G450 and 3DMark and scores

[DirtFarmer]

Yeah, benchmarks are a tool, a guide, but not the end/all be/all measure of a graphics cards performance but...

The results of 3D benchmarks on the G450 SDRAM prove how pathetic this card is.


_Insert favorite G450 anti-Matrox rant here_

--
Alan,
A satisfied G400 owner waiting for a quality upgrade from Matrox. (And waiting, and waiting.....)

[Novdid]

But you do get a vague notion on how the card will perform in games by running 3Dmark. I do however consider timedemos in various games to be way better than Madonions benchmark.

[Indiana]

Rubank, I agree with you over 3DMark2000 being a lousy benchmark, but then nearly all benchmarks are lousy in that they can't provide generally true performance-measurements. They merely say how fast a computer is at running that specific game/benchmark, but this can and will change with other engines.
Of course the Geforces are faster (even if they have a problem with texture-handling, which i still do believe) because of their massive fillrate, their excellent OGL drivers and partly because of the TnL.
An "unfaithful" thought: If NVidia snatched the rest of Matrox' tech-staff as well, we could probably finally get a card that's fast and has a good OpenGL ICD (NVidia) plus DualHead, EMBM and decent 2D (Matrox).

I wanted to dl MBTR some time ago (the screenshots do look good, those trucks are very detailed), but the demo is too large to download with ISDN in a reasonable time - telephone costs are high here in gemany

[DosFreak]

A company is integrating an "Analog Filter" into a Geforce 2 card. Lemme find a link.

Anyone know what the display quality of a Geforce card is like using the DVI connector? I'm looking for a new monitor and thinkin' about going digital.

[superfly]

It's true that the texture tests on 3dmark 2000 are very strange to say the least.

In my particular case i(in win 2000 with a gf2 64meg)i get the following(in the standard test):

16bit 32bit
8 meg--->399 fps. 266 fps.
16 meg--->211 fps 254 fps.
32 meg--->113 fps. 204 fps.
64 meg--->57 fps. 105 fps.

Huh???....

The only texture size where 16 bit wins out is with 8 megs,it loses badly at every thing else.

[rubank]

Dosfreak,

the flash you refer to can be found at www.xbitlabs.com/news/#975796045

Why they would do a thing like that I can´t imagine.

If you´re going for a flat panel you shouldn´t worry about the card as much as the quality of the screen. And if you think of running games at high fps, todays TFT:s aren´t a good choice. In fact, they are in most respects inferior to CRT:s. For ordinary office work and surfing they´re perfect, though. And they don´t seem to be very picky about the card that drives them. At work we have some, and they look very good driven by the integrated G200 SD in our HP Vectra Vli:s, whereas the output from the same machines to 17" CRT:s look awful. The same could be said about the ATI chips in most laptops.

Oh God, now we´re really drifting.
Kruzin, time to lock?

[twl]

I score 2500 with default specs (1024x768 @ 16 bit color) with G450 32 Mb ram. System is PIII 800 with 256 Mb ram.

Ted

Originally posted by yepitsme:
I bought today G450 with 16Mb SDRAM and
it scored as i expected, could someone else
post scores just to compare them, Madonion
don't have G450 in their database yet.

640x480 - 3767
800x600 - 2685
1024x768 - 1700

P3 800@896
AOpen AX6BC with 128Mb/133MHz

waiting to GeForce ultras to become cheaper,
maybe next summer, if there is nothing else interesting coming up....

overclocking G450 would be nice

[This message has been edited by twl (edited 04 December 2000).]