Indecisiveness

[pchoi]

I would say go for the GF2 MX. The image quality on my MX, compared to my old G400 is almost identical. The colors were a bit faded but after playing with the gamma I couldn't tell I was running a MX or G400.

I also play this 2D DirectX game called SubSpace and I ran it at 1600x1200 @ 75hz with my G400 and I got 275 FPS, but with the nvidia card I got 390 FPS. There's probably nothing wrong with the 2D core. However switching to 1280x1024 on the desktop was another story, the text was kind of fuzzy - but thankfully I don't have those conditions I don't have to worry about it, but you might.

In 3D acceleration the MX will clearly blow the G400 out of the water. Also it's a 1 year old card, you shouldn't pay for old technology. The MX is just a crippled GTS so if you think about it that way, the MX is a steal.

Oh whoever posted that thing about the GF2's taking a lot of power... No card takes more power than a Voodoo5 (35W, 70W for Voodoo6) and there's no such problem with any card "drawing" too much power unless you overclock it. The GTS draws 10W, MX draws 4W, and the G400 will probably equal the GTS power consumption or be a little below it.

This is just all my humble opinion, feel free to make your decision

[This message has been edited by pchoi (edited 05 October 2000).]

[Dalbregor]

Drat. Now you've confused me ;-)

The MX did sound good initially, but the mediocre twinview put me off a bit.

Sharp text is essential for me, unfortunately. I'm running my desktop in 1280x1024 and it's adequate (barely). Only reason I'm not going higher is because above that it gives me a headache if a read for a long time ;-)

Which card do you have, btw? I have heard that the components the manufacturer uses is the deciding factor in image quality (particularly with nVidia's chipsets) . . .

[Rags]

Dalbregor,

I wouldn't put much faith in what pchoi has to say about his G400, he can't even get it set up properly.

As far as visual quality goes for crisp text at high resolution, and having a display that is easy on the eyes, you can't get better than the G400/G450. End of story. I don't care what pchoi says about his MX, I have had two different ones, and both fail in my eyes, and I am very sensitive when it comes to displays that are not up to snuff. The online editors all agree, the printed reviews agree. The G400/G450 are THE best, if 2D quality is what you are after.

I used my G400 for many months doing programming and database setup. The dualhead and visual quality were a boon. Now I have a G450, and the qualities are still there, if not a tad better.

Rags

[Opus]

One thing we are overlooking with regards to the relative image quality of the Matrox and MX cards is Dalbregor's current and future setup. We all know that any gains by a state-of-the-art professional grfx card can be wasted on an el-cheapo dodgy monitor or unsuitable resolutions/refresh rates, gamma, etc (note: I'm not say that yours is!).

Dalbregor has a TNT2 on a 19" and is currently happy (?) running it at 1280x1024. A lot of early comments on TNT2 cards didn't rate their image quality very high either when compared to matrox cards. So by moving to a MX2 will you only really notice a increase in frame rates? Do you plan to run the new card at higher resolutions? Does your monitor get good reviews?

The G400/Max will probably be the card for you but what would be ideal is to find a (very) helpful high street computer supplier who will allow you to carry out a test of your shortlisted cards on the same monitor model.

As to the MX cards, different manufacturers, Leadtek, Elsa, etc do have different component specs so check out reviews on ability to o/c etc if you decide on one of these.

"Aiee! Choices!" is right

Cheers

[Dalbregor]

Hmm. Good points . . .
The monitor is an Auriga 19D, 19" flatscreen monitor (apparently uses a trinitron tube).
Goes up to 75 kHz at 1600x1200. Good monitor overall.
Can't remember the dotpitch offhand. Either .26 or .28. Bleah.
I'd rather be able to run in 1600x1200 without damaging my eyes though ;-)

I do plan to run my monitor in higher resolutions. The monitor has managed some very good reviews.
Some more info on it is available at: http://www.akatech.com.au/brochures/...riga%2019d.asp

Hmm. One of my friends has a G400 MAX, one has a Geforce 2 GTS, one has a Voodoo 5500. LAN party time! ;-)
Shame everyone lives so far away. Oh well.

[Delany]

Dalbregor,

If you really want a MAX, have a look at Cougar Computers in Canberra, they currently have a used MAX for $396 + freight/postage.

I've got a MAX and have it connected to a SONY Multiscan 200ES 17" and it really looks nice...

Here's the URL
Cougar Computers

------------------
Gigabyte GA686BX, 128MB PC100 Ram, Millenium G400 MAX, SONY Multiscan 200ES 17" monitor, Creative Labs SBLive!, Netgear FA310TX, AOpen DVD-1040 Pro Drive, Imation LS120, 5.2 & 12.7GB Quantum HD's, Everything being driven by WinME...

Bored Yet?

[Wishbone]

I've had a look around at other Australian sites and by far the price that Delany has quoted is the cheapest - by at least $100.

[Dalbregor]

Well, I can get a MAX for $425 new (that's cost+GST, no markup). Probably a better way to go ;-)

[Ashley]

Ummm, since in your neck of the woods a new Max carries such a high premium over a used vanilla DH, it may help your decision to know that both cards have the *same* DAC, since there is only one G400 chip. It is the different BIOS on the vanilla - not the hardware itself - that limits the max. speed to 300MHz, but that only affects software - like PowerDesk - that respects the BIOS.

[Greebe]

Ashley, I suppose you ment 200 instead of 300.

The G400 vanilla is set to 166 MCLK and the Max is at 200mHz. Also there is a difference in memory chips used, the vanilla's have 6ns mem and the Max has 5's.

[Ashley]

No Greebe - I was talking about the RAMDAC, not the memory speed. The cards have different memory, so that difference is real, and hardware related, not just a BIOS difference.

[Pace]

19" Flatscreen monitor

Good match for a Matrox.

read an awful lot of text

That says Matrox to me!

a lot of 3d modelling/rendering

Yup - did I say Matrox?

fair bit of web design

I'd go Matrox myself

graphics work

Matrox?

very readable text at high resolution

Matrox!

multi-monitor support

Ok - that screams Matrox at me!

good 3d acceleration...

Aaargghhh! It's deafining: Matrox! Matrox! Matrox!

for tomorrow's games.

Doh! Well the G400 is a year old and still holds it's own but what do you mean by good? I'd like 1024x768 with 32bit and everything in games. Recent games like Voyager are struggling on my system (maybe because I'm running IIS however) and would probably be pushing the G400 to the max (sorry - ). G800 sounds like your ideal solution (mine too) but if you want the card now then get the G450. Note that the G400 Max is not all that far ahead of the G450 in relative terms - they all get hammered in FPS by NVIDIA's latest generation (I count generation as TNT to GF2 btw - none of NVIDIA's half-n-half upgrades).

keeping my TNT2 to drive the second monitor

And finally - note that you will need one card to be PCI for this option! Unless your TNT2 is then I'd strongly not recommend buying a PCI NVIDIA card. 3dfx cards have ok quality and Voodoo 4/5 PCI could do a turn here - but from most of the points in your post (well, all but one and even then... ) I'd go G450 (or Max if you really need another few FPS).

Hope this helps,

Paul.

------------------
Pace3000 Network: (early stages)
Arena | Seti | P3K | TechSupport | Portal
Matrox Users / SETI@MURC
Join the team! | Crunch faster! | View the stats!

Edit: got all the UBB right in the post too and forgot to put in all the quotes!

[This message has been edited by Pace (edited 06 October 2000).]

[pchoi]

Dalbregor, you don't have to listen to what I say but then think about it this way:

All I know is what works best for me, and if that is a nvidia card then so be it. Hell if BitBoys came out with a kickass card then that is what I would use. Keep in mind you are asking in a Matrox forum so you are going to get biased answers regarldess of what anyone says.

If a card can't be setup by simply plugging it into the AGP slot, and installing the drivers that came off the CD, then I don't waste my time with it. I want to USE the card, not babysit it with endless registry hacks and tweaks to my system.

If you want a relatively unbiased opinion, I suggest you check out the forums at Anandtech (http://forums.anandtech.com/), it is not a site for Matrox fans and there are people there who use 3dfx, ATI, Nvidia, and yes even Matrox. Asking here, you are bound to get a majority of people pushing Matrox, after all, everyone here has one.

I used to run a G400, now I run a GF2 MX. I'm waiting for the *real* G800 specs to come out and see if they are to my liking Nvidia is good but try convincing your supervisor that you REALLY need a GeForce to do your work Heck I have a hard time convincing them of letting me put my G400 into the workstation at the office (unsupported hardware) they call it. Stupid ATI POS!!!

Again my point is to say that to get a good unbiased opinion here is impossible. I'm not saying Matrox is bad (I like my G400 a *lot* when it doesn't crap out on me!). You would do much better to ask in general hardware forums such as the one I suggesed above.

Hope you make an informed decision


[This message has been edited by pchoi (edited 06 October 2000).]

[Dalbregor]

Thanks for pointing me at that site. Interesting.

Did a search in the video forum for "image quality", and came out with basically the same opinions as people have been responding with here:

At or below 1024x768, most current cards look pretty much the same.
The G400 is king of image quality above that.
ATI Radeon is pretty close.
The Voodoo cards are next.
The nVidia cards are at the bottom, but it depends a lot on the individual cards.

Bear in mind that this is only above 1024x768, and seems to depend very much on the monitor size/quality and what the person does with the monitor.

Several people said they couldn't tell the difference between card X and card Y at 1024x768 for image quality, but that's neither here nor there ;-).

There's absolutely no doubt that the G400 is kind of 2d. Just a question of whether another card would be indistinguishable in quality for the purposes I'm going to be putting it to.

Also, most people posting on general hardware sites seem to be 3d speed-junkies ;-)

Overall I'm impressed with the balanced views put forth by people here. Yeah, they recommend the Matrox cards, and they're biased to an extent, but if they have similar uses for the cards to me, their opinions are probably worth more to me than the 3d fanatics.

Plus everyone's saying basically the same thing ;-)

[pchoi]

Glad you found the site useful, I usually go there to avoid all the hype and bigotry. They are all speed junkies actually There are some other decent forums out there but none as comprehensive as the Anand Forums.

I agree, it seems like everyone is saying the same thing, since how many video cards are there actually worth getting? GF2, V5, Radeon and Gx00's. You'll end up picking one and you should be happy with that choice, not what some other person thinks about what YOU should have in your system.

BTW I just picked up those vibrating Logitech mouses, pretty nifty but I'll need a couple days to see if it suits me... gotta turn down the vibration power tho, at high power I can barely control the cursor

Make your own choices!