PDA

View Full Version : My Gainward Geforce3 finally arivved.



Galvin
3rd August 2001, 20:26
This card has very good 2D sharpness, just a tad worse than a G400, the cooling fan on it runs silent, matrox should learn from this seeing as there cooling fan on the G400max runs as loud as all hell :)

Very stable drivers, course I stay away from leaked drivers. All in all I am happy with it.

Now I need to think what to do with my G400 :)

Tom
3rd August 2001, 20:30
Galvin,

The 2D of the GF3 may be a tad worse than the G400,
but I would bet that the speed is a bit more than a tad higher!

:cool:

EvilDonnyboy
3rd August 2001, 22:46
Hmmm, gotta get me one of those. Where'd you get it from? I'd prefer to not get it online, if I can get it for a good price.

Greebe
3rd August 2001, 23:35
Galvin for you to claim it's 2D quality is just a s tad worse than a G400, may I ask what resolution and monitor make (specifically size) you're using to proclaim this?

Galvin
3rd August 2001, 23:48
Hitachi SuperScan 813 21"
Using 1024x768
Looks crystal clear at this res, looks better since I turned on the digital vibrance in the drivers.

Nuno
4th August 2001, 04:24
1024x768 on a 21??

How far from you is the monitor?

mdhome
4th August 2001, 05:27
Ramp it upto 1600*1200 (if possible) and let us know the results:-)

dZeus
4th August 2001, 06:16
... and compare it to a g400 at that res. as well :D

Joel
4th August 2001, 07:21
You would think that for more than $300.00 USD it would be able to have the best 2D quality available, true dual head capabilities, and not be known only for it's ability to run Q3 at frame rates that aren't really needed. After all the human eye can only process so many frames per sec anyway.

Joel ;)

Kosh Naranek
4th August 2001, 07:57
I'm sorry Joel but .... Q3 is a bad example, because Q3 freaks need high frame rates as do UT freaks ( UT that's me ).On the other hand I need only mention games like Giants, Max Payne etc.
to see where a 300$ GFX card comes in handy.

Sure dual-head is a nice thing but if you don't use it or don't need it then why pay extra for it ! I had a G400 Max and I never used my dualHead ... I don't have 2 monitors and I don't need two monitors.(I know that it could be used for watching TV ... but hey)

I liked my G400 max, but the truth is it can't cut it among the big boys anymore and 2D quality ... well I have no complaints my monitor is also crystal clear even in 1600 x 1200.
BTW it's a Philips Brilliance Trinitron-CRT 109P20.

As to 2D performance .... recent tests using 3DMax's built in 2D benchmark clearly shows, that the G4xx takes a serious beating compared to a Radeon and a GF2 GTS.

The G4xx is an execellent GFX card, but it simple can't compete against the new cards which comes out and by the looks of it the G550 dosen't seem to change that !

I have owned a Millenium, a G200 and a G400Max GFX card from Matrox .... but no more ! it's sad, but its time for me to move on !

( Actually I have already done that for a while now )

Tom
4th August 2001, 08:02
Originally posted by Joel
After all the human eye can only process so many frames per sec anyway.
The human eye can, in fact, tell the difference between
30 FPS and 60 FPS. It knows smooth gameplay when
it sees it.


The Human Eye (http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_3.html)

Kosh Naranek
4th August 2001, 09:03
About the eye thing .... I don't get that !

Why, you ask .... then ask yourself this : How many times a second does the light travel around the earth ?

30 times .. NO ... 60 times ... NO hmmmm , not even close as it is below 8 but above 6. (he he)

Which would give a frame rate less than 10 ! Which means we are seeing the world in less than 10 FPS ! I simply cannot understand this ! :confused:

But then again I could be totally wrong, becuase no one said that the movement of light around the earth pr. second has anything to with the rate of frames we see the world in. But if this is so how does this movement of light affect the framerate seen on a computer screen ... does it divide it by 7 or does it add 7 or does it subtract 7 FPS ? anyone ?

EvilDonnyboy
4th August 2001, 10:05
Light doesn't have to travel around the earth to reach your eyes. If your monitor is 2 feet from your face, the light only has to travel 2 feet. Not all around the world.

Kosh Naranek
4th August 2001, 10:13
of course not !

But how does world light affect FPS ?

(my guess is it doesn't, but you never know)

KvHagedorn
4th August 2001, 11:11
Kosh, that might be important if the Earth were dodging side to side trying to avoid your shock rifle, but as far as I can tell it pretty much maintains its stately orbital velocity and hardly ever changes directions..

;)

Joel
4th August 2001, 11:51
I'm sorry Joel but .... Q3 is a bad example, because Q3 freaks need high frame rates as do UT freaks ( UT that's me ).On the other hand I need only mention games like Giants, Max Payne etc. to see where a 300$ GFX card comes in handy.

Sure dual-head is a nice thing but if you don't use it or don't need it then why pay extra for it ! I had a G400 Max and I never used my dualHead ... I don't have 2 monitors and I don't need two monitors.(I know that it could be used for watching TV ... but hey)

See that is where the difference lies between you and I. I'm not a very big gamer and the G400MAX is more than capable with the games I do play at this time. I do play UT on-line sometimes and for me the G400MAX is still more than capable. I do use dual-head, for more than watching TV, so I am willing to spend that little extra. Plus I spend most of my time in the 2D area anyway so for me the graphics quality has to be the best that there is and that is where Matrox rules and will continue to rule.

Now all we need is for Matrox to match their superior image quality with the fastest 3D so we can end all these debates once and for all. ;)

Joel ;)

TnT
4th August 2001, 15:36
Well the good thing about having a lot more fps than your eye can percieve is when the action heats up. For instance if you have 60 fps and a bunch of explosions/effects go off and you drop 30 fps you will notice it more than if you had 100 fps and drop down to 70. I think most people will notice a change in fps, but I think it is less noticeable when the percent in change is lower.

Atleast that is what I notice playing on other people's computers, because with a G200 going from 20 fps to 5 fps is a HUGE difference :p

Rags
4th August 2001, 17:02
Yeah, minimum framerate is always more important to me than the peak or average for that matter. Remember that a G400 Max has a higher minimum framerate in UT than a GeForce SDRAM, I believe it to be the same situation in Q3A as well.

Rags

Galvin
5th August 2001, 17:12
Originally posted by mdhome
Ramp it upto 1600*1200 (if possible) and let us know the results:-)
I took it up to 1600*1200, yes didn't look quite as good. I didn't feel like reinstalling my G400. But I never go beyond 1024x768 so it's irrelvant to me. Its still readable at that res, just very small :)

If matrox releases something comparable next year i'll think of buying one again, for now my G400 will be my backup card incase something happens to my Geforce.

EvilDonnyboy
5th August 2001, 19:46
Rags, you got a G550 on your hands?

Your Avatar looks like a 3D Headcasting picture.

Snake-Eyes
6th August 2001, 12:53
Originally posted by Joel

Now all we need is for Matrox to match their superior image quality with the fastest 3D so we can end all these debates once and for all. ;)

Joel ;)

I may not always agree with the things I see you post Joel, but I can definitely say 'Amen!' to that one.