Sorry Guys here is a link..ATI Rage over the G400

[ronnie]

Ain't that the sh*ts http://www.anandtech.com/reviews/vid...00/Image12.gif

[Maggi]

not really ...
[*] they use a Celeron 333A[*] the review must be very old, because they still have a Voodoo2 in that list[*] they used an old PowerDesk



is more recent ...

Cheers,
Maggi

[Corwin_Brute]

Oh, nice, the troll is back...
First, I'd like to credit you for your intensive research. Digging up to May 1999 to find ONE benchmark where the Rage Fury would beat the G400 implies :
a) that you really have something against the G400
b) that you have too much time on your hand

In one year, the G400 drivers have constantly matured, and todays it performs very well in OpenGL. In fact, the only manufacturer who doesn't seem to be able to improve its drivers in one year is... ATI (now that S3 is out, that is).

Besides, the G400 is CPU-dependant, and so a Celeron 333 is perhaps not the best machine to benchmark it... Could we have results on a P3-500 ?

Now, please... go away, troll !

------------------
Corwin the Brute

[Maggi]

temper Corwin ...

such a debate can give you tons of humour, you know.

Unfortunately I seem to have missed part 1 (that you seem to be refering to), but I guess it was pretty darn hot in there ...

Cheese !
Maggi

[Jorden]

Do some digging around in the archives... errr backposts Maggi and you'll find Kruzin's big lock hanging from ATI Rage kills this G400. That was part 1.

Part 2 was deleted as soon as it hit the server...

And here's part 3.

I still want my Furry Max though

Jord.

[ronnie]

Now you see ?? Back to my very first post
"ATI Kills G400" I said on my system on my system, what part do you all don't get? And I'll stick with my words any say the ATI Rage Fury is faster on my system than the G400 was. I've heard from IRC that this group was
a pretty much bunch of mad and upset folks..heheheh I guess I would be too if I paid over 100.00 for a $60.00 card. Oh one more link you all might want to see. http://www.pcpitstop.com/trends.asp
Go down to where it says..Video Display Driver Vendors Matrox 6% , ATI 26%
heheh this the sh*ts

[Jord]

[This message has been edited by Jord (edited 09 May 2000).]

[Maggi]

Thx 4 the link, Jord ...

Now I remember that one.

...

Hey Ronnie,

true, you got a point by saying the ATI would run faster than a G400 on your system.

BUT: Don't you think that we also got a valid point by mentioning the (obvious) possibility that something in your setup/config/drivers/whatever might be wrong ?

Seriously, how long did it take you to dig out that review ?

Any recent (or at least no too old) review shows how strong the G400 still is compared to newer cards.

What was you purpose you this kinda posting anyway ?

L8r,
Maggi

[Corwin_Brute]

Ok, ok, let's calm.
You know, Ronnie, I was a Rage Fury owner. I bought it for 1240FF (about 200$ at this time), and it was worth about 40$, the price of a video card which could only do 2D (both OpenGL and D3D drivers were unstable to say the least).
Now, about the benchmark you quote in this very thread, it is not running on your system, right ? It is, as I said, a carefully picked example of a situation (slow CPU, old drivers, OpenGL app) where the Rage 128 is indeed faster than the G400. Right.
What is slowly getting on my nerves is :
- although you fill your posts with claims like "it is so on my system", your headers don't say so (Kruzin, is it possible to rename this thread to : Sorry Guys here is a link..ATI Rage over the G400 on a Celeron 333, OpenGL, powerdesk 5.13 beta?).
- If it is so on your system, fine, and please leave us alone. Go to http://www.rageunderground.com and see what ATI owners think of their card. I think you will be surprised...
- Last, insulting users on this forum will simply lead more people to become very angry with you. So, you will be justified in your comments.


------------------
Corwin the Brute

[This message has been edited by Corwin_Brute (edited 09 May 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Corwin_Brute (edited 09 May 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Corwin_Brute (edited 09 May 2000).]

[Maggi]

nice one, Corwin ...

[Jord]

Corwin, I'd check that thread... either it's the comma, but even without it it's giving a 404 page not found error.

[This message has been edited by Jord (edited 09 May 2000).]

[ronnie]

Jord is that threat?? Anyway Log all you want
my stuff is on cd, so if thats what you want then by all means bring is on..

[Maggi]

Hey Ronnie,

nothing to say about my reply ?

[Jord]

All your stuff is on cd?? Then how does your PC run?? Or do you have an E.Go? (Notice the dot inbetween, please?)

Maybe that's why this 'inferior' G400 runs so
slowly... you're using drivers directly from cd, and the loading of the difficult and essential parts of these drivers takes time, hence your problems.

ATi drivers aren't that much (if he can flame, we can flame back, right?), so they're easily loaded from cd into the memory. Therefor they seem to be faster.

Have you tried to install Windows and the drivers on your harddrive? It might work faster.

Jord.

[This message has been edited by Jord (edited 09 May 2000).]

[ronnie]

Hmm, Why there must be something wrong?
I have many other links to show you all, but whats the point? If you're happy with your G400 ..hey thats great, I just get tired of all the BS about the picture quality of matrox..IMO that is a cover up for the poor
performance in 3D. ATI was just as good as the G400 in picture quality , if you used the latest drivers.
Oh by the way the cards I have on the buy and sell or both gone..now I'm stuck with 6 G400s