Matrox G800 vs. Nvidia's next card

[Borg]

Yap ! I agree !

[LAMFDTK]

"(but still plenty fast enough for any game, just like G400 is)"

fast enough in which resolution? With what bells and whistles? Fast enough? There is a new "crop" of games based on the Q3 engine that will choke the G400/Max at 1024 with bells on. I want to run at 1280 in 32bit with all the candy!! 1024 with large textures is too much for a G400/Max.

So it might be fast enough for you but I want more!!

[superfly]

I have to agree that,on certain games,the g400 is starting to show it's age and it's only going to get worse as time goes on,sure if you play counterstrike or UT,the card still plays those at a very acceptable speed,but what about games like elite force,b-17 flying fortress and many others that will be released within the next 2/3 months?,they all are way more demanding in terms of video card performance,is any one here,no matter how well the card has served in the past,going to play any of these games on less than visually pleasing settings in an effort to try to hold out for the G800 wich could take another six months to be released???.

[Borg]

dont forget that G400 is chip relesed in time with SAVAGE 4 ,TNT2/TNTU,ATI rage128GL & other , so where are these cards now & after over a year G400 is still interesting for revievs as I see the thing G400 is the only one left from the oldies..what do you want more ?...wait till G800 fusion/BLASTER/MEGA ULTRA SPEED BOOSTER or however ..or buy your self G-FORCE GTS2 128megs with CPU intelP41800 on FSB 400 & 15 gb ULTRA HIGH RUMBUS ...well mybe then the games would even run at 2280x2280 @ 2000FPS

[superfly]

Where did you see a matrox g400 review recently???,and yes,i actually do have a Geforce 2 64meg which is the best out there for gaming when all things are considered(performance,drivers,etc..),this of course doesn't mean that it's performance coudn't be better,it needs way more memory bandwith than it has,but even then no one should be blamed if they are moving from the matrox to a Gf2 as the performance difference is substantial to say the least when it comes to gaming(as it better be)and to be perfectly honest,even when Nvidia releases something even faster,i know that my existing card will haul *** on any game that will be released for at least another year if not more,i still have a g400 max in another system,it still works great and has the matrox visual quality that we all know and love,i just don't use it as much as i once did for gaming,that doesn't mean that it still can't be used for gaming if you're into games that are less video card demanding like older fps games(counterstrike,q2,ut),rts games(starcraft,diablo2,etc..),but i want a card that can handle anything for at least another year,and the G400 just won't be able to handle them at the settings i like to play.

[Joel]

Right here.

forums.murc.ws/ubb/Forum5/HTML/009211.html

Joel

[Himself]

I think NVIDIA is playing MS's game, copy all the features of the competition. Of course, other companies are trying to clone the GeForce so I think it all evens out. Which is a good thing, the sooner the better if you want support. If it's not good, nobody will copy it, look at it that way.

Imagine the G400 as the Amiga 500, and NVIDIA as a 486, Matrox had better do something more than a late A1200/A4000.

[superfly]

I saw the numbers that they acheived and for all intents and purposes,the only resolution that the card can still handle well is 800*600,and even then,on occasion it would be mandatory to turn off 32 bit color in order to have good frame rates,and that's with games available today,what about games tht will be released before the G800 is out and more importantly,will it have good drivers right off the bat???.

[Atilla]

I think if the specs are true the G800 will be much faster in 3D than the GTS.

250MHz DDR RAM clock (GF2: 166) -> This is very important, with this the G800 will be much faster!
T&L unit with 20-30 million polys/sec !
DualChip setup capability !!!

When will be the G800 available?!?! I just can't wait it.
I was always a Matrox fan, but if the G800 won't be available in THIS year, I will buy an other card. [Radeon II. or NV20]

[superfly]

Well...if we go by the rumors and assume that those specs are for real,a 250 mhz DDR equipped G800 would be about 35/40% faster than the average Geforce2 on games that stress memory bandwith.

I'm only coming to that conclusion if the G800 still uses traditional rendering methods(no HSR).

If we use Q3 as an example,the average(un-overclocked)Geforce2 scores about 30 fps at 1600*1200 32bit.

On a G800 that score would probably be very close to 45/50 fps at the same resolution and color depth.

This would be the minimum performance that i would expect from the G800 especially since it will probably be released at about the same time as Nvidia's new card.

If matrox chooses to have a dual chip version of the card with each chip having it's own memory bus,then Nvidia will get it's ass handed to them by matrox(one can dream... ).

The question is,how much is something that wicked going to cost????.

[DarkSyd]

Borg makes a good point in comparing the G400 to the Savage4 and TnT1/2. Likewise, my guess is the G800 will be on par with the GF2. Only problem is, it'll take another 12 months to get some decent drivers...and by then it really doesn't matter.
The only happy people will be Amiga users.

[Buback]

Matrox's main problem is that they are playing catch-up with nvidia.

Nvidia uses a 6 month dev cycle, and Matrox uses 12. so, to compeat, the g800 should have come out with the gf2, not the nv20, which will be out soon too. Nvidia will be using a 3rd rev tnl engine, while Matrox is using 1st rev.

i understand that matrox is all about quality and so a 12 month cycle is better for them, but they have to anticipate nvidia better to keep competetive.

Buback

[Joel]

'Matrox's main problem is that they are playing catch-up with nvidia.'

Matrox playing catch-up with nVidia???????

Maybe as far as speed goes but that's it.

Joel

Maybe I should say as far as frames per second goes.

[This message has been edited by Joel (edited 09 August 2000).]

[Kruzin]

Like Nvidia isn't playing catch up with Matrox in areas other than frames per second...

Let's see.
G400 had dualhead and EMBM.
And only a year and a couple months later, Nvidia comes out with "twin-view" and EMBM.

So who's playing catch-up here?

[Greebe]

Yah and they had to thieve to even do that!