Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Here are some benchmarks from a retail G400 !!! (long)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Here are some benchmarks from a retail G400 !!! (long)

    Hi all,

    Thanks to PaulC over at alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox,
    He posted some benchmarks of a retail card he bought see below.

    "PIII 500 MHz, 384 Mb Ram, AOpen AX6BC, SCSI everywhere.

    Quake2

    800x600/16-bit - 74.2, 74.4, 74.3
    1024x768/16-bit - 62.8, 64.5, 64.6
    800x600/32-bit - 72.8, 72.5, 74.0
    1024x768/32-bit - 62.0, 61.9, 62.0

    PIII 560 MHz, 384 Mb Ram, AOpen AX6BC, SCSI everywhere. (I can't describe
    what a thrill it is to overclock my SCSI bus. There's nothing like a
    potential boot failure to get the adrenaline going.)

    Quake2

    800x600/16-bit - 81.1, 83.2, 83.1 (Yikes!)
    1024x768/16-bit - 65.7, 67.0, 67.1
    800x600/32-bit - 79.8, 81.9, 81.7
    1024x768/32-bit - 62.2, 63.5, 63.5

    A moment of silence, please. We've topped the 80 fps at 560 MHz/800x600.
    With enough processor power to run the NASA during the Apollo program, my
    bright, shinny, new Matrox G400 has achieved (drum roll please!) Voodoo2
    SLI-like framerates in Quake2! (Sorry. I couldn't resist.) Bring on the Max!

    You'll note that, with these drivers and at 500+ MHz, there is a more
    noticeable speed hit at higher resolutions than we've seen in the recent
    past. It's beginning to act like a normal videocard.

    The flickering at the exit/credits screen has not gone away, so I suspect
    it's a bug and not an isolated system-specific issue.

    In all seriousness, I'm really beginning to enjoy this card. Text on my
    blurry Iiyama looks sharper and JPEG's look marvelous. Quake2 looked pretty
    good as well. (Let's face it. Quake2 can only look so good, and I suspect
    the 32-bit benchmarks in Q2 are somewhat pointless.)

    I tested out the DVD software on the 400 MHz machine. The monitor output was
    the best I've seen to date. And unlike the Zoran software, it actually
    worked for me."

    Regards,
    Elie

    [This message has been edited by Elie (edited 07-04-99).]

  • #2
    Awesome. Now overclock the G400 to Max speeds :-)
    And get Matrox to release the Max already :-P

    Comment


    • #3
      Damn?!??! 384 Meg of Ram!?!?

      I would like to see some benchmarks with a realistic amount of ram, 128 Meg. It probably won't make much difference though.

      Comment


      • #4
        For games anything above 128mb wont make a difference I think.

        Regards,
        Elie

        Comment


        • #5
          Hi Guys,

          my OC'ed Celery does also +80 fps

          ------------------
          Cheers,
          Maggi

          Asus P2B-S @ 112MHz FSB * Celeron300A @ 504MHz
          Heavily boosted by the Millenium G400 32MB SGRAM DualHead



          Comment


          • #6
            Elie,
            Can you tell us your driver version?!

            Micko,

            Comment


            • #7
              Ellie,

              That's up to the game: Falcon 4 won't start <128MB. (I have *heard* that)

              B

              ------------------
              Excel 7.0, Winamp 2.23, Adobe Acrobat 4.0, QuickTime 4


              Comment


              • #8
                Hi Micko,

                I don't have a G400 yet.

                Regards,
                Elie

                Comment


                • #9
                  Actually Burri, my roommate was running F4.0 on a Pentium 200 with 64 Mb of RAM and it was okay at the best of times. I have 128Mb and at 4x time the hard drive is constantly accessing. But it does start.
                  -Dan

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The remarks about the Voodoo2 were said in jest. I spent so much time testing the G400, I guess I was getting a bit punchy.

                    I ran a series of benchmarks on a slower system (PII 400 MHz, 128 Mb RAM) and posted them, as well as the numbers above, in the Matrox Gaming Forum. The off-hand remarks were omitted.

                    I used driver ver. 5.13, which Matrox has posted as the latest (final OpenGL). Powerdesk 5.12 shipped with the board. These drivers were slower than 5.12.

                    The jump from a PII 400 to a PIII 500 was quite significant. I suspect RAM has little to do with the differences in numbers.

                    I have some Kingpin and 3DMark99 Max numbers posted on the Matrox newsgroup as well.

                    Paul
                    paulcs@flashcom.net or
                    paulcs@sirius.com

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Airgumby are those numbers from 16 or 32-bit

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        How did you use PD 5.13? I thought they were G200 only. Is there a new series of drivers for the G400, because I can't find it on Matrox's site.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Throwing some of my own numbers in here, from a V3 3000 running the slow Quake3 drivers:

                          Quake2 Demo1:
                          640*480 - 106.4fps
                          800*600 - 97.6fps
                          1024*768 - 71.2fps
                          1280*960 - 50.8fps
                          1600*1200 - crash

                          Goes to show how much more grunt a P3 has than my overclocked celery! my system specs are below.

                          ------------------
                          Celeron 300A @ 464, BH6(KG), 128MB Corsair CAS2 PC100, Voodoo3 3000 (166), SBLive!Value, 4.3GB + 8.4GB Fireball CRs, 10Mb Netgear NIC, Internal ZIP100, ViewSonic PT775

                          Agent. Copyright © 1998-99 Agent. All rights reserved.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Powerdesk ver. 5.13 are posted on Matrox's site as G200 drivers. I installed them with a G200 in the machine and checked to see if there was evidence of G400 support. There was.

                            After purchasing the G400, I uninstalled the 5.13 drivers, and installed the drivers that came with the new board, ver. 5.12. I ran a few benchmarks, uninstalled ver. 5.12 and reinstalled 5.13.

                            Sure enough, they recognized the card as a G400 Dual-Head and seem to work fine. In fact, both OpenGL and Direct3D performance improved. There are a few bugs, but these were present with the drivers that shipped with the board as well.

                            Paul
                            paulcs@flashcom.net

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I would love to see some benchmarks on celeron 450 since a boatload of people own them.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X