ATI Rage kills this G400

[ronnie]

I had a Rage Fury 32mg and it kills this g400.
2D about the same but in 3D no contest ATI rules, and the picture quailty is about the same. Using the latest drivers for Win98/Win2k..Are the ones on Matrox site, in fact the G400 is only about 5% faster than my
old old G200

[Gurm]

Then there is something WRONG with your system.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[Jord]

Let's see, what do we do with advice on this one? .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .............................. .................... [thinking here]
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ........................
[shrug] I give up.

Anyone out there with a link to the ATi fori? If a renowned brand as ATi has fori nonetheless

Jord.

[This message has been edited by Jord (edited 01 May 2000).]

[Kruzin]

I also had a 32meg Rgae Fury some time back.
It was a hunk of junk.
The only good thing it could do was DVD/TV-out.
Image quality on the desktop blew chunks, with random anomolies and font corruptions. 3D image was equally inferior, with a terribly "grainy" look to everything. If the picture quality looks the same to you, you must be using a small or old monitor, or not notice the details (or maybe your eyeglasses aren't strong enough ).

And if G400 is only going 5% faster than your G200, as Gurm said, there is something wrong with your system. Very possibly those Rage drivers still hanging around mucking things up like they always do...

[ronnie]

using performance test 2.0a
ATI Rage was 94.3
G400 is 95.6
in 2D
In 3D
Ati Rage 613
g400 441
all of the above was done in Windows 2000
Abit BX6 R2
300a @ 450mhz
128 ram

Numbers was different in win98 but ATI still
ruled in 3D
I removed all the ATI drivers and cleaned the
registry.

[jackzod]

If you use a cel300@450, it's possible.

Try with a PIII 500 or more and we'll see where the ATI will be.

G400 rely HEAVILY on processor power. Probably the ATI relies less on it.

[The Rock]

Peformance test??? What kinda backwards benchmark is THAT? ATI sucks brother; I gave mine away for free after I bought a G400. And there is NO comparison. I guess as long as your happy with it.

The Rock

[Gurm]

Is this the ATI "Performance Test" that comes with the ATI card?

Hmm... let me think...

'Cuz I've never heard of it. I owned a Rage128. Nice card - if they ever could have fixed the desktop corruption and sucky 3d. Oh well.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[Jutai]

what was that benchmarking program??
if you want to post something valid use a benchmarking system that works also using a program everyone is familiar wich helps a lot what was the program really comparing? what resolution? how is the score derived? seriously we don't even know if your program exists 5% increase from G200 this program has glitches.

[Jorden]

Okay, I tried to d/l this Performance Test from ATi's site, but couldn't find a link to it anywhere in there... Must be a well-hidden piece of software

I did see that ATi has no driver update for Windows 98 or SE or 2k before you ask. At least not for the Rage Fury 128, and not even for their MAXX. Think about that for a while...

Maybe we'll find this card soon in the Discontinued Products link? Who knows

So, if Ronnie could give us a link to the Performance Test 2.0a program, we could test our guts out for a while...

Jord.

[ronnie]

First I never said it came with the ATI
card, Second they ATI do have beta drivers just matrox for win2k.
http://www.passmark.com/
is the link for the benchmark program ver 2.0a
I'm using ver 1.0

[ronnie]

I'n not tying to start anything just saying
how it runs on my system, the fact remains the Rage has better 3d performance than the G400 on my system. Weather you like to hear that or not..its true

[DosFreak]

PassMark is NOT a video card benchmarking program. Use a real program suck as 3Dmark 99/2000,Quake 3,Expendable,Forsaken.

[ronnie]

http://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm
DosFreak maybe you'll get it now..dunno

[ronnie]

Oh I did go to winmag and ran the online
benchmark (wintune) and there also the g400
was one of the lowest performance cards posted in 3D..Heh even on the Box of the Rage
Fury it says it out performs the G400 in 3D
what else can be said?? Face it you all amd myself got burned by matrox..BUt wait wait wait there is a Brand new G450 that rocks I mean rocks man it rocks it rocks ...drivers at eleven