G550 Test in CHIP Online

[roussec]

Hi,

there is a test of the G550 in the german online mag CHIP.

https://www.chip.de

Christian

[ayoub_ibrahim]

wish I understood German!

[roussec]

Try

Hi,

you should be able to read the benchmarks. The fps are the same in english or german

http://www.chip.de/produkte_tests/produkte_tests_208161.html

Quake 3 Arena (640 x 480, 16 Bit):
Millennium G550: 98 fps
Starforce 826: 118 fps
Siluro T400: 149 fps

Quake 3 Arena (1.024 x 768, 32 Bit):
Millennium G550: 29 fps
Starforce 826: 27 fps
Siluro T400: 54 fps

3DMark 2000 (640 x 480, 16 Bit):
Millennium G550: 6010 3DMarks
Starforce 826: 6314 3DMarks
Siluro T400: 8606 3DMarks

3DMark 2000 (1.024 x 768, 32 Bit):
Millennium G550: 1890 3DMarks
Starforce 826: 1645 3DMarks
Siluro T400: 3199 3DMarks

[GT98]

Hey we might finally see some of the BB's telling us how their G550s run finally!

Scott

[GT98]

Heres the text bablefished:

Platform for bench mark: On the Main board, a AK76-SN of DFI, a Athlon C with 1.200 mc/s clock frequency operates. It is supported thereby by 256 MByte GDR SDRAM and the sound card Soundblaster Live 5.1. The operating system is Windows 98 SE. The 3D-Leistung of the diagram card is determined with the bench mark Quake 3 arena and 3DMark 2000 by WAD Onion. CHIP on-line one presents the first bench mark results in each case in the comparison to the MSI Starforce 826 (GeForce2-MX-200) and to the Abit Siluro T400 (GeForce2-MX-400): Quake 3 arena (640 x 480, 16 bits): Millennium G550: 98 fps Starforce 826: 118 fps Siluro T400: 149 fps Quake 3 arena (1,024 x 768, 32 bits): Millennium G550: 29 fps Starforce 826: 27 fps Siluro T400: 54 fps 3DMark 2000 (640 x 480, 16 bits): Millennium G550: 6010 3DMarks Starforce 826: 6314 3DMarks Siluro T400: 8606 3DMarks 3DMark 2000 (1,024 x 768, 32 bits): Millennium G550: 1890 3DMarks Starforce 826: 1645 3DMarks Siluro T400: 3199 3DMarks CHIP on-line one will soon present you a detailed report, which presents the Matrox Millennium G550 in all details. CHIP on-line one means: Matrox really does not direct with the G550 at the 3D-Spiele-Sektor. Instead the emphasis is with this card rather on the DualHead function, which enables an independent two-screen operation, and on the HeadCasting function, which can take over the extremely aufwaendige counting of faces completely. Whether the buyer with the very good 2D-Eigenschaften and the rather lean 3D-Funktionen can arangieren itself, remains being waiting.

[Zanna]

The english version is located on:

http://www.chip-online.com/products_tests/products_tests_4066.html

Best regards!! ( I'ts cool, right?)

[CHHAS]

Hmm, is that thing even faster than a G400Max ?
I know it's not a gamers card, but Headcasting aside, is there any reason at all to upgrade from a G400 ?

Guess we'll have to wait for more tests.

[prr]

Sad, that noone seems to be interested about two basic things I am interested in...
* What is the max resolution of primary monitor while DVDMax is active?
* Is RGB-out supported?

We all already know that it is not a gamers card, so who cares about fps?!?

[K6-III]

That huge discrepancy between the two MX400 cards is curiously strange.

[Indiana]

These are NOT two MX400 cards, one (the really f*cking slow one[Starforce], as slow as the G550) is a MX200 - which isn't much faster than a TNT2, btw.

Just a look at the Quake3 1024x768x32 score really scares me to hell and back. 29 fps - that can't really be true?!?! I got 30-33 fps with my G400 non-MAX if I oc'ed it to Max-speeds.....

So now we finally all know why we didn't see any test of this "3D" card up to now and not one single comment of the BBs (quite clear as there should be no possibility other than "Ugh!!!") Why does Matrox even include 3D in their chipset if it's only an alibi spec-sheet filler? The card would be fine in 2D without (and even much cheaper) and all those here who pretend they're not into gaming shouldn't need it.

ATI, ImgTek, maybe even Bitboys: where are you to help us out, cause Matrox isn't?

[Ali]

Did you notice this though:

Motion compensation for better DVD-playback.

Seems like ther is something to the chip after all.

Oh, and 166/166 core clock. Shouldnt be too hard to overclock a little.

Ali

[Indiana]

Originally posted by Ali
Did you notice this though:

Motion compensation for better DVD-playback.

Seems like ther is something to the chip after all.

Oh, and 166/166 core clock. Shouldnt be too hard to overclock a little.

Ali

If I needed motion compensation, ATI and even NVidia already have it.

About the oc'ing thing: you COULD be right, but then we all thought the same 'bout the G4.50...

[Indiana]

Zanna, your link is NOT an english version of the mentioned article, it's just an OLD preview.

Here's a (quite free) translation of the CHIP "review" (if you can call this a review..):

Chip has got the newest offering from Matrox and tested it in the test center with a lot of benchmarks. Is the G550 a winner?

System for testing:
Mainboard DFI AK76-SN
Athlon 1.2GHz C
256 MB RAM
SBLive 5.1
Win98SE

Benchmarks used are Quake3 Arena and 3DMark2000 from Madonion. Results are presented in comparision to the MSI Starforce 826 (GeForce MX-200) and the ABit Siluro T400 (GeForce MX-400):

Quake 3 Arena (640 x 480, 16 Bit):
Millennium G550: 98 fps
Starforce 826: 118 fps
Siluro T400: 149 fps

Quake 3 Arena (1.024 x 768, 32 Bit):
Millennium G550: 29 fps
Starforce 826: 27 fps
Siluro T400: 54 fps

3DMark 2000 (640 x 480, 16 Bit):
Millennium G550: 6010 3DMarks
Starforce 826: 6314 3DMarks
Siluro T400: 8606 3DMarks

3DMark 2000 (1.024 x 768, 32 Bit):
Millennium G550: 1890 3DMarks
Starforce 826: 1645 3DMarks
Siluro T400: 3199 3DMarks

Chip online will present you with a comprehensive review shortly, presenting the Matrox G550 with all its details.

CHIP Online's Conlusion:With the G500 Matrox doesn't really aim at the 3D gaming market. The main emphasis of this card is its DualHead providing independent Dual monitor usage and the HeadCasting functionality which can completely take over the extremely consuming rendering of faces.
It remains to be seen if the market will accept the G550 with its very good 2D but quite basic 3D functionality

[dZeus]

indiana, it's impossible to compare to scores if you don't know all the exact conditions under which they were run. You would only be able to tell something about the relative speed to the G400(/MAX) if they also tested it in that roundup.

and I don't think that the G550 does motion comp. it doesn't say that anywhere in the chip specs afaik. Only that it will output DVD through DVD-MAX without any scaling, which means that the tv-out encoder chip can encode at least from 720x576 (G400 is 688x576).

[Indiana]

Sorry, but even with the max / slowest possible settings, 30 fps in Q3 at 1024x768 is just pathetic nowadays (knowing the other system specs) - so there's absolutely nothing to discuss here. And you can see by the comparision with the GeForce MX200 scores (should be - and are - just a bit above TNT2 for higher resolutions) what to expect from the G550.

To make it worse these 30 fps are average, so you'll end up with 10-15 fps minimum, rendering the game unplayable. Of course some will keep promising that it's enough for them but it won't be to anyone only remotely interested in gaming - And this in an already outdated engine. So why 3D at all?
Matrox should really strip out the 3D and get their great 2D quality / DualHead into a PCI card that can be combined with a KyroII AGP for gaming for those who want it.The often called bussiness people don't need the 3D anyway - and if they do they'll get a professional OGL card instead of a card that is slower than software rendering on recent TBirds/Pentiums.