TNT2 Ultra slower than my +$100 G400 MAX??

[Nicolaj]

2 weeks ago i bought i G400 MAX! And i really though that a card that expensive, would be a little bit faster than my $100 less expensive CL TNT2 Ultra! BUT IT'S NOT!! I used to get 35FPS in Q3 demo001 with all eyecandy on in 1024*768! But with the G400MAX and TGL, I get about 23FPS (and the TurboGL seems VERY unstable on my Athon, just like my TNT2!!) When i dont't use the TGL i score even lower!!
One thing I can't complain about, is the stability of the G400 MAX WITHOUT TurboGL Installed!! My comp runs 250% stable with that cfg! But please MATROX, fix the stability problem with TurboGL and Athlon! Or better, make thoose 5,50 drivers finish and lets play some Q3!!

[Gurm]

How fast is your Athlon? I turn in much better numbers than that with TurboGL and/or 5.50 and my P3-500/BX combo.

- Gurm

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

[Fyrespray]

only 35fps, that sounds really slow to me for a tnt2u, or a g400max. What do you get with bilinear instead of trilinear ??

Fyrespray

------------------
Celery 366 @ 550,Abit BM6, 128Mb PC100 Ram, G200 8Mb, AWE64 Gold, Win98SE.

[Maggi]

LOL

There it goes again ...

<FONT SIZE=4>The TNTs cannot do triliniear filtering properly, hence it is almost as fast as bilinear filtering !<FONT SIZE=2>

Sorry, but it seems like I had to bold that old and well known fact.

To compare those two cards, the only proper way is to set both to use bilinear filtering.

Do that and report if you get slighty different results than before.

------------------
Cheers,
Maggi

Despite my nickname causing confusion, I am not female ...

[Nicolaj]

Here is my specs:
Athlon 500
Asus K7M Mobo
128 MB RAM
13,5 GB Harddrive

Please help me!! In 800*600 I get about 50 FPS but i loose about 50% just moving til 1024*768!!! I allways use binilliar, since a can't see any visual different i Q3!

[Nicolaj]

Here is my specs:
Athlon 500
Asus K7M Mobo
128 MB RAM
13,5 GB Harddrive

Please help me!! In 800*600 I get about 50 FPS but i loose about 50% just moving til 1024*768!!! I allways use binilliar, since a can't see any visual different i Q3!

[Alec]

Why on earth every time you talk about the quality and speed of a graphics card Quake 3 enters the scene?

Remember, it´s an OpenGL game, Matrox´s weak point, and it´s not with Quake 3 only that you measure the speed and quality of a card!

It´s only natural that Quake 3 runs a bit slower on a G400MAX than on a TNT2 Ultra, cause the latter is very good in OpenGL.

------------------
Remember folks:
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers"
Pablo Picasso

[Nuno]

Alec, my dear bracarense friend I hate to disagree with you, but even a measle vanilla G400 32 Mb spanks the TNT2 ultra in Quake3... So much for G400 weak spot... I think that are old news (fortunely)





From www.anandtech.com
http://www.anandtech.com/html/articl...1156&pagenum=1

[Nuno]

Oh, and with an Athlon, that Q3 is not very fancy about...

[Alec]

Hi, Nuno, tudo OK?

Yes, you´re right, numbers don´t lie, and this only comes to prove my point that you can´t measure a card with one game only, and more importantly, with one kind of system only.

That´s why Nicolaj shouldn´t complain in a hurry.

P.S. O suporte OpenGL continua a ser o fraco da Matrox, apesar de ter melhorado muito com o Turbo GL. Temos de levar em consideração que o ICD é bastante recente ainda. A G400MAX é considerada rainha em 2D e em Direct3D.

Um abraço

------------------
Remember folks:
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers"
Pablo Picasso




[This message has been edited by Alec (edited 09 February 2000).]

[Nuno]

Matrox managed to catch up in performance, it now lacks the stability only. Maybe the final 5.50 can make it.

Um grande abraço para ti também