Ok Murcers GIVE UP!

[HedsSpaz]

SO what your saying is you don't:

1. Care if you have to lower your res/settings to play latest games.

That is exactly correct.

2. Don't care to have the latest feature support for said games.

This is also true.

3. 1024X768+ res is a no-go for games on G400. So around and below that res there is no difference between the Geforce and G400 on Games.

Um, I think maybe your G400 was just defective. Or maybe you just didn't have a powerful enough computer to go with it. I have an Athlon 650, 256mb PC133 SDRAM, running Win2000. I can play UT at 1024x768x16 with an average of 35fps or so. I will grant that I wish I could play at 32bit, but oh well, I'll live. I don't need anymore than that. Furthermore, the only other game that I play right now is Diablo II, for which it the argument becomes even more pointless.

4. Care if you have crappy Opengl (compare to Geforce)

Ok, so, in OpenGL games, the GeForce is faster than the G400, therefore the G400 must have crappy OpenGL drivers... Hmmm... Do I really need to point out the Post Facto fallacy in this argument or can you figure it out on your own?

5. Care if you have Hardware T&L/Directx 8 hardware support.

No, I don't. And as pointed out by others, there really aren't that many games that make use of DX8 or T&L yet anyway. UT certainly doesn't. Quake3 doesn't. Half-Life doesn't. I can't think of any FPS games that are more popular than these three. So pray tell, what use is having T&L support if I don't play any of these wonderful new games?

6. Good drivers.

I think this is rather subjective. I can play all of may games at a playable frame rate. I have fun playing my games. There is very little artifacting anymore. So yes, I would say that while it has taken a bit more time then I would have prefered, the G400 does finally have good drivers.

Sorry, still don't see a reason to stay with G400 if your a gamer unless your are very very very very stubborn.....or very cheap.

Cheap? Not exactly. Poor? Definately. Stubborn? Mules don't even dare argue with me.

Would I recommend a G400 to a gamer? It depends. If they are stuck in an "FPS Gimme gimme gimme" mode, then no. Chances are I still wouldn't recommend a GeForce though (but thats an aside.) If however the person intends to use their machine for something other than just games, even if they are an avid gamer, I would certainly suggest it as an option and explain to them why it might not actually be such a bad choice.

The G400 is NOT a bad card. It all depends on your priorities. I will admit, I use my computer for very little other than playing games. But I absolutely cannot stand haveing a poor quality image. Especially when I am doing general 2d work, whatever it may be. Having clear readable text and proper color production is much more important to me than how many fps my games get.

Ian

[spoogenet]

I think you're still missing the bus when it comes to this argument. You are making a rather large assumption which, quite frankly, is not an accurate model of people.

You are assuming that everybody wants to play FPShooter games where FPSecond is all that matters. Where you don't care about color quality, where you don't care about good 2D quality on a >=19" monitor, where you don't care about keeping one card for a long time. That model is not a good model of the people here, obviously.

The point we're trying to make to you is that your priorities do not match those of others. There are plenty of gamers that will not really benefit from any nvidia card over a G400. Not all games require that much useless brute power. Many games care much more about your CPU/RAM. The FPS gaming market is a small subset of the overall gaming market. All gamers don't need FPSecond to play games.

I play some games. The most demanding game by far is Deus Ex. I play at 1024x768x32, with some of the texture qualities below max. It is very playable, and the only issues I encounter with playability are more related to my Celeron 500 than to anything else. I really don't have a problem with the game being too slow. I'm not punishing myself by using my G400.

I also do lots of workstation related work. Audio editing, 3D graphics, 2D graphic editing, CAD-related tools, etc. I run on a 19" monitor. Quite frankly, low 2D quality is unacceptable. I can't handle fuzzy images, it gives me a mean headache. I find the G400 to be the best solution yet that I've seen in a rig.

The point is, you can't go off trying to play saviour and missionary when the message you are trying to deliver is IRRELEVANT to the people you are trying to deliver it to. If somebody is happy with what they have, it does not necessarily mean that they have not considered alternatives before making the choice they have made. I think it's safe to say that a very large portion of people on these boards have at least considered alternative graphics cards, yet they keep coming back to their G400's, G200's, G450's, etc. Do you have the insight to realize that there must exist a REASON for this conscious decision?

That's the entire point. While you may care alot about FPS games and FPSecond, and you may care a lot about OpenGL, and you may care a lot about having the biggest wang dang, obviously many of us do not care as much about these things as you do.

One thing you may realize in life is that people get annoyed when someone comes along and starts talking about "this is the best thing that has ever happened to me, you MUST try it, you've gotta do it, you are wasting your time with your life unless you do what I have done...." I have made a decision to stick with my G400, I have evaluated the other products on the market, and have concluded that the G400 is the best choice for me. And I play games with it, and I don't complain about it being too slow, it's fast enough. That's the whole point. And when you try to tell me that I'm wasting my time, even after considering the other products, you are only showing your lack of understanding of the situation.

Sorry this has been so long.

b

[This message has been edited by spoogenet (edited 18 January 2001).]

[Electric Amish]

Dosfreak-

I'm with Rags all the way on this one. I have a G400 in my Athlon Classic 700 machine. I play UT regularly at 1024x768x32bit. It plays smooth and beautifully. I don't know what the frame rate is, all I know is that it's smooth. I don't play Q3 much, but the times I tried it I was also running in 1024x768. I also play Rogue Spear and run that at 1280x960! That is nice! If I find a game that I really NEED to play and it won't work on my G400, I'll get a new card. Other than that, I'll get the new Matrox card when it's release.

amish

[The PIT]

Just double checking the few games I play are at 1024 * 768 with everything set to high.
Yep they are. Jerky? Nope seem smooth enougth to me. Do I need a card with blurry 2d graphics at high res? Nope. Do I need to upgrade for more fps? Nope. Do I know that the gfarce is faster? Yep. Do I care? Not one f!"£ing bit.

[nihilist]

I find people's faith so refreshing. I can't believe you've (we've) all been waiting for the G800 for so long, when everything points to the fact that it's never going to come out. Let's face it...Mtx isn't out of the game, but they sure botched this one up.

[Himself]

Just for badness:

Why would anybody here want a "G800"? They don't need more speed, they don't want TCL, all they care about is 2D quality and the bare minimum of fillrate. The G400 already has that. If the argument is against forking over $$$ for the sake of few more fps, why would anybody buy a faster G400 with a different model name? Perhaps Matrox won't even be able to sell the "G800" to it's fan base until they are good and ready in 2002 sometime.

[DuRaNgO]

Because unlike like nvIdEa, the next Matrox card will offer NEW technology, not just another overclocked chip

-edit-
See, I can smile too

[This message has been edited by DuRaNgO (edited 18 January 2001).]

[Himself]

That's a pretty easy requirement to fill, if all you want is new technology, don't think NVIDIA has any, and you don't care about performance so much, get a Kyro.

[nihilist]

Well, our esteemed moderator has declared that my opinion isn't worth anything and should be limited to expression in the soap-box. Thanks very much. So much for freedom of expression.

Ok, so I'll talk about hardware then. If the G450 is the best Mtx can come up with in more than a year after the G400, what makes you think the 'G800' will be anything on par with NVidia's or ATi's offerings?

I'll be the first to admit that frame-rates are not the true metric of worth for a graphics card. But I at least like to give my business to companies who have the best tech, and support their customer base. Throw us a bone Mtx? Why so quiet if you have nothing to hide?

[DuRaNgO]

but like nviDeA, they only build the chip so liability/support is still limited and always will be

[nihilist]

Mtx doesn't just build the chip...they build the entire board. They and ATi are the only ones that do this, as far as I know. Mtx is not like NVidia in this manner, who makes the chip and sells it to board manufacturers, who integrate the chips into their offerings.

[hella356]

The thing is that if a G800 comes out and has the same visual qualities (or maybe even better) as the G400 but also has heavy duty 3D capabilities like a GeForce 2 it would be a no-brainer purchase. I have a G400 MAX in a Duron 850 and I can't run any newer games higher than 10x7x32 and sometimes I have to lower some detail settings. Not a real big deal but it just can't play games like the GF2 MX in my other Duron 850 can. Since I only spend about 25% of my time on the computer playing games it isn't too bad but I would love to see Matrox pay a little more attention to the 3D side of things.

[DuRaNgO]

I meant Kyro

[nihilist]

Oh sorry. The KYRo card seems really interesting, one of the first truly original ideas I've seen in a while. I think it definitely deserves some attention, if for no other reason than originality. It's nice to see someone trying a different approach than raw pixel-pumping power...

[nihilist]

They have no choice, they have to develop the 3D side and I'm sure they are/will. I don't dispute that image quality is of paramount importance. I just find it sad to see so many loyal fans left in the dark for so long. Especially when it's so obviously clear where the hardware enthusiasts and gamers fit into their overall strategy. I don't buy this 'we focus on the corporate market' bullshit. If they could dominate in corporate AND enthusiast markets, don't you think they would? They don't deserve loyalty like this...