View Full Version : Worth buying?

18th June 2001, 21:27
Hmm... I wonder if it's really worth buying. Feels like 3D performance won't improve much, and that you might be paying for features you'll never use. However, performance close to Geforce MX2 until they release their next gen card just might be enough.

[This message has been edited by Lopez (edited 19 June 2001).]

18th June 2001, 21:40
are we really talking about their next (next?) gen card when their real next card isn't really announced?


19th June 2001, 05:06
Heh.. from the specs, I doubt it can even compete with a GF2MX card.. it looks marginally faster than a MAX, and probably the same speed as a nicely overclocked MAX.

M drops the ball again

19th June 2001, 05:11
this card is neato for very narrow market but for most people who were looking for something to improve games I think the KyroII is a much better choice...only a 20%increase in performance over a g450!? that aint much http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/frown.gif and I was hoping the palette skinning would be programable but its only for headcasting @#$%!!
so it looks like we'll be waiting for the g800 AGAIN!!

MSI K7TPro2 Duron 750@900
512Ram G400DH32mb
Pioneer SCSI 16xDVD
msn messenger id: mkanashta

19th June 2001, 05:14
at least we trained waiting a lot and are finally very good at it...

we wait better than everybody else!


19th June 2001, 05:27
You're actually going to wait around for the non-existant "G800" ?

You'll probably be too old to see the monitor by the time M releases next-gen card with some 3D performance.

19th June 2001, 05:41
Ok, if this card doesn't perform LOTS better than my MAX i'm stepping away from matrox...

i use the dualhead-max feature alot, but since they even can't produce good PAL drivers for it i'll get an standalone dvd player...

Now next queston:
What card is nearest to matrox 2d quality wise and performs really good. I need good Tribes 2 performance...


19th June 2001, 05:58
your better off with an ATI or Nvidia for tribes2 the KyroII seems to have major problems with tribes2

MSI K7TPro2 Duron 750@900
512Ram G400DH32mb
Pioneer SCSI 16xDVD
msn messenger id: mkanashta

19th June 2001, 10:10
Besides, DVDs on my RadeonViVo look better than on my standalone DVD-player (CyberHome).

And: if this card isn't significantly higher clocked than the G450 it'll never be able to reach even the low GeforceMX speeds - it's two texture units won't help anything with a memory interface as crappy as this - oh my god, Matrox, what have you been doing?!? You've always had the BEST RAM available on your cards in the past when your development teams were not smoking crack or working for NVidia... How hard can it be to produce a slightly improved G400 core (4 render / 2 texture units), combine that with decent RAM (at least 128Bit DDR) and some kind of HSR/Z-Buffer-compression and you'd get GTS+ performance. Even Matrox should be able to do this.

[This message has been edited by Indiana (edited 19 June 2001).]

19th June 2001, 11:47
If all you are looking for is the fastest frame rates in first person shooters then no it probably won't be worth it.


typedef enum
19th June 2001, 23:09

I'm not just saying this because I'm from @ www.nvnews.net.... (http://www.nvnews.net....)

I just thought some of you that are obviouslyt disappointed in the G550 might like some advice on the alternatives.

Here @ home, I have a bunch of different cards...A Hercules GeForce GTS, a VisionTek GeForce3, a 3dfx 5500, and an ATI Radeon DDR.

This is the God's honest truth now...The 2D of this VisionTek is the best out of the entire lot. Now, let me also say this...I'm a hardware/software engineer, and take one guess what my workstation uses for a gfx. card...Yeah, the G400. I use it on a daily basis, and I would say it's every single bit as good as it.

The older nVidia stuff really did have crapy 2D quality...I have always maintained that. The 3dfx stuff had very good 2D, but you obviously don't want to buy anything from an outfit that is no longer...The Radeon is good 2D quality...Definitely above a GTS, but beneath my GF3.

Of course, you don't need me to tell you that the GF3 pretty much smokes everything/anything, as far as 3D stuff is concerned.

20th June 2001, 02:34
"If all you are looking for is the fastest frame rates in first person shooters then no it probably won't be worth it."

It's not so much that, rather if all you are looking for is any decent performance at all in first person shooters at a sensable resolution around the 1024x768 mark then it certainly wont be worth it.

20th June 2001, 05:52
Yeah, seriously. A card thats 20% faster than the G450 will just get up to the speed of a moderately overclocked G400MAX. Sorry, not gonna buy a "new" card that is over 2 years out of date in the 3D department.

Even for 'casual' gaming on newer stuff, it isn't gonna cut it, unless you like 800x600x16 gaming with half the features turned off. 64-bit ddr just sucks.. plain and simple.

20th June 2001, 12:25
To give non G400 owners some perspective....

When I owned a G400 I got 21fps in Quake 3 at 1024X768 with everything on. Now with my GF3 I get 112fps. I'll have to stick my G400 in my rig (I've changed ALOT of parts since then) to get more comparable results. But I doubt the scores will changes since the scores on the G400 are limited after 800X600.

Currently I'm running 60fps at 1600X1200.

*Now after playing at 1600X1200 and seeing how beautfiul everything looks it is VERY hard to force yourself to a lower res. So all of ya'll with G400's. DO NOT PLAY QUAKE 3 ON A BETTER VIDEO CARD. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif

Liquid Snake
20th June 2001, 15:51
Bah, your system sucks I got 29fps on my G400 @ 1024x768x32! http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif