PDA

View Full Version : What ever happened to the G100?



ZokesPro
12th May 2001, 10:39
What came before the G200 but after the Millenium II?

------------------
"Wedge! Pull out! You're not doing any good back there!"
Suggestive Star Wars line from Return of the Jedi

az
12th May 2001, 11:01
http://www.matrox.com/mga/products/prod_g100/home.cfm

AZ

LrngToFly
12th May 2001, 13:51
and in case you're wondering why the G100 got no press- I'm pretty sure it was released _after_ the G200.

HollyBerri
12th May 2001, 14:25
No, I don't think so, LrngToFly-- As I remember, the G100 got quite a bit of press as an excellent, low-cost solution for business.

Then the G200 came shortly after for consumers.

-----------------------
Holly

frankymail
12th May 2001, 14:36
Yep, low-cost, good 2D, but with 3D speed rivaling that of a rock, and with the 3D quality of the Mystique...

------------------
What was necessary was done yesterday;
We're currently working on the impossible;
For miracles, we ask for a 24 hours notice ...

mdhome
12th May 2001, 23:26
I was at a computer fair a few weeks ago and saw a 4 head version going for 49 uk pounds (approx $65).
I believe its forte was business.


regards MD

MetalCartman
13th May 2001, 07:03
A few weeks ago, I bought a used one for about 30€, it works very well (rock stable!)in my Server (running Win2k Advanced Server).
It is very fast in 2D, indeed. Some friends of mine still do photo-editing with their G100s.

Cart

Dogbert
14th May 2001, 11:27
The G100 came out exactly at the same time the dreaded G200 did. Unlike the G200 the G100 was/is a great card, Matrox promised nothign about the card except for business oriented performance where actually it gave a bit more. The G100 is a great successor to the old Mill / Mill II cards. It was also the first multi monitor card made by matrox untill the G200 replaced it.
The G100 was a huge success with OEM, especially compaq.

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

Alec
14th May 2001, 12:13
Itīs a card for business use, and damn good at that. Itīs basically a 8 Mb Mystique G200 without the 128-bit dualbus and the 3D functions. It came out slightly before the G200.

Nuno
14th May 2001, 12:46
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Unlike the G200 the G100 was/is a great card</font>

Sorry, but I donīt agree. When the G200 was out, it was the fastest 2d/3d card at the time bar none. Its 2d and 3d rendering quality still is better than many "ultra" video cards out there.

Ok, the OpenGl ICD was not a pretty story, but I still think G200 was a great card for its time.

Alec
14th May 2001, 13:05
Sorry, Nuno, but I donīt agree with you when you say that the G200 was the best card when it came out.

It was better that the G100, of course, but the Nvidia TNT was faster in general 3D, the Voodoo 2 and Banshee were faster in OpenGL (and in a few D3D games), and the S3 Savage was faster also in some occasions...

Of course, the G200 had the best picture quality ever...

http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/features/graph_accel98/decaf001a.html

http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/features/graph_accel98/chips.html

harkpabst_meliantrop
15th May 2001, 00:39
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by Alec:

It was better that the G100, of course, but the Nvidia TNT was faster in general 3D
</font>

Disagree. The TNT already had 2 pixle pipelines. Apart from that, the G200 was at least as fast. But as game developers (and benchmark creators :-) ) had already startet using double-texturing at the time these cards came out, the TNT was supperiour in all the newer gaming titles.


<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2"> the Voodoo 2 and Banshee were faster in OpenGL (and in a few D3D games),
</font>

The 3dfx cards were never really that good in OpenGL as they didn't really support it. The only thing they were good at, were games based on the Quake and Quake II engine, supported through a game specific "MiniGL" driver only (offering limited 8 bit texture quality, but with Quake that didn't matter too much). For most people it was: OpenGL == Quake at the time (and 3dfx fell on their nose when Quake III came out and required a fully featured OpenGL ICD).

Also, the Voodoo 2 already had two texture procession units (long before the TNT, but not integrated into one chip, so the TNT surely was the more modern design). As for the Banshee: It did NOT have 2 pixle pipelines and was crap. In Glide games that didn't use multitexturing it was still ok (slightly faster than a V2, but much slower as soon as multitexturing was required, which includes QII).


<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
and the S3 Savage was faster also in some occasions...
</font>

But all in all, it was crap as well, wasn't it? And what about the latest Savage drivers ...


<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
Of course, the G200 had the best picture quality ever...
</font>

And - don't get me wrong - you're right: It never was the fastest card around for gaming.

--E<:|

Nuno
15th May 2001, 02:15
Of course the TNT was faster, but it came out *after* the G200 http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif (a couple of months I think). The G200 WAS the fastest 2D/3D card when it was released. Of course the competition was rendition verite/Riva 128/Intel 710 http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

The voodoo2 was a 3d-card only, it costed twice the G200 8Mb (and more than that for the OEM G200 8 Mb SDRAM), it didnīt perform that better than the G200 on D3D games and it was limited to 800x600x16.

Alec
15th May 2001, 03:34
So... I was right! http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

Alec
15th May 2001, 14:45
Letīs bear in mind that weīre (at least I am) talking about third generation 3D cards, not about 2 or 3 months of difference between releases.

harkpabst_meliantrop
15th May 2001, 16:58
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by Nuno:
Of course the TNT was faster, but it came out *after* the G200 http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif (a couple of months I think). </font>

Too bad, looks as if you're right http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif and I'm wrong http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/frown.gif : The TNT was announced (and released respectively) about 3 month after the G200.


<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">The voodoo2 was a 3d-card only, it costed twice the G200 8Mb (and more than that for the OEM G200 8 Mb SDRAM), it didnīt perform that better than the G200 on D3D games and it was limited to 800x600x16.</font>

When posting too fast, it's easy to overlook terms like '2D/3D card'. Yes, the Voodoo2 was 3D only and (a single board) was limited to 800x600 (and to 16 bit color depth anyway). However, for two reasons, real world performance of the V2 was usually noticeably better than that of the G200:

1) At the time, still almost all games were available in special Glide versions, which usually made them look and perform better (at that time, I have to repeat). Not to mention the 3DNow! optimized Quake II driver for Voodoo2, no TNT could ever cope with that!

2) Multitexturing, as mentioned above. As soon as a game was using two textures per pixel instead of one, the G200s performance was simply cut by a factor of two.

And when the G200 came out, prices for the Voodoo 2 had already dropped to about the same level, at least here in Germany.

As a christmas present, I provided my younger brother with a G200 8MB and a Voodoo2 12MB last year. On a Duron 800 machine, this (now) el-cheapo setup is a truely great combo. And it's giving him the individual choice of cards for any game.

--E<:|


[This message has been edited by harkpabst_meliantrop (edited 15 May 2001).]