Tom's Hardware guide: Matrox G450

[drzaius]

i have to agree with many of you Matrox lovers/fans that some of the things this artical/review said were misleading and less favourable towards Matrox cards and more favourable towards nvidia's.
i also read www.tweak3d.net 's review (they thought it was a great card for what it was built for. 9/10 ) but one thing i noticed, (i'm not sure if anyone mentioned it), but on toms review the card is clocked at 125mhz and tweak3d's it's at 166mhz (if i remember correctly) anyway, i would really like to know what speed it actually at.

this also lead to a little more bashing from tom's review, saying how Matrox dropped to .18 micron and stayed at 125mhz in order to have high yields. this is true, but i think that's a little swing at how well Matrox can make there chips, because the G400max was clocked at 166mhz back on .25 micron, so there should be no reason why he mentioned the fact that Matrox stayed at the same clock rate and lowered the manufacturing process.

i'm not sure if that second paragraph came out right, but i've never trusted tom with reviewing Matrox stuff.

just while i'm thinking about it, i remeber when tom's review of the G400/max came out. the guy was using really really old drivers (not even the 5.30 that came with the card), with these older drivers nvidia's TNT2/ultra was able to walk all over the G400. but as we all know, NOW the G400max can come close to a geforce in some cases, and never loses to a TNT2ultra.

[Indiana]

Originally posted by Kruzin:
At this point, I'll retract my assertion that the board tested was equipped with SDR. I'm still not 100% convinced, as I think the benchmark scores seem low...but it is entirely possible that it is in fact a DDR board.

Now we're coming to a point. Tom's/the reviewers' numbers sure aren't the best of what you can get with a G450-DDR if you thoroughly choose the driver-version, use the latest VIA 4in1 and the like, but the numbers are still far out of reach of an SDR model. BTW, the same is true for every G400 review I saw up to now, the numbers seem always a bit lower than what I get.


Just wanted to avoid that someone thinks that the DDR version will get ~70+% faster results and then is disappointed by the cards actual performance.


Of course this whole SDR vs. DDR discussion again shows a major flaw of the review: It's not visible AT ALL from Tom's test-system configuration-page which G450 card he tested. For the Radeon e.g. it states 32MB SDR, but for the G450 it just says Millenium G450, nothing about the cards RAM, not even if it was a 32Mb or 16MB model! You just can guess it's a 32 MB DDR from the benchmark-results it gets. Then on the benchmark images there suddenly is this "G450, 32MB DDR". I guess the reviewer got a bit confused here with the G450's different flavours...


I also find it quite amusing how he nearly only talks about the Geforce2MX in the conclusion while you can see in his own results that the Radeons beat the hell out of the MX in every serious bench (i.e 32Bit, who buys a gaming-gfxcard to play in 16Bit nowadays?!?)


[This message has been edited by Indiana (edited 10 December 2000).]

[Gurm]

Sorry rubank,

I wasn't really meaning you in particular. But every so often we get a glut of "how can I possibly get a {item X} here?" posts, mostly whining and "how will I ever wait the extra 2 months". My point it for a few bucks extra you can have it this week.

Rimfaxe,

Are you clueless? You seem to insist on not recognizing what we're saying. So, I'll say it again. Slowly.

1. TOM IS THE EDITOR.

2. EDITORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EDITING THE CONTENT OF THE ARTICLES.

3. TOM IS THE OWNER.

4. THE OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE 100% IF HIS EMPLOYEES MAKE MISTAKES OR LIE.

And you would understand why we dislike Tom if you had bothered to read his stuff a year and a half ago.

I've been reading Tom's Hardware since the early 90's. Back then, it was the ONLY place to find out about new hardware, and it was great. Then he got corporate sponsorship, and since then it has been "nvidia is great! Everyone else sucks, and here's why!"

He downplays the strengths of the products he isn't getting paid to endorse, and completely ignores the weaknesses of the products he is.

Do your homework. Do some research, and you'll understand.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[AlgoRhythm]

I know the topic has changed a bit, but I finally read the review on Tom's and here's my $0.02...

FPS isn't everything. My G200 Smacks the GeForce down in 2D quality. The G200 is almost "painfully" crisp where the GeForce2 has such shaky looking text I can hardly stand it. (I'm always running 1600x1200).

I know the G200 isn't the card reviewed but, it just shows that the newer crap with more fps isn't so great. And that Matrox's older products still hold their own. (I even have a couple of Mill I still around in use)

I'll admit I hardly play fps games, but I'm constantly using the highest rez to display more code on.

FWIW,

AlgoRhythm

P.S. Yeah, I know I'm preaching to the choir...

[This message has been edited by AlgoRhythm (edited 11 December 2000).]

[Rimfaxe]

Gurm:
Speaking in Swedish: Jag blir så trött! *suck*

I can guarantee with a certainty that you haven't been reading Tom's Hardware Guide for much longer than a year and a half. Two years at the outside. Because that's when nVidia paid him off. Everyone who read it at the time knows about it. EVERYONE.

Really, how did you come to that conclusion? How do you know how long I have been reading THG? Facts please!
He he he... The best way to spot a loosing argument must be: "Everyone knows about it. EVERYONE." The best facts there are. Right

And don't start on MURC seniority. Just don't start. Every time some clueless semi-newbie starts on that it gets ugly. Ok? Sheesh.

He he he, you must have been mistaken here. It doesn’t get ugly. It gets PATHETIC. Right? (starting to feel like a Childs discussion)
Please, get pathetic if you like. But you better have facts.

Ant:
Ok, I am really sorry again.
I think MURC as a community and it contains lots of people. If you don't like me call US MURC then I am sorry again. But my feelings about MURC are still as a community. When I help and receive help from MURC I will not tell my friend that I got my help from Maggi or Gurm or Ant. I will say that MURC helped me! I will still do so. Sorry again. When I feel that the common feelings about a certain site{X} is{Y} from a certain community{Z}.
I will say that {Z} feels {Y} about {X}. Ok? If you don't like US saying this at MURC. Please tell us so from start. Ok? I know that all of US don't share the feelings of the common MURC:er. (what ever that is) But does it anyware?
Just a thought...

[Gurm]

Rimfaxe:

Apparently your shaky command of English has... no, you know I'm not going to go there.

Let me demonstrate:

Tom before 1998:

"Look, 3dfx! Look, nVidia! Look, Matrox! Look, Number Nine! Look, 3D Labs! Look, Rendition!"

Tom after 1998:

"Look, nVidia RULeZ! Everyone else sucks, and if they have good hardware that must be because they ripped off nVidia! nVidia is 3733+!"

I'm sorry if the point eludes you still.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[Greebe]

Rimjob, I have been reading THG since he originally setup his site and I have to TOTALLY AGREE with Jason on this, two years ago THG went pro any and everything "nVidiot"!

When this happened I lost all faith in expecting an honest, straight forward review from him and now his fellow reviewers. There were all to many flaws, lack of pertinent detail and his personal preference regarding graphic cards in particular. Which BTW, only pertains to Gamers, tho one would never know it based on his reviews, right?!

[Rob M.]

Uhh.. two years ago? I think you guys read waay too much into this. There's no payoffs. he's just giving us his views, and for the most part, I have to agree with him. I dislike nvidia too, I don't know why, but I do. Even still, ever since their TNT line, nvidia's been the fastest in the industry. Sure there's been one or two months where there was a faster card from (ATI), but how many people here remember when the original AMD K6 was the fastest cpu on the market?

The reason why I think most people here dislike Tom so much is because he puts so much weight in the numbers, and not enough of in the display quality/extra features (read: dualhead) that is so highly prized around here by those desperatly trying to justify their loyalty to a lagging company.
(flame away guys )

As for two years of unbridled nvidia loyalty, I think Tom must have a time machine.

Found on http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/...9.html#wrap_up , dated July 21/00:

Without a doubt ATi has a reason to still be standing tall after further proof that it's now shipping a leading edge product capable of matching and at times surpassing the industries best. The things to keep in mind here is that the Radeon may be our overall choice for best consumer graphics solution but by no means is it able to run over the competition from NVIDIA.

(bold by me)

[Gurm]

Dude, notice the sentence AFTER the one that you bolded.

The man is bought, paid for, and delivered.

I don't care that he knocks Matrox. That happens all the time. But the truth of the matter is that, even during time periods when nVidia WASN'T king of the hill (read - every time someone else releases a new card) he manages to give a review that knocks them, or plays up their flaws, or in some other way plays up nVidia.

I've seen DOZENS of reviews like the one above.

"{Card X} is great, display quality is top notch. It's very fast, but boy does it suck ass compared to nVidia!"

I mean, c'mon! He trumpeted the TNT2 over every other card available, despite the fact that in many cases the Voodoo was better and faster (since the TNT2 sucked ass in 32-bit). Then he trumpeted it over the G400, despite the fact that in 32-bit and D3D the G400 walks all over the TNT2.

And if you look at his charts they're laughable. He makes sure to use the latest, greatest, most stable, fastest revisions of the nVidia drivers, whereas for the other cards "whatever shipped on the CD" is good enough for him.

*sigh* I'm just disgusted.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[Maggi]

Wow ... what a BBQ ...

I'll stay out of all these discussion, but wanted to chime in a few facts:
[*] the latest beta release of Powerstrip supports OCing the G450
(I cross checked with that internal utility Kruzin was refering to ... so don't ask further)

The gain of OCing is somewhere in the 10-15% range and that seems to be held back by the very low-cost 64bit bus (which btw perfectly suits the targetted market).

If I'll find the time, I'll reinstall public drivers and pump out some comparing numbers.

drzaius:[*] 125MHz = default graphics core clock[*] 166MHz = default memory clock (= 333MHz when using DDR)


One question remaining for me though:

Originally posted by Stringy:
Tom got his "rep" because of his writting style, it's decidedly european... Very bold, and is opinionated...

Could you please care to explain that statement, cos I am from Europe and would like to know what 'generalism' you're seeing here ...

CYas,
Maggi

[Rob M.]

Um, I don't know how you read that quote, but I read it in saying "I recommend the Radeon, but it's not that much faster than the gf2"

Considering that nvidia released faster drivers only a week later to put the gf2 back on top, it was a pretty good observation on Tom's part.

[Gurm]

Rob:

That's our point. When's the last time you heard Tom give an unequivocal compliment to anyone?

Everyone knows (and this isn't just a MURC thing) that the G400 has THE BEST 2D IMAGE QUALITY, PERIOD.

Yet when Tom talks about it he says things like "G400's display quality is the best. But since everything else about the card sucks, and since nVidia is 99% as good now, go nVidia!".

I mean, really. He's so biased it's not funny.

And yes, 6 months out of every year he's right, because it's within 3 months of an nVidia product release, and they've yet again made their chips run silly fast with no regard for quality.

However, the rest of the time he's flat out wrong. And even when he's not flat out wrong, he's distorting the truth to make nVidia look good.

The truth is that nVidia is usually the fastest, when it comes to raw FPS. However, their image quality has sucked since the days of the Riva128, and hasn't gotten much better. Does Tom talk about this? No, never.

Their drivers crash on a regular basis, but Tom neglects to mention this as well. He simply quietly uses the best Detonators available - usually 6 months old or so.

And 2 out of every 3 product releases from them have no new features at all, but Tom neglects to mention this as well.

*shrug*

Hey, if you think that seems "impartial", then you go ahead and read it.

But the truth is that he is nowhere near impartial. And I can't trust his reviews at all - which makes it pretty pointless to read.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[Randy Simons]

Is it THG who's changed? Or is it the people?

Look around you, many people have computers only for a few years now and have no real technological background. In fact, I think most of the current teenagers fall into this category.

From what I've seen, these people just want MOOOORE. More MHz, more FPS, more MB, more GB, more MTexels/s, more bandwith, more... etc. And they want NEW stuff every few months. Well, "new" should be read as "souped up"

But it seems they are ignorant about just everything else. Why? I don't know.

You can see it in games. Take DeltaForce 2. It uses a Voxel engine. Fully software, thus quite slow and you can't run it on high resolutions. But ohh the landscape looks SO MUCH BETTER than every polygon-based landscape engines I've ever seen.
But the current generation doesn't care about that, so it seems, but want MOOOOORE fps, more pixels.
So, DeltaForce 3 uses a fully hardware accelerated polygone-based landscape engine. (which looks dull to me)

NVidia seems to be perfectly aware of this new situation, and simply produces a "new and faster" product every few months and neglecting just that, what the people neglect as well (image quality, new features, real innovations etc)

What'd you expect from a reviewer like Tom? Those teenagers and new computerusers are his targeted audience.

If Tom said "Nvidia sucks because its image quality sucks" his audience would diminish, since they don't want to read about that.

Nevertheless, I hope Matrox will remain a company for the "elite" computer users, for those who do care about quality and innovation.

[The PIT]

"but by no means is it able to run over the competition from NVIDIA".
Theres only one way you can read this, Nvidea is better.
Fair enougth the article you quoted begins saying the Ati is equal or better but then finnishes with that sentance.

[Himself]

I hope Matrox will remain a company for the "elite" computer users, for those who do care about quality and innovation.

Is that code for hoping Matrox will remain in a small niche market? Or is it code for Matrox should use snob appeal in it's marketing?