makes a big difference when it comes to HiDef televisions.

If you're only interested in 2d (no gaming) then you can get an ATI 9200 with passive cooling for around $50 (US).

fanless DVI-D cards, is DVI-D better than analog for LCD?

fanless DVI-D cards, is DVI-D better than analog for LCD?

Matrox Millennium P650

Re: fanless DVI-D cards, is DVI-D better than analog for LCD