G400 TOMS HARDWARE(FAVORITISM)

[cnyb]

The problem is that we're yealous...
Tom gets paid (pretty good I guess) to talk bullshit... I can do that too, but there's no f***ing way I'm getting paid for it.
Ahhw, some people are lucky!

Anybody want to hear my TNT2 review? Oh, really?! How much do you got?

[This message has been edited by cnyb (edited 08-27-1999).]

[franksch3]

Tom Pabst seems to do everything to make the TNT2 shine. What strikes me as most suspicious is that the TNT2 Ultra (175 MHz)beats the G400 MAX in every resolution, while other reviews show otherwise. Secondly he is so lame to scale the graphs not from 0 fps but from much higher so that a 3 fps difference seems to be much more than it really is.

[franksch3]

Look here if you want to know what I mean:
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardwar...o/matrox_g400/

Here you will see that the plain G400 almost wins from the TNT2 Ultra at 175/183 MHz at 32 bit color. Big difference with Tom Pabsts benchmarks. And there are more sites where the plain G400 beats the TNT2 Ultra in 32 bit color.

[SteveC]

Who remembers when 3dfx was the one to have according to Tom?

Who's next? S3?

------------------
Cheers,
Steve

My PC houses one of these things which seems to affect some people's lives far too much...

[TonyA]

>I've got my >regular< G400 oc'd to 170/170

How did you get a regular G400 clocked up to 170? Did you get a reject Max?
Also how do you get a 170/170 clock? The memory always clocks higher on powerstrip which doesn't allow a 170/170 oc.

[M Ragsdale]

No, ATI.

[Storm2]

I got 170/170 using MGATweak, it allows you to set different multipliers, there isn't much difference between 170/170 and 150/200, except that 170 locks up sometimes, so i'm back at 150/200 =)
Maybe i could do 250/250 with a MAX and liquid nitrogen cooling

Hmm... how about:
Matrox G400 UltraMAX!

[This message has been edited by Storm2 (edited 08-27-1999).]

[M Ragsdale]

Let that be a lesson to everyone out there who thinks that increasing your core speed while leaving your memory speed alone gives you a performance increase. It just isn't true. With the larger textures that today's games use, you need to have that memory proportianately higher than your core clock. I imagine the only time you could possibly see an increase is when you turn all details off and run at a low res. then maybe you will see a difference, but it is unlikely.

Moral of the story: Leave your clock dividers alone.

Rags

[MrBlue]

I agree, tom is just an idiot in general. I usally get that slimy dirty feeling after reading one of his reviews....i just don't agree with what he says. Most of the time it is just his opinion, and i would rather listen to my own opinion than his. The only thing it is sometimes usefull for is to look at benchmarks. But i ignore all his commentary and make up my own mind.

[MikeMyers]

Hi,

Tom's site may not be Matrox's best haunt but come on some of those low resolutions scores are plain rediculous!!

Is the OpenGL driver from matrox so bad that they can't get anything under 1600x1200 to compete or what? Is Tom's site lying???

It seems to me as something really needs to be done by Matrox to show us that 640x480 is not been forgoten about. I wont be buying a Max no mater how good the image quality is at 1600x1200 for Quake 2/3 if 640x480 is left in such a state. Can someone verify or deny his sites claims? Does no-one care about low res and online gaming?

Is the G400 flawed for low res?

I have a 19" monitor I want to play in high res but I want maximum performance for low res online if I can.. If I can ever find a Max retail in the UK anyway

Image quality is great, but don't we want great image quality and performance? TNT2 at 90fps at 640x480 and G400 at 60fps?

something is wrong

Mike

[zero-in]

This post clearly shows the shallowness of your brain. Did you read the whole article, my friend? Don't jump into mindless conclusions beforehand.

If you were to read carefully, the rating given for the Matrox G400 is 9. Which is the highest rating so far for any given video card. Even TNT2 Ultras could only manage an 8.5.

Conclusion: Just compare the ratings. Full stop. Period. End of story.

Oops. I made a huge mistake. Thousand apologies to everyone out there. I got mixed up at which one is toms hardware and which one is Sharky Extreme. Violentg, just tell your cousin to check out SHarky Extreme.

[This message has been edited by zero-in (edited 08-28-1999).]

[Mondo]

I have both the G400 MAX and TNT2 Ultra, and here are my thoughts: The G400 matches up pretty well with the TNT2(The G400 is on a P3-600, the TNT2 on a 300A@450), except at low resolutions, but the G400's image quality is on a few orders of magnitude better than the TNT2. But I prefer the TNT2: more stable, and excellent NT drivers.

But using DualHead to output DVD's to the TV just f*cking rocks (For TV Out on TNT2's you need to change your res to 640x480).

[M Ragsdale]

zero,
Who are you talking to?

[franksch3]

I think he means me, but he also noticed that I meant that the sharky extreme review was a good one. And for some reason their scores look much more like the scores on every site, and at Tom's site the TNT2 Ultra always looks the fastest, no matter wheter it runs on a Athlon or a normal CPU.

[KvHagedorn]

to the new forum