Matrox 3D = poor visual quality?

[Strider]

OK, this is something I wanted to address for a long time.
Matrox is generaly not a performance leader when it comes to raw speed. Ask MURC faithful and they tell you it is features and visual quality that make the Matrox card stand out.

I aggree to point. I can't see my self without Dual Head, and the speed/quality of 2D is by all accounts top notch. But does the same hold for 3D? While I have seen people raise concerns over the OpenGL wrt professional apps, I will limit this 3D games.

The number of instances where is Matrox visuals are less than stellar is very large. Half-Life perhaps being the biggest one. Flickering textures and "see through walls" in UT (and no this is not a "feature"). Reports of similar problems and z-buffer issues in other games, blurring in Q3A, and so on.

While the colours, and for the most part detail, look great, I can't see anyone calling the 3d visual quality top notch given all the strange texture problems. Does the competion exhibit the same problems? Do Voodoo5 and the new Nvidia cards look worse than G400 (assuming one uses equal resolution, 32 bit colour and no texture compression or FSAA)?

Why are we concerned about EMBM, pixel shaders, and more polys if can't make the current games look right? The benefits of FSAA and texture compression in FPS games may be debatable, but the fact is textures and lights that flicker in and out of exitance as I approach a wall are very noticable and atleast by my definition poor visual quality.

Matrox can't claim speed when it comes to 3D, can they realy clain top visuals?

[Guru]

Here we go again! Joel pleas close this thread! Matrox rulez! Matrox has the best looking 3d graphics! Why do you compare g400 to v5? How can one even think of comparing the 2?

------------------
Join the MURC SETI team! | SETI @ MURC

[Joel]

And what drivers are you using? Most of what you have mentioned has been fixed in the latest drivers. And I don't think all the reviewers can be wrong when they say that even though the Matrox cards may not be the fastest they do have the best visual quality.

Joel

[Nuno]

I find most amusing that every graphical glitches on a game is Matrox fault.
Let´s see:
Half-Life: Flickering textures? What flickering textures? Or you have a faulty config, or you are overclocking too much, or you are using something like 5.13 drivers for Win9x (the ones when the G400 was released?) that I remembember having that bug or you´re using TurboGl with 6.x drivers wich is not recomended and gives some graphical glitches. The 6.x ICD has about the same performance as the TGL, so using TGL is pointless.

UT: FOR THE 10000000TH TIME, THAT WAS A UT D3D BUG THAT WAS CORRECTED WITH 4.28 PATCH. UT only worked properly in D3D with a card supporting a W-buffer, that the G400 doesn´t have (and doesn´t need to).

Q3: What blurring? I have Q3 and can´t see any blurring. The image is crisp and vibrant. You should see the sky that Ge-forces render with S3TC enabled, and you´d see real blurriness..

[Pace]

Hehe, excellent!

OK, this is something I wanted to address for a long time.
Matrox is generaly not a performance leader when it comes to raw speed. Ask MURC faithful and they tell you it is features and visual quality that make the Matrox card stand out.

Well if you've been here a long time you should know better! The G400 was a performance leader at the time in everything now it just isn't the leader in Quake3/UT. So...?

Paul.

------------------
Pace3000 Network: (early stages)
Arena | Seti | P3K | TechSupport | Portal
Matrox Users / SETI@MURC
Join the team! | Crunch faster! | View the stats!

[Chris B]

A philosophical question:

If someone bad-mouths a Matrox card and nobody cares..... does he really make a post ? (or sound)



[This message has been edited by Chris B (edited 03 October 2000).]

[Strider]

Guru, its rather difficult to tell if you are being sarcastic or not (the Matrox rulez everything else sux kind of mentality is rather childish). Secondly, why the hell should Joel close down this thread? Its in the Soap Box where it belongs. Just because you or Joel might not aggree with my opion doesn't give you any right to censorship.

Pace..
yes the G400Max was very competive with TnT2U at the time of the release. But ofcourse 6.0x drivers weren't around so there were visual glitches. Now that those glitches have been taken care of (for the most part), there are faster cards on the market (notice that I am not saying better performing).

Nuno....
I don't have HL, but I very clearly remember a lot of discussion regarding messed up visuals in that game. If that has been fixed with the latest drivers, then great! Of course that does imply that the previous drivers were not up to par. RE Q3, I am using TurboGL so that might be the problem. But remember, at one time this was the only serious option for playing Q3 at acceptable speeds. So how could the G400 been the visualy best card at this time?

Regarding the comparison to other cards, I know there are folks on these forums that use cards other than Matrox, I would like to know if they experienced the same sort of problems. If everyone is getting flashing texture in UT D3D, then the problem is obviously with the game. V5 supports 32 bit colour, detailed textures, etc. so why not compare to Matrox in terms of visual quality.

Those of you that believe there is nothing wrong in the world of 3D gaming, cruise on over to the games forum and check out the STV Elite Forces threads. Is this a game problem or is it unique to Matrox cards? Simply put, the game does not look as good as it should. Who is responsible, the designer, the graphics card, or the user who doesn't know how to to set up a system properly?

So lets take a tally, and please correct me if I'm wrong:

1) Half-life: fixed with new drivers; therefore this was a Matrox issue.
2) UT: fixed with patch; therefore game problem; Matrox works just fine thank you very much...
3) Q3A: no such problems in new drivers; Matrox OpenGL issue.
4) STV: cause unknown

[Alec]

OK, you´re talking about another kind of visual quality, DRIVER-RELATED.
I strongly affirm that as a piece of hardware, Matrox has the best "native" image quality to date. Every brand has driver flaws, and Matrox is no exception.

------------------
"I wish I was a witch...
...to shove my broomstick right up your *ss."

Intel Atlanta LX 66Mhz @ 72Mhz bus (Bios 14)
Intel Celeron 433Mhz @ 468Mhz
Hyundai 128Mb SDRAM PC100
Western Digital Caviar 4.3 Gb UDMA
Creative Soundblaster PCI128 (driver revision 2)
Matrox Millennium G400 SH 16Mb SGRAM @147Mhz/196Mhz + attached fan (Powerdesk 6.04)
Genius desktop speakers + subwoofer
Microsoft Optical Intellimouse
Microsoft Sidewinder Frrestyle Pro gamepad (USB)
Standard keyboard
Standard FDD

Windows 98 4.10.1998
IE 5.5
DirectX 7a

[This message has been edited by Alec (edited 03 October 2000).]

[Strider]

Chris B.,

apparently people cared enough to post, so I guess I did make a sound.

BTW, I don't see my self as bad-mouthing a Matrox card. I am simply questioning an issue (please notice that the subject of this thread is not a statement).

My concern is that Matrox may one day soon no longer be the stand alone leader in 3D visual quality. And since their focus doesn't appear to be flat out speed and power, where would that leave them? The competition currently has every feature but DH and the above mentioned visual quality. If they lose that, all that is left is DH, and I already have a DH card which would serve me very nicely in a work system.

[Strider]

Alec, that's an excellent point. But if the software fails to deliver what the hardware is capable of, we are not getting the most out of our systems. I can understand the driver issues with Ati (who apparently don't give a damn), or Nvidia who are on crazy development cycle, but why Matrox? So does matrox have the best visual quality potential, and the acctual results vary with driver and software?

[Nuno]

Strider: your problem is using TurboGl. DON´T use it with 6.x drivers.

[Guru]

Strider I just mean that we have had so many threds like this already! If you want to talk abaut bad driver and poor visual quality I sugest you(not you personaly ) go visit a Gfart forum!

------------------
Join the MURC SETI team! | SETI @ MURC

[Strider]

Nuno, I am using the 5.5 driver set. Works well but TurboGL was required for decent Q3 performance (and less visual problems than the ICD included in that driver set). I will be reformatting the system in the near future and will use the newest drivers.

[Joel]

Why don't you go ahead and upgrade to the latest drivers now? Why wait? You can always go back to what you have now if you don't like it.

My concern is that Matrox may one day soon no longer be the stand alone leader in 3D visual quality. And since their focus doesn't appear to be flat out speed and power, where would that leave them?

That leaves them with their OEM deals, which is their mainstay anyway, and most of them could care less about how many fps you get in Q3. What they look for is a high quality product at a reasonable price with the most features available. And that is where the Matrox cards will always win out.

Joel

BTW: All graphics cards have their share of problems. Just vist some of the other forums out there and you will see what I mean.

[Dilitante1]

how does that go?...........oh yeah....


BBQ TIME