nVidia TwinView

[dZeus]

From Tom's Hardware ( http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/...904/index.html ):

The TwinView feature promised to offer the similar functionality that Matrox users have been enjoying for some time now, but GeForce 2 MX has the advantage of offering much better 3D performance. I went into this roundup expecting just that and I was sadly mistaken. The TwinView property window (seen here) offers three modes: Standard Mode (TwinView disabled), Spanning Mode (virtual desktop) and Clone mode (same visuals on both outputs). I was hoping that with these three modes I would be able to do things like work on a spreadsheet for work while a DVD movie played on my second output or play my DVD movie on both outputs. I was denied in both cases.

When I enabled Spanning mode to use the second output for DVD playback, the DVD window was purple with no video. This was the case with ALL the cards in the roundup so it was not a limitation with the given output. VGA out or video-out, it still failed. If I dragged the video window back onto the CRT, the movie would be playing fine.

Immediately I was concerned and decided to test this in clone mode. This time things were actually worse as the program crashed when I started the DVD movie. I was annoyed to say the least. One of the best features of the card was failing in my eyes.

Please note that there were no problems with DVD playback on the secondary output when TwinView was not used. I'll address the quality of TwinView output with each card as the second video-output varies on each card.

I would also like to note that while TwinView had failed in my experiments, I had no problems installing a Matrox G400 and completing these tasks. Obviously the G400 isn't in the same class when it comes to 3D performance but its DualHead feature made me realize that TwinView has some growing up to do.


Seems like there still is a market for the G450... what do you think?

[Himself]

The same market it was targetted for to begin with sure. Matrox did well with 2D only cards, I'm sure that dual head only cards will sell to the same folks. That's what it has come down to it seems, a 3D card has TCL, if not it's like the old 2D vs 2D/3D combo cards of a few years ago.

[Joel]

Himself,

Maybe it's just too early in the morning for me but but WHAT????

Joel

[Rags]

The G400 worked fine for me. I played games with it every night, at the resolution/color depth I wanted/needed. Maybe when I get a larger monitor that I can play games at 1600, I will change my tune. But I don't see that happening until the likes of a G800 come along.

Rags

[Himself]

Joel,

Who do you think will buy a G450, someone into Quake 3 or someone who wants dual monitor support for work and general quality in 2D? The difference between a G400 and a G450 is that the G400 was good for it's time but is a year old. A G450 now isn't a new 3D card for the gaming market but a tool for the business market. The G450 is obviously not meant for gamers, maybe the G800 will be, I have no idea, I don't even know what a G800 is.

[Ant]

Well the G450 may have been intended as a businesss tool only but someone forgot to tell Matrox's marketing department that, the box boasts games prominently as do the flyers included in the G450 reviewers pack.

[Himself]

I don't think it will sell as a gamers card, not relative to a GeForce MX at $50 less. If that's what Matrox thinks gamers will buy, then I don't have much hope for the G800.

[Joel]

How much do you think the G450 is going to cost?

Joel

[Himself]

Last I read, $150+, an Inno3d 32MB GeForce MX costs $104 according to pricewatch. You can compare twin view cards to dual head cards if you like, but budget gamers would rather twice the frame rates with $50 left in their pockets, than an second view on a extra monitor they don't own in certain games they don't play, all IMO naturally. Even if the G450 were $100, I still think it would be the MX that the budget gamers would want. You also have to consider that they tend to have budget cpus as well as video cards, TCL does make a difference there.

Oh, the Kyro is on it's way apparently, that should make the $150 video card market that much more difficult for the G450 as a gamer card.
http://www.videologic.com/News/Video...mplexGames.htm

Gotta love the URL.

[DuRaNgO]

Himself,
do you think people who play games only play games?

did they say the card was only for games?

do you think professional people like to play games?

[edit]if a person wanted to work on a document while watching a DVD and then play a little UT when done, which card would he be better off with?[/edit]

[This message has been edited by DuRaNgO (edited 04 September 2000).]

[Rags]

I don't see the G450 being sported as a serious gamer's card. The only things on the box that have gaming on it, are captions that show uses of dual head and EMBM. The wording doesn't even touch hard core fps junkie style marketing. I believe they purposely avoided such wording for obvious reason. It's all about productivity, without losing some of the fun. Which is what this card and the G400 are all about. Fact is, most people out there would rather have a card with more features at a decent price, rather than go with just blazing fast rendering speed. The TwinView GeSpot won't touch the G450 as far as dual head goes (for now), and as far as price goes (I bet). Actually, I believe more people are concerned about cost overall above anything else.

Rags

[Himself]

Durango,

Do you think people with cards other than the G450 are incapable of doing work?
What would someone have to have to make a G450 a good upgrade option, and where have they been for the last year the the G400 has been out? Who are these working people who have cards like a TNT 1 or riva 128 or worse, like games, and who happen to have a second 17" monitor lying around?

Rags,

I agree, bang for buck, the G400 was great in it's day, that day has passed, the G450 is just a G400, it doesn't have the same zing. The competition is twice as fast to be generous and as blasphemous as it may seem they can actually use them outside of gaming.

Thing is, all the benefits are on Matrox's side, the thing costs less to make and it's integrated, maybe they will get more oem contracts. For the end user, a used G400 DH will cost less and do the same job. You can even buy a new G400 DH 16MB for $100, 32MB DH card for $127, if gaming speed isn't the missing ingredient, why pay more for a G450? Rarified flat panel support, that really goes well with a budget video card.

One place mentioned the latest news about the G450 and mentioned $170, you can get a MAX from Matrox directly for $186, what's up with that?

[Rags]

I guess we will have to wait and see what the pricing on the G450 is. I don't think it's an upgrade to a G400 for sure. I think this card is aimed squarely at the OEM market, and I believe it will be much cheaper than people think. To get DH for a good price, and I still think the number one reason for me to stick with Matrox is for DH, closely followed by great High resolution 2D. I won't argue gaming speed with you. Yes, there are many others out there that have faster rendering. This has been beat to death. The question lies in do we need the extra speed? Sure, if you want to play higher resolution, or for the future games out there. But for now, both the G400 and G450 serve me fine for what gaming I do. But I am best served by the DH feauture. I thought DH was a novelty item at first, but when I got the DH upgrade for my G400, I quickly found out how valuable it is. I cannot afford a huge assed monitor right now, but I do have a couple of older monitors sitting around, and I just plugged one of them in, and WOW! When doing coding, it's great, I don't have to cascade windows any longer, I can just tile the windows side by side (this is in win2k, btw), and I can have instant reference while typing, no longer do I have to touch the mouse when looking back at my previous code, notes, or quick tree. It's great. I think if more people used this, they would see how much easier it can make things. At night, if I want to let my daughter watch a DVD while I compile, or while I burn CD's, I just plug in the video out, check the dvd max box, pop the DVD in, minimize the player, and slicker than hell, she is watching her movie, and I am getting my work done. All I know is that I will NOT own another card unless it has this kind of functionality. I have become hooked on it, and don't see going back. Ever. It looks like TwinView or whatever they call it isn't all that good right now. Who knows, maybe with some driver work, they will polish it off. But, as I learned from Matrox, ATI, nVidia, and others, I don't trust these companies will polish anything unless you see it done, promises or no promises. Stuff happens, excuses get made. I do know that right now I am using the G450, and it suits me just fine. I have used other cards in the last two years. I have had two ATI's (a rage pro, and rage 128 AIW pro), a TNT, TNT2 Ultra, A V3 3000, a GeForce, and a GeForce DDR. And I still keep coming back to the DualHead. It's not because I am a fan, or a believer, or just plain stupid. I have priorities, and when it comes to computer equipment, gaming is down on the list, even further down the list is the "I got more fps than you in this bench" check box. Hey, if you think the G400/G450 is too slow for games, and you think that games are that important, then more power to you. That's you, not me. And I don't think the general public could care either, the only thing they look for is checkboxes marked off on lists, and pretty bar graphs in computer magazines.

Rags

[paulcs]

Boy, I think this has moved a bit beyond a discussion on the merits of different methods of multiple monitor support, and I detect some taunting.

If someone is enamoured this the GeForce2 MX or the Radeon, buy one and be done with it. I, by necessity, spend more time on forums devoted to non-Matrox products than I like. Frankly this is beginning to read a lot like posts from NVIDIA fans to 3dfx forums (and visa versa) to laud over the the faithful some real or imagined advantage.

The big difference here is that the antagonists can string together a coherent sentence.

I doubt anyone's mind is going to be changed in this thread. Therefore, I think the anti-Matrox posts are purely argumentative, and I'm not sure if it is relevant to this particular forum. Frankly, I'm pissed-off at myself for taking the bait on that Radeon thread in the Matrox Hardware Forum.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[This message has been edited by paulcs (edited 04 September 2000).]

[Himself]

Rags,

The key aspect of the G450 to me is the idea that it's in any way supposed to be a cheap gaming solution, sure a G400 with an Athlon 1GHz is going to be good enough for games, but for the low end cpus users TCL makes a larger impact, so I don't think gaming is the G450's strong suit for the market it's targetted at or that it is competitive as a gaming card. That's just my abstract perception of the market, a gut feeling in other words. I don't think Matrox really understands the gaming market, I mean PR statements like 40fps is good enough really don't seem to indicate that they do. It might be good enough for a flight sim or something, but that's about it. They seem to listen to MURC types, at least the beta boys perhaps they can get through to them, of course if they tell Matrox that they are always doing things right, perhaps that is why they don't understand the gaming market. Just a thought.

As for dual head, that's great, it's just not about gaming. EMBM is great too, it *is* about gaming, and I wish more titles would take advantage of it, flat walls in games bug me, I find all games look the same because of it, but of course other cards now support EMBM so the need for a Matrox card is less. Which is another factor for competition in the gaming market lost by the G450.

Paulcs,

I don't know why I bothered to keep replying to this thread myself, it seems like a pretty obvious point to me. I'm not trolling, I am replying to several people at once though, editing randomly, so I don't know what kind of tone is being perceived, it probably comes out as being all rushed and excited, which is not even close. I am just commenting on the video card market as I see it, btw, why is saying that the G450 is more a business card than a gaming card anti Matrox? dZeus brought the topic up asking for comments about the G450 market.

Just about any video card is good enough for me personally over a certain speed. But that's just me, I am not a gamer by any stretch of the imagination. I change video cards out of curiousity more than anything.

So, as for being a GeForce MX fan, or Radoen fan, nah, I'm not the fan type, I will probably buy a Kyro myself next time, just to support the idea of tiling. I'd talk about the G800 as readily and use that for comparisons, but there is nothing to talk about there. I know more about the BitBoys card that will never see the light of day outside of the patent office. I don't like to see gratuitous slamming of card x in card y forum, without anything but "I said so" behind it, true, but that's just a quirk of mine, it could as easily be Matrox I was defending. I also find rallying around a brandname rather silly, can't relate to it at all, sorry if I offended you.

I get the feeling that the G450 is just the best Matrox can come up with right now, so they are spinning it the best they can so they retain some of the image of being in the thick of things that the G400 gave them.