g450 vs radeon ve

[dZeus]

I bet G450 can't run at 89Mhz AGP. Why I am so sure about that? My sample didn't!!!

[mdhome]

I can see where Tom is coming from but i believe him to be wrong. Also bear in mind I havent read the review but will do so later.

---------------------------------
- neither the price nor the performance of the Millennium G450 Dualhead is competitive
---------------------------------

Irrespective of how good/bad the Radeon or MX cards are, $99 for a g450 is an excellent price for a card that is still the best in its field.

I'm also bemused by the remark about its performance. Tom, get your head out of your arse, what are you talking about here? Rock steady 2d coupled with the functionality found in the latest drivers or 3d gaming speed?

As an aside, Tom is also right, by now he should have been reviewing Matrox's nextgen card.

Oh well I am off on my twice yearly visit to Toms Hardware to read a review. Maybe he can make me see sense

regards Michael

[Inray]

hi,
stay away from ATI's garbage (my opinion)
If you play games and want somthing fast take a look on Nvidia cards, otherwise if you want the best 2D quality/speed and most stable drivers then Matrox is the only choice.
I bought a Radeon 64MB DDR before Christmas and i felt into Ati's known problems. Garbageware drivers, no Ati support, only problems and very very very slow desktop/2D speed.
So i went back to my trusty G400Max and i'm happy again.

[Stringy]

Oracle
Tom completely punted on that review.. was it tom who wrote it?? .. anyways, Tom reviews these cards with no G450 performance data, no look into the drivers of the card he is basing all his analysis on...
No Card, As of Yet, can match the DualHead Features that Matrox has, no one has DVDMax, as well as the easy of profiling seperate monitors and now Real Win2k support...
ATi makes a good effort, in that they got rid of the need to reboot upon activation and de-activation, but this isn't a very large issue... to me anyways...

In the End there was no real arguement to tear down the G450, besides it's lackluster 3D which it isn't designed for...


opinions
Craig

------------------
P3-700e cB0 @980Mhz - Watercooled, DangerDen waterblock, Enhiem 1046 pump, 8x6x2 HeaterCore Radiator - Asus P2b Rev. 1.10 /w MSI slocket - 128Mb PC100 - G400 DH 32b SGR - IBM 20Gb 75GXP HDD - InWin A500

[This message has been edited by Stringy (edited 16 March 2001).]

[Oracle]

g450 vs radeon ve

taken from toms hardware's review conclusion:

"Matrox, a pioneer in dual monitor graphics cards, has to get ready to rumble. Despite the fact that the Canadian manufacturer was the first to enter the market with this type of solution, its sales pitches are fizzling out one by one - neither the price nor the performance of the Millennium G450 Dualhead is competitive. The usability of the dual monitor functions is the only satisfactory feature.

ATi can use its extensive OEM network to quickly establish its new graphics card. The Radeon VE is attractive even for the home user who occasionally plays games. At the moment, there's very little reason to recommend the Millennium G450 Dualhead whatsoever. Reacting to the new market situation is easier for the manufacturer of Twinview cards - reduce the price.

"

Oracle

also nicked from the review
"

ATi Radeon VE Hydravision 32 MB DDR SDRAM $85
Asus AGP-V7100 2V1D Twinview 32 MB SDRAM $94

Matrox Millennium G450 Dualhead 32 MB DDR SDRAM $99
"

$85 thats preety cheap
------------------
P3 600e @ 660 (6*110)
128mb 100mhz sdram
abit be6-2
Radeon 32ddr (biding time till the g800
voodoo 3 2000 pci (166)
soundblaster 16pci
4.3gb seagate udma 33
15.3 wd udma 66
creative modem blaster 56k ext
win me
ie5
direct x 8.0
4013.71

....................

[This message has been edited by Oracle (edited 16 March 2001).]

[Greebe]

And of course what market these cards aimed at... one is for billy bob home user and the other is aimed squarely at the business user market. Big difference.

The selling point of the G450 IS it's dualhead functionality, that no other manufacture has equaled.

Just another dumbass Tom review.

[Tempest]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by Inray:
I bought a Radeon 64MB DDR before Christmas and i felt into Ati's known problems. Garbageware drivers, no Ati support, only problems and very very very slow desktop/2D speed.
So i went back to my trusty G400Max and i'm happy again.</font>

Sounds kinda familiar... A month ago I bought a Radeon 64 MB DDR VIVO, tested it for two weeks and sold it away. G400 MAX it is

[arbymo]

even if u pay 10$ more to get the best picture and the best colors .. it's worth it.
it's not right to compare prices and say that because x is cheaper than y then x is better even if x has the same features.
take as example Lexus and Mercedes, while Lexus has many many features; it'll never be a Mercedes.
and last 10$ more is about 15% more .. that's not a big deal.

[Oracle]

well ive got a radeon and its good ive had no real probs , but thats just me i suppose.

i posted those "clips" of the review because it basically summerises the attitude towards matrox. but for matrox's flagship card 13 fps is realy unacceptable is it not?

Oracle

------------------
P3 600e @ 660 (6*110)
128mb 100mhz sdram
abit be6-2
Radeon 32ddr (biding time till the g800
voodoo 3 2000 pci (166)
soundblaster 16pci
4.3gb seagate udma 33
15.3 wd udma 66
creative modem blaster 56k ext
win me
ie5
direct x 8.0
4013.71

....................

[This message has been edited by Oracle (edited 18 March 2001).]