They only used application-based scores from Ziff-Davis's benchmarking suites. They focused on the board's strengths instead of it's weaknesses, and it came out smelling like a rose:
http://www.tweak3d.net/reviews/matrox/millg450/
It's an interesting approach, and one I haven't seen before.
Of course, part of the problem has been that Matrox sent the board to every site on the planet with the word "game" in it. Now, maybe, we'll see some reviews from people who had to go out and buy the board and intend to use it because it fits their needs.
Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net
http://www.tweak3d.net/reviews/matrox/millg450/
It's an interesting approach, and one I haven't seen before.
Of course, part of the problem has been that Matrox sent the board to every site on the planet with the word "game" in it. Now, maybe, we'll see some reviews from people who had to go out and buy the board and intend to use it because it fits their needs.
Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net
Comment