RR-G vs G200/G400 Marvel

[JayZ]

Right now I have a Marvel G200-TV and am very pleased with the video editing part of the card but I'm unable to play games on it at a reasonable level of performance.

I Also have a G400-Max that I use to play games with but having to switch video cards in and out all the time is monotonous.

I tried having both of those video cards in my computer at the same time but when I try to start up PC-VCR, it says that I'm using a 4 bit pallete even though I'm using 16bit. So this option is out of the option unless anybody knows how to get this to work properly.

So now I'm thinking about getting a Rainbow Runner G-Series and using it with my G400 Max for all my video editing, capturing, and TV viewing needs. I was jus curious as to how it compares in the quality of the capturing/editing/tv to the Marvel G200 or Marvel G400.

Any input would be appreciated

[Laurie]

Hi JayZ,

If you do a search for RR-G you'll find a couple of threads dealing with this topic. I have a G200 Marvel and am going to go the G400 MAX/RR-G route which many people in this forum are using. I think the reason no one so far has responded to you is that there isn't a definitive answer, at least not until Chris gets the hardware to do the comparison.

Laurie

[CMB]

Hey,
I used a Marvel G200 for the better part of a year, then 'upped' to a Marvel G400 around september last year.

The clarity of the TV out is a lot better and output of video is clearer and brighter due to the new generation MAVEN chip. (so im told) When i say better i mean i can notice because i sit very close to my 32inch widescreen tv on output and am extremely picky :O)

that acounts for the main difference. I also understand that the Marvel uses a newer decompression chip which also counts toward better video.

When i say better quality, it is of course subjective opinion. Some dont notice, others agree its better. But thats not to say the difference is fantasticly good. I had the joy of having some video work shown at a cinema last year. It was a high quality, 16-1 capture and i was worried it would look poor and blocky on a cinema acreen but it looked fantastic and that was done with a Marvel G200

Is the Marvel G400 significantly better then the MAX/RRG?? well i get to use a MAX/RRG shortly i hope. so i will be able to give you a better comparrison. The NEW MAVEN tv out chip is used in al G400's so the only difference between the Marvel G400 and the MAX/RRG is the new generation mjpeg decoded chip in the MarvelG400.

How much of an improvement does it bring?
ill let you know :O)
It also depends whether you want to play power games like UT or Q3 on it. Q3 is fine on my marvel it goes at 1024x768 with everything in 32bit at just over 30fps
(i have a PIII 450 and 256mg)
UT is different it will only run smoothly in 16bit and medium textures. but again the marvel isnt a power gaming card...

I am interested to see how the MAX/RRG performs, because i would really like some extra kick for later this year when HALO comes out... its gonna rock baby :P
besides we all like the satisfaction of turning everything to high maxing out the res and then watching our pc's fly along :O)

umm have i helped or have i just rambled on?
lol

[JayZ]

Thanks for the reply guys and girls.
I thought that the Marvel G200 and G400 were exact same. I guess i was wrong. Now that you brought up the fact that the new Marvel G400 have the MAVEN chip on it that makes the quality a lot better I'm considering going that route.
The only thing is, I already have a G400 Max here and I dont want it to go to waste. Thats why i initally wanted to go with the G400 Max/RR-G route. I can live without the extra power for gaming of the Max/RR-G if a Marvel G400 will give me better capturing and outputting quality. I dont play too much games anyways.
CMB, let me know how your comparison of the two setups once you have a chance to play around with the max/rr-g combination.
Decision decisions. Stuck with a dilemna.
Well, thanks for both of your input.

[This_Idiot]

Hi Jayz

I thought I might have covered this one already, but sometimes these things get covered in dust.

Software package in RR-G is better than G400 Marvel. TV-O is better in G400 Marvel than RR-G (subjectively, Matrox don't acknowledge ths tho users are firmly of this opinion). TV-tuner is better in G400 Marvel than RR-G (probably due to lack of interference since Marvel tuner is located externally in the BOB).

Marvel only uses one slot.

Oh boy, start weighing that lot up

[Palliator]

One other difference between the G400/RR-G and Marvel G400 that should be noted: the second "head" on the Marvel can only be used for TV-out. There was no more room on the back of the card for a second VGA connector. This was the main reason I went with the G400 Max. Of course, if your work is intended solely for TV, this may mean nothing to you. Personally I can't do without a second monitor display these days.

It also didn't hurt that my G400 Max came clocked faster along with 32 MB of RAM (Marvel has 16 MB). Again, I have to also agree about the software bundle. When I used to own a Marvel G200, I cannot recall ever using Avid after it arrived in the mail.