If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I'm sure to be ripped on but here goes: As a user of both a G400 MAX and an GeForce 2 MX, I have no choice but to go with NVidia. I'd give the G400 a slight edge in 2D and overall visual quality but Matrox isn't even in the game when it comes to 3D performance. Everyone seems to like bashing NVidia but if you want to run games FAST at high resolutions the Radeon is the only card that competes with the GeForce 2, while Matrox isn't even a blip on the screen. I like Matrox quality but they are lagging big time. By the time the G800 sees the light of day the GeForce 3 and Radeon 2 will be out and Matrox will still be an also-ran. I do wish Matrox the best of luck in getting a kickass gaming card out but saying that Matrox is better than NVidia is like saying that an Honda is better than a BMW.
It's all where your priorities are. If you have to have the fastest 3D on the block, then nVidia has to be your choice. But I don't see rendering speed as the be-all end-all factor in purchasing a card for me
Heck, the main factor for me is clear text at high resolutions, the next factors would be 2D features and speed. No other card can do what the G400/G450 can. Great 2D (actually the best I've seen), great 2D speed (all cards pretty much have that), and USEFUL 2D features such as dual head, hotkeys, built in monitor customization, etc.
Rags
[This message has been edited by Rags (edited 18 October 2000).]
I hate to remind you that high end intel based workstations use nVIDIA quadro for 3d modelling. Others use 3DLabs, Intergraph etc. Matrox is out of the big game since the Millenium II. Sad but true.
------------------
I like to con people, but I also like to insult them. What if I could combine the two, I would call it - Consult !
Comment