G400 review

[dsp]

Yeah I know that its old news but I thought I would write an article on the G400 for my first attempt at writing a review. So any criticisms are welcome and if you think it would be good enough to put on MURC let me know.

The page is here www.dsp.shawbiz.ca

Thanks again for any comments.

dsp

[X-Caliber]

Not a bad review, but in the future you need to make more comparisons with other video cards. I know, its tough to get several different video cards from different manufacturers, you need good resources and strong connections.

-X-

[orangejulius]

DSP

Nice clean HTML.

Two suggestions.

1. Navigation:

You may wish to provide either:
- an index, so people can easily navigate your ten-page review, OR
- one long page, like <a href="http://www.dansdata.com/ltgf2.htm">Dan does it</a>.


2. Benchmarks:

You don't _have_ to include them.

If you do, please provide an detailed analysis of _why_
each benchmark came out the way it did. <a href="http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?section=news&AID=RWT050101101609">Dean Kent</a> explains:

... Most people just do not see these benchmarks as what they are – tools for measuring specific things. If you don’t really know what a particular tool is measuring, how can you use it effectively? I may be able to tell that system A is faster than system B, but the real question is why is it faster, and will that affect me?

Right now, most publications put a lot of weight in game benchmarks, and while there is a significant population of gamers, these are by no means the most important applications for the vast majority of PC users – particularly those who use their computers in a professional capacity. If a system runs Quake twice as fast as another, what does that mean to someone who doesn’t play Quake? What other applications have the same resource usage that Quake does? Unless the benchmarks use your applications, in the way that you use them, or there is a way to directly correlate the usage to the application you use, the results are only an approximation of what you will see at best. When those results are within 10% of each other, with a margin of error of 3% to 5%, and they are simply an approximation of what you will see in your usage… what can you conclude? Certainly not that A is ‘clearly better’ or ‘substantially faster’ than B.

[dsp]

Thanks to all who have read it so far.

Orangejulius, I didn't put in any major index page because I was hoping to put it on another (actual) review site. Thanks for that link to Benchmarking, it was very helpfull.

Thanks again.

dsp

[albatorsk]

Just a tiny factual error..

"Matrox's first attempt at the 3D gaming world was the Matrox M3D"

Nope, the Mystique was. The Millennium had 3D functions too, but the Mystique was the first card targetted at gamers.

[dsp]

albatorsk,

Thanks for that I'll change that right away.

dsp