G450's 64bit bus limits more than 3D...

[Stringy]

the G450's 64bit bus, and I would assume the G550's, limits the cards ability to perform with High Res. compared to it's competing counter parts...
This Reveiw Shows that with High Res >1600x1200 and or DualHead with Primary Res >1600x1200 the card suffers...

the card the G450 is compared to is a higher end card, a GF2 DDR, but Matrox is supposed to be competing on a platform of 2D first, shouldn't it perform as good or better than a "gaming" card???


Craig

[Helevitia]

Yes, that is a concern. To me though, the most interesting part of the article is the last graph which shows how many times each card crashed in a 24hr. period:

Radeon = 7 Crashes
G450 = 0 Crashes

Dave

[Nuno]

So much for ATI driver quality

[Topha]

i have to admit, im a little disappointed in matrox, not because i need that performance (dont go above 1280x1024 here), but because they always talk about their 2d quality and performance.

the must know about this, so why do they release a new card (550) with 64bit?? as soon as this becomes common knowledge (and 2d speed/quality articles are beginnig to pop up everywhere) they will have a hard time explaining this.

i hope they make it up with the g800

[mdhome]

Topha
Same feelings here. With the Radeon having picture quality on par with my G400 it seems like another nail in the coffin for Matrox. Unfortunately it seems their flagship, the G550 has very little to recommend it over the G400/G450. Luckily for me I dont need another video card at the moment. If I did I would find it difficult to justify any Matrox card.
Another point, unlike the reviewer, I seldom get crashes using my Radeon card. Maybe he should spend less time doing reviews and more time building a stable machine.

regards MD

[Rags]

The only problem with the 450 I see, and that article shows the same is the overlay performance, all other 2D performance is superior as resolution scales, especially when running win2k. There isn't a faster card to run 2D under 2k overall than a G450, G400, or better

Rags

[Stringy]

Helevitia I would agree with you on the crashes part, that too is a huge thing... And the Review sees this as well and may make him deal with lesser performance in favor of stability

Rags

The only problem with the 450 I see, and that article shows the same is the overlay performance, all other 2D performance is superior as resolution scales, especially when running win2k. There isn't a faster card to run 2D under 2k overall than a G450, G400, or better

wow I read completely the opposite to your statements in the review... This "review" was done in Win2k, and Office Bench is 2D, strictly 2D... So I don't see how you make those broad statements...
The video Overlay issue just adds insult to injury IMO....

I sure hope the G550 has Ram that is clocked high enough to avoid such bottle necks when running High Res and High Res DualHead...



Craig

[Rags]

I am not going by that 'review' and it's numbers, the only numbers that jive with mine is the overlay performance.

I tested on an Asus CUSL2-C, P3 900, 512 MB Ram. I used winbench, and on an interesting note, the G450 didn't give me a single crash, but the Radeon has given me too many to keep count. If this guy is getting crashes with his G450 under win2k, he's got something wrong going on, that's all I can say.

Rags

[Strade]

Rag... Did I see a small HeadCasting of your head as an icone attach to your nick???



I'm being very jalous now....

[Rags]

Originally posted by Strade
Rag... Did I see a small HeadCasting of your head as an icone attach to your nick???



I'm being very jalous now....

I get that all the time. I am such a handsome devil, that everyone usually gets jealous

Rags

[Stringy]

Well The "review" stated that he had Less Crashing, in fact NONE with his G450 vs. an ATI Radeon which had plenty, so it's not that...
Granted as he states in the Review this isn't a Clean install of Windows...

So in your testing or experience you don't notice a slowdown with Res Exceeding 1600x1200 with DualHead on? nor is the Radeon Faster at such tasks??
BTW ..all his tests were performed with a 32bit color Desktop....

[Darin]

Last fall I also "crossed over" to ATI, got a Radeon for my main machine, and put my trusty G400 in my server. My everyday usage is at a "lowly" 1152x864x32 on a 19" FD monitor, and I can't say that I've noticed any difference in 2D quality OR speed. The 2D quality is precisely why I chose the Radeon to replace the 400... I wasn't willing to give up the quality I had become accustomed to, but I was tired of waiting on Matrox to catch up in the 3D department.

Anyway, the point of this is I have NEVER had a crash from the Radeon in 2D. In fact, my computer is remarkably stable considering that it's a two year old Win98 installation with TONS of garbage installed (and uninstalled & re-installed, etc.). I will be the first to say that ATI still has a lot to be desired in the driver department, but their problems are pretty much limited to the functionalilty of some of the extra video features, as well as some specific issues in certain games. If the writer had that many crashes, I would guess that there are problems beyond the ATI drivers. Granted, the Win2K drivers have a worse rap than the Win98 sets, but from everything I've read, they are still mostly related to games. Some of the newest betas have some issues with icon corruption, but his review was on the whql set, which I've never seen any 2D issues mentioned.

[arbymo]

well, 1st of all i missed the forum alot !! welcome back to us all

This is the 1st time for me to comment on benshmarks :P

but the firing squad article has many flaws :

1st : in the 1st benshmarking page he says ;

The Matrox G450's problem is its 64-bit DDR bus. With only half the bandwidth of the All-in-Wonder Radeon, the G450 can only compete at low resolutions, when bandwidth is plentiful. Beyond 1600x1200 the Radeon continues to run effortlessly while the G450 is stressed significantly. Furthermore, as the resolution increases beyond 1600x1200, Matrox's hardware overlay becomes inadequate for a consistent 30 fps video playback.

hmm .. and what does the benshmark above that paragraph tells us ?? where did he get such conclusion if the G450 is beating the hell outa Radeon in the 1st graph ??

2nd : he didn't mention if he is comparing the overlay of the 1st or 2nd display of the G450 ?
You can't enable dualhead on a card and compare it with a single head card, and then say it's slower .. this is just a joke.

3rd : he ran the 1024x768 test at 16 bits.

4th : where are the 1280x1024 tests ??

IMHO, 1024 and 1280 are the 2 most important for users in the 17"-19" which i might say the average user.

[Stringy]

there are many flaws with the "review" I woud never say this is a good test... far from it...
the benches used aren't Very well known,
and the system wasn't a clean install...
As mentioned there are Resolutions missing,
and some of the testing was at 16bit and then some at 32bit...

I just wanted to bring up the issue, as this is one thing that has been taken advantage for some time... And also since Matrox decided on 64bits and to focus their market on Business they sure have better done their homework and not take their market possittion for granted...

Maybe when Ant or another site gets a card and if they have the ability to run High Res. DualHead we'll see what the story is....

BTW

IMHO, 1024 and 1280 are the 2 most important for users in the 17"-19" which i might say the average user.

Since when is a Matrox user Average?!?!? Esp when it comes to their Desktop Res?!?! I run my 17"er all the time at 1280x1024 with small fonts, right next to my 'lil 15"er at 1024x768

Oh I see the issue made the front page too


Craig

[Darin]

Originally posted by arbymo
hmm .. and what does the benshmark above that paragraph tells us ??

Actually, it confirms the text. The first benchmark shown as time. Shorter bars are better.