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.
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.
Comment