Tweet
GeForce "Ex-Enduser" Review
I admit it. My frustration with some of the Matrox driver issues I experienced got the better of me. So...I gave the CL Annihilator a whirl.
If the subject didn't tell you, the G400 is now back into my system. Briefly some thoughts/observations on the GeForce card:
Pluses:
1. Installation - went w/o a hitch. Hardware manufacturers have learned that either they make a product that is fully PnP, or it goes the way of the dodo.
2. Drivers - Nvidia releases their reference drivers to the public. That does make the end user a "beta" tester, but we've all been that before too, right? Nvidia incorporates some excellent tweaks into the display properties. Additionally, they rely on the monitor INF file for refresh rates. My personal opinion is that this is a better option for the end user than what Matrox does.
2. OpenGL - Nvidia writes very good ICD's. I ran thru several levels of Quake II and QIII Test and was astounded by what I saw. Image quality for OpenGL is excellent.
3. Software compatability - Didn't run into some of the software issues I had w/ the G400 (fyi, I wound up dumping Symantec Talkworks Pro 'cause I found that it didn't always answer all incoming calls/faxes). I did run into a GPF w/ IE5 (had a BSOD w/ the G400 - will install IE5.01 which should fix that).
Minuses
1. 2D image quality - I run my monitor (Gateway VX900 - aka Hitachi 751) at 1024x768. There was some loss of visual accuity at this resolution.
2. Eye strain - I don't know if it was the less than acceptable 2D image quality, or what, but I've always experienced eye strain w/ Nvidia based cards. Never w/ Matrox or ATi.
Conclusion - if the ONLY thing you do is play games and HAVE TO HAVE the latest, greatest, fastest, most up to date features (whew!) grapics card, get a GeForce. If you use your 'puter for anything else (like, real work?), stick w/ a G400.
If the subject didn't tell you, the G400 is now back into my system. Briefly some thoughts/observations on the GeForce card:
Pluses:
1. Installation - went w/o a hitch. Hardware manufacturers have learned that either they make a product that is fully PnP, or it goes the way of the dodo.
2. Drivers - Nvidia releases their reference drivers to the public. That does make the end user a "beta" tester, but we've all been that before too, right? Nvidia incorporates some excellent tweaks into the display properties. Additionally, they rely on the monitor INF file for refresh rates. My personal opinion is that this is a better option for the end user than what Matrox does.
2. OpenGL - Nvidia writes very good ICD's. I ran thru several levels of Quake II and QIII Test and was astounded by what I saw. Image quality for OpenGL is excellent.
3. Software compatability - Didn't run into some of the software issues I had w/ the G400 (fyi, I wound up dumping Symantec Talkworks Pro 'cause I found that it didn't always answer all incoming calls/faxes). I did run into a GPF w/ IE5 (had a BSOD w/ the G400 - will install IE5.01 which should fix that).
Minuses
1. 2D image quality - I run my monitor (Gateway VX900 - aka Hitachi 751) at 1024x768. There was some loss of visual accuity at this resolution.
2. Eye strain - I don't know if it was the less than acceptable 2D image quality, or what, but I've always experienced eye strain w/ Nvidia based cards. Never w/ Matrox or ATi.
Conclusion - if the ONLY thing you do is play games and HAVE TO HAVE the latest, greatest, fastest, most up to date features (whew!) grapics card, get a GeForce. If you use your 'puter for anything else (like, real work?), stick w/ a G400.
Comment