View Full Version : Which one to buy? (G450 - ASUS)

9th May 2001, 10:31
I now have a G400 MAX (on an Athlon system)
I choose for Matrox (in september 2000) because I 'd like to use DUALHEAD and also to play the latest games http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

Now hardware/games have changed...
Can someone say if the G450 is much better then the G400 MAX?
I noticed that the latest games become a bit slow on my G400MAX ;(,
I don't have the money for a GEFORCE 3, but maybe a ASUS V7100-GForce2-MX-DVI-32Mb-Dual-View is also a good solution? (altough I like Matrox more... but the motherboards of ASUS are good, so I think the grafics maybe also)

Is there a big difference in Twin View and Dualhead?

What should I buy... or should I rest with my G400 MAX and wait (I think another year !?) for the "new" Matrox card?

Will everything work with my Athlon 1GH system? and on Whistler?

I tested 2 days Whistler on my system, but the MS G400MAX drivers gave a lot of errors; the mouse cursor was not correct, crashes when using dualhead and more!!
Whistler is now history for me http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif until the next RC http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

9th May 2001, 10:53
The G450 is somewhat slower than the G400 MAX or even the G400. Concerning DualHead or similar techniques, lookie here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1423&p=1).

I think I should point out to you though that Matrox's next card is rumored to be out in a few months. Head here (http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/Forum15/HTML/000015.html) for more info http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif


9th May 2001, 12:35
There isnŽt much of a point "upgrading" a G400DH with a Geforce MX. YouŽll gain 16 bit performance, but 32 bit is not much faster than a G400MAX and Matrox dualhead implementation is MUCH better.

And as az said, G450 is slower than G400, but has better dual-head (higher res/refresh rates supported in the 2nd display).

So if dual-head is important to you, just stick with Matrox.

9th May 2001, 12:45
I personally would wait on a G550, if it isn't pressing. If all is well, you should be able to buy one per July, and it'd be about as fast as a GF2 (not MX), with matrox-typical 2D quality and DualHead. These are all rumors, mind you, but it's about time they'll release a new card and it's kinda like a safe bet that it'll be at least faster than a GF2 MX, I think http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif


12th May 2001, 03:31

I hate to break the party but I currently own an Asus MX and:
1. Twinview sucks compared with Matrox.
2. OpenGL and Direct3D is twice the fps of my G400.
3. I have a 17" trinitron monitor and there isn't much difference between it and a G400 on a 17" 1024x768.
4. Speaking of Matrox image quality, colours, sharpness and overall image definition are awesome, but corrupted textures just ruin the fun. The MX 3D pict doesn't come near but it's way more playable.

So, if you play a little and DH a lot, keep your max.
If you play a lot and DH isn't so important go with the KyroII or the Radeon.

I like to con people, but I also like to insult them. What if I could combine the two, I would call it - Consult !