G450 worth it?

[Maggi]

Hi JackYi,

even though I managed to push my G450 to stellar clock rates, it was still slower than the MAXed G400 I had before ...

Reason for that is the (crippled) 64bit bus the G450 has to cope with.

If you look again in my G450 OCing thread, you'll find 3D Mark 2000 scores that were way below 3000, but my former G400 was able to spit out +3300 3D Marks.

Cheers,
Maggi

[Nuno]

41 fps in Q3 1024 32 bit all set to max isn´t going to happen. Not a chance. 20fps is more like it...

Sorry, but the G450 just isn´t designed for gaming. I doesn´t perform that well.

Here:

Look at that 1024x768x32 score. And Anand doesn´t test Q3 at all max settings.

PS: You could have said it all with only one thread, couldn´t you?

[This message has been edited by Nuno (edited 21 March 2001).]

[JackYi]

Thanks.
But can it be the fact that the OpenGL driver is more mature with the 6.50 drivers?
As I remember, the 6.50 performs way better under OpenGL, and many reviewers who reviewed the G450 used a earlier driver release.

Do you mind benchmarking with your own machine and using these drivers?
Thanks!

[JackYi]

G450 worth it?

OK.
I know some of you heard this already, but I've been hearing pretty impressive results of the G450 getting 41fps with Quake3: Arena @ 1024x768x32 everything set to max. I don't know if these results are accurate, but it quickly struck me.
Being that I miss the visuals while I owned a Millenium G400(GF2, Radeon, etc.. sucked compared to it), I really am considering a G450.

People like Maggi and some others are reporting outstanding overclocking results, and some of them are getting them to run at G400 MAX frequencies(not counting DDR=2x).

Now I ask. How are all of you playing games with your G450 overclocked and not overclocked? Is the 41fps true for Quake3? Is this card a good go if I would hopefullly wait for the G550/G800/ConderII?

Thanks!

[LrngToFly]

Just be patient. I'm sure the Matrox G451 will be out by this time next year. If the 451 isn't out, the G450a should be!

[Maggi]

yes, please ...

[Novdid]

Do so, I´m curios.

[Nuno]

JackYi, here´s what I get on a Athlon 900@998:

1024, 32 bit 16 bit z-buffer, all maxed out, G400 at default speed: 21.1 fps demo001

G400 Overclocked to MAX speeds (150/200): 24.8 demo001

So if you enable 32 bit z (sorry, just didn´t want to reboot...) and with a G450 (slightly slower than a vannilla G400 due to 64-bit DDR overhead compared with a 128-bit SDR) expect values under 20 fps...

PS: that is under win2k, with 5.51 drivers (it uses the same ICD as win9x 6.50)

No matter what driver tweaking can still be done (if any), G4x0 cards simply don´t have enough fillrate/memory bandwidth to run Q3 at that res, all maxed out.

[This message has been edited by Nuno (edited 22 March 2001).]

[az]

i think rolo is just a tad matrox biased *g

i read a review by him some time ago and i think he compared the matrox at 16 bit against the nvidia card at 32 bit because he thinks nv's display quality sucks and because of the dxtc bug they display textures in 16 bit when dxtc is on...

maybe that clarifies it a little, but i'm still curious what his answer will be

AZ

[JackYi]

I'd send an e-mail to that guy who reviewed the eTV at Rolotech and ask why he got 41fps with that particular Q3A setting since it doesn't make any sense. I'd let you know his response.

[JackYi]

First off, thanks for your reply - I'm glad you read my review....

In regards to the benchmark number, I did run Quake3 (default version) at 1024x768x32 @ HQ MAX settings on my P!!! test-bed.

However, I must confess - my system is mildly overclocked. I run my P!!! 1Ghz on an Abit BX133-RAID motherboard (135Mhz FSB / 90Mhz AGP) and that's why I get those values. I also have 192MB of RAM running at CAS2, and I was using BETA Matrox drivers for the test (which I received direct from Matrox), so there may be performance gains in this new driver revisions.

A question - what's your system specs?

From my extensive testing with Matrox hardware, the GPU seems limited at CPU speeds below 650Mhz - it's when you go past that and into high-end P!!!/Athlon territory that you get decent 3D performance.

Hope this helps -
Roland Braganza
www.rolotech.com

[ChenSoft]

What GPU?!?!?
Probably a mistake

& like U said az, this guy is <u>biased</u>.

[JackYi]

To be honest, I find Roland biased too. What he only does is review Matrox hardware, and his system has its FSB and AGP bus way overclocked. I mean, who knows where his higher framerate came from without him mentioning it in his review? You see, this is a very BAD way of promoting a product. Sorta cheap too.

If you're here looking at my post Roland, sorry. This is from my honest heart.
I have nothing to offend you, but would give you advice to post all of your system specs including overclocked or not overclocked being mentioned before posting any benchmark results. You must do that, for by saying you got 41fps at 1024x768x32 High Quality MAX at timedemo, people would naturally believe you got the result "without" overclocking anything. You're just not being honest here.

[JackYi]

Well, just bought a G450 DH today. I don't have three moniters at the moment.
Yeap, its sitting right in my work PC. Not the one for gaming(that means I have 2 PCs of my own ). I currently have a Evil Kyro 32MB(Radeon VE later on) in my gaming PC.

OK impressions. GREAT 2D, 3D visuals are vibrant, clear, and sharp. Framerate.. ahem.. let's not tell.

[kewlcat]

To be honest, I looked at the review and the 1024x738 @ 32 score was 34 fps, not 41. 41 fps was the score in 1024x768 @ 16. Considering his system, I think he could certainly push a G450 to those numbers.

-Rahul