1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.

Graphics card for dual monitors?

Discussion in 'Monitoring / Headphones' started by locust, Sep 19, 2001.

  1. locust

    locust Guest

    After joining a friend's recording session I realized the extreme advantage of dual monitoring, but I can't get a grip on which the specifications should be..

    -should I get a 16MB card as opposed to a 32 MB?
    -is there a brand (and/or model) that is better than them all?
    -as the card uses the AGP bus (I've understood that AGP is the way to go), how does the graphics card make the DAW less/more sluggish?
    -how about the Matrox Millenium G450 series? Seems good and there is a 16 MB version as well as a 32 MB. Advice?

    I have a DELL PIII 450 with 128 MB RAM (soon to be upgraded to 384 MB), running LAP 4.7.

    sorry for the basic questions,
    /Henrik, Sweden
     
  2. Opus2000

    Opus2000 Well-Known Member

    no questions here are too basic..every question is always helpful to someone else down the road..I think dual monitor questions are good..

    There are a couple of choices one could make in regards to dual monitors..one obviously is the Matrox G450..very nice..older drivers were a little buggy but I've heard they got them sussed out now. Appian Graphics makes a Gemini AGP card that works well too..that's the one I use..rock solid and never a single glitch or cause of sluggishnes. Most AGP cards wont cause any problems with the system in question. AGP is definately the way to go these days as PCI cards take up more resources. Getting a 16MB card is preferable over 32MB cards as the more video memory you have the more likely it will steal power away from your audio performance on video drawback.
    Once you start working in dual monitor configs you wont want to go back to single again!! Since you are running LAP 4.7 that means Win98 or ME..no Win2k for Logic users just yet! I actually am anxious to try Logic on a Win2K machine..I have 4.1(obviously upgradeable to 4.7 but I'm not sure about upgrading to the supposed 5.0)
    Anyways, if you were running Win2k you would definately want the Matrox as that has two physical chips for each output...my card only has one that acts as two outs..Win2K doesnt allow the main screen to stay on the main screen..so you get half and half with the pop up windows or the program startup logo between the two monitors. Plus task bar will go all the way across both screens..my solution..task bar to the left side of the main screen and pop up windows..well..they're not to worry about..usually a next or yes gets rid of that!!
    Opus
     
  3. locust

    locust Guest

    thanks for the swift reply, just to make it clear; yes I use Win 98. The Gemini card would cost me approximately 3 times as much as the Matrox here in Sweden! That is reason enough for me to head Matrox' way... ;)

    /henrik
     
  4. Mongoose

    Mongoose Guest

    You don't need anything flash to run dual monitors.

    On a budget, I would recommend a Geforce2mx twinview based card. They come in 32 and 64meg versions, and support 2 monitors off the bat.

    Currently, I'm running a normal Geforce2mx w/32meg in the AGP slot and an old 2meg ET6000 in a pci slot.

    I don't know if the twinview uses 2 irqs or not, but running 2 different cards sure does.

    Willy.
     
  5. I use Matrox G450 with 16meg. I don't
    know what the performance difference
    between 16meg/32meg is, but the 16meg
    works fine for my use with Paris DAW.

    I agree with an earlier post - I wouldn't
    want to go back to working with 1 monitor.
     
  6. Opus2000

    Opus2000 Well-Known Member

    You wont see any difference at all..besides..you should always set your display resolution to 16bit and not 32bit...16bit takes less performance away from your audio functions..remember that the more memory you have for your video the more it takes away from audio performance due to video drawing...
    Opus
     

Share This Page