Geforce 2 VS G400

[DosFreak]

These cards can not be really compared because they are so many generations apart. This thread is to show the benefits of upgrading from a G400 to a Geforce 2 for gaming.

Coolercase "Extreme-XS" w/ 431W PSU
2XP3-700E@933 v1.75 133Mhz bus X 7 1/4
2X Alpha FC-PAL6035MUC Heatsinks
Abit VP6
4X128m=512M Mushkin Rev3 @HCLK+PCICLK
Hercules 3D Prophet 2 GTS 64M 220C/360M Bios v3.15.00.12
PCI2/SoundBlaster Live! DE 5.1
PCI3/Creative Dxr3 Decoder (Going to be a H+)
PCI4/Hauppauge WinTV Theatre
PCI5/NetGear FA310TX
Floppy 3.5"
PMIDE1/Maxtor 27.2G DMA/66 92732U8 (Thinking about 1 more 45GB HD!)
SMIDE2/Pioneer 16X Slot DVD-105F
SSIDE2/Ricoh MP7040A@7060A 6X4X24 CDRW (Soon to be Plextor 12/10/32A)
PMIDE3/IBM 75GXP 45GB DMA/100
PMIDE4/IBM 75GXP 45GB DMA/100
Windows 2000 Professional Slipstreamed SP1
Nvidia 6.62 Drivers
Directx 8
Via 4.27 AGP & INF (NO BUSMASTER!!!)


Geforce 2 GTS 64M/Matrox G400

3DMARK 2000 v1.1

1024X768 32bc 32bt 24bz Triple Frame Buffer (32bz for G400)

P3

3DMARKS=4871/2272

Helicopter
Low =92.8/42.7
Med =64.9/30.4
High=35.3/13.4

Adventure
Low =`109.7/38.4
Med = 64.2/35.2
High= 39.1/29.3

SOFTWARE T&L

3DMARKS=3670/2228

HELICOPTER
Low =66.9/42.9
Med =45.9/30.5
High=24.5/13.2

Adventure
Low =90.8/38.4
Med =49.2/35.0
High=28.4/25.7

Q3 v1.27h
Demo127

q3config.cfg deleted. ONLY changed resolution on start of Quake 3.

NO SMP

320X240 =110.1/85.7
400X300 =109.6/81.3
512X384 =109.2/83.1
640X480 =109.5/73.9
800X600 =105.5/53.0
1024X768= 92.8/34.1

SMP

320X240 =131.9/100.9
400X300 =130.5/ 90.8
512X384 =129.9/ 75.7
640X480 =126.9/ 59.8
800X600 =115.5/ 44.7
1024X768= 87.0/ 30.5

Everything in resolution menu MAXED out.

NO SMP

320X240 =110.0/85.7
400X300 =109.8/80.6
512X384 =109.4/77.3
640X480 =103.9/57.8
800X600 =103.1/39.8
1024X768= 82.4/25.6

SMP

320X240 =132.2/91.6
400X300 =130.7/78.7
512X384 =129.2/62.5
640X480 =123.7/48.0
800X600 =104.3/35.2
1024X768= 73.9/23.7

Geforce 2 GTS 64M in 2X FSAA/G400

2X FSAA

q3config.cfg deleted. ONLY changed resolution on start of Quake 3.

NO SMP

320X240 =109.8/85.7
400X300 =105.9/81.3
512X384 = 87.5/83.1
640X480 = 62.7/73.9
800X600 = 41.8/53.0
1024X768= 26.1/34.1

SMP

320X240 =129.0/100.9
400X300 =110.0/90.8
512X384 = 78.0/75.7
640X480 = 56.8/59.8
800X600 = 39.0/44.7
1024X768= 25.1/30.5


Everything in resolution menu MAXED out.

NO SMP

320X240 =110.5/85.7
400X300 =102.2/80.6
512X384 = 76.1/77.3
640X480 = 53.6/57.8
800X600 = 36.2/39.8
1024X768= 23.1/25.6

SMP

320X240 =123.2/91.6
400X300 = 94.8/78.7
512X384 = 67.5/62.5
640X480 = 49.1/48.0
800X600 = 34.2/35.2
1024X768= 22.3/23.7


1. Had to turn off 32b textures for G400. Rainbow textures. Weird slowdowns.

Unreal Tournament
Morpehus Practice Map. 16 bots.
57fps,29fpsFSAA/24fps

1. Could not use latest opengl from Epic or opengl from LOKI without problems. Went back to 4.36 opengl. Experienced same rainbow textures as in Quake 3. Gave up and went to D3D.
Couldn't use Directx 8 D3D.dll from Epic. Went to alternate D3D for 4.36. Ran fine but stuttered and precached.

[This message has been edited by DosFreak (edited 21 January 2001).]

[This message has been edited by DosFreak (edited 21 January 2001).]

[Himself]

I always thought of the G400 as an evolution of the G200, the basic 3D design seems similar just larger. If adding a few pipes doesn't count as a new 3D architecture then I don't really see how the G400 is all that new compared to a G200. Adding dual head is nice, but that's not really a new generational thing, at least in reference to 3D, just an addon like tv out in general.

[Jeff]

I put together a 1 GHz Pentium III machine last month and tested my G400 Max and new Hercules GF2 Pro 64m card. 3d marks went from around 3900 to 7200. I moved my Max to my work PC and now use the dual monitor stuff. I will replace my Hercules card whenever Matrox comes out with a new card.

JP

[Randy Simons]

sure the G400 borrowed a lot from the G200. I'm not into chip-design, but I don't think they just copy/pasted that pipeline.
And they added EMBM and stencil buffer, let's not forget that as well.

However, I agree with you that it is not so radically new. But what is nowadays? A complete redesign from scratch is too expensive and absurd: you don't have to reinvent the wheel.

[Randy Simons]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by DosFreak:
...they are so many generations apart</font>

Uhhu, just 1. Whatever NVidia calls e new "generation" isn't a generation in my book.

A new generation is a massive re-design or complete redesign of the chip. GeForce 1 could be called a new generation, but the GF2 is little more than a GF1 on steroids and some little features added.

G400 and Radeon are truely a new generation compared to the previous chips.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Couldn't use Directx 8 D3D.dll from Epic. Went to alternate D3D for 4.36. Ran fine but stuttered and precached.</font>

The standard 4.36 D3D runs fine on my G200. Who do all the extra work?
[edit]Ah, I C.. Dx8-thingies. Well it simply won't work here. Software all the way...[/edit]


[This message has been edited by Randy Simons (edited 21 January 2001).]

[Joel]

That's fine and dandy but if you are going to show benchmarks then you can't leave out one of the most important things. Machine specs.

Joel

[Topha]

The 400max has about 3100 marks in 3dmark2k, and the score has not much to do with gaming performance. while I admit the gf is faster, the difference in the quality is comparable to playing in 800x600 and 1024x786. while the lower resolution (being the gf) is faster, the higher reolution (matrox) is just nicer to play and still runs smooth.

[SCompRacer]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by Uppity:
Umm, silly question but what's SMP ?

Uppity</font>

SMP = Symmetric Multiprocessing. Uses microprocessors and an op system that works to balance workloads evenly among the processors.

[Uppity]

Umm, silly question but what's SMP ?

Uppity

[drzaius]

i could help but notice your crappy G400 scores, and that you overclocked your GF2 and not the G400.
with my setup: celeron 566@850 (8.5x100), Abit ZM6 and G400 32meg @170/190 i got 2550marks @1024x768x32
i don't see why you with a 133mhz bus and P3 power couldn't beat that if you too overclocked the G400.

------------------
Slow people as easy to pass, it's people who drive fast that are hard.

[DosFreak]

3D Prophet comes at 220/366. Latest bios downclocks it to Nvidia Reference 200/330 (They did that probably because of lock-ups on confined systems with little ventilatoion). My 3D Prophet runs fine at 220/366 running demos/benchmarks all day long.

I flashed the 3D Prophet with the latest Nvidia Reference bios and the G400 with the latest bios and use the latest drivers for both. Can't get much more fair than that can I?

[Helevitia]

hmmm....I disagree with what you are saying. I think one should upgrade to a Radeon as it has more advances features and much better picture quality. The speed of the Radeon is nearly as fast as the gf2 but you don't even need Radeon speeds to play games. Don't tell me the drivers are not mature as that is a bunch of hokie pokie.

Dave

[DentyCracker]

Yeah Dave as long as you aren't running win2k or a high end trinitron monitor, you'll be fine.

[Technoid]

Yes the GayFart is faster than the G400, it's proven beyond point!

BUT

I changed my G400 to a Geforce MX (70$ )
and while i have no problems with fuzzy or ghosting screens almost all games looks uglier.

And the only thing that got incredibly faster was 3DMark2K and Q3A

[DosFreak]

"and while i have no problems with fuzzy or ghosting screens almost all games looks uglier."

How so?