G400 MAX or GeForce

[Zebra]

I currently have a Creative Labs Annihilator Pro (GeForce DDR) that I am thinking about trading for a G400 MAX. Has anyone tried both these cards? I am hoping to find out the performance hit I can expect. Are there any compatability problems with the G400 in D3D or OpenGL? Also, did Matrox release a full ICD for it. Thanks for the help.

[Corwin_Brute]

Well, it depends on what you want to do with your card. If your main purpose is gaming, you'd better stay with your GeForce.

The main advantage of the G400Max is the DualHead, so you can go if you have 2 monitors or if you plan to buy a second one, because the feature is very cool.

There has been a full ICD with the G400 since it started, and it is beginning to be quite good. If you want speed in games, there is also the TurboGL for the major games. But in OpenGL, the G400Max can not match a GeForce.

Otherwise, I've never had any problems in D3D with the games I play.


------------------
Corwin the Brute

[Gurm]

In D3D, the G400 holds its own against the GeForce. Perhaps not QUITE the framerates, but the image quality is head and shoulders above the crowd - INCLUDING the GeForce.

In OpenGL, the G400 is getting there. It still takes a reasonable performance hit compared to the GeForce, but the visuals are SO SUPERIOR that I can't imagine gaming with any other card.

HOWEVER, if your first priority is framerates, I would stick with the GeForce. The G400 is really for those seeking the best image quality possible who are willing to take a performance hit to get it.

- Gurm

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

[nosuchluck]

hey there.
i have both, the g400 max is on a p3 800, and the clapro ddr is on a p3 450, and the geforce is faster in everything.

the image quality thing is a joke.
i have compared both, and there is very little difference in image quality. i think that alot of matrox owners say this because they have a matrox card and not a geforce.

trust me, i have both, and when you put the same screen on each monitor, head to head, you CAN'T tell a difference.

stick with a geforce unless you can't live without dual-head and embm, this is the reason i still have a g400 max.

but you really can't go wrong with either card, but keep in mind, the ddr cost much more than you can buy a g400 max for, and if you switch, you will surely notice that your games play MUCH slower than with a geforce.

no flaming please, remember, i own both!!

looking very forward to the g800 to replace the g400, btw.....

cheers!

[Jord]

no flaming please, remember, i own both!!

He's all yours Jason

I don't have a GeForce, but I did see the difference in clarity between an ATI and my G400, and it was like comparing night and day! My G400 might be slower in fps, but in clarity and image quality it was better than the ATI. Maybe nosuchluck should try a new monitor, instead of the one he's using now

Jord.

[Tseng]

For resolution lower than 1024x768, you really can't tell the difference. However, once you go 1280x1024, the difference is so clear, G400 beat GeForce to death in image quality.

For people who have both video cards, try high resoultions, then come back!

[Tseng]

For resolution lower than 1024x768, you really can't tell the difference. However, once you go 1280x1024, the difference is so clear, G400 beat GeForce to death in image quality.

For people who have both video cards, try high resoultions, then come back!

[HollyBerri]

not supposed to flame him; he has both cards-- not supposed to flame him; he has both cards-- not supposed to flame him; he has both cards-- not supposed to flame him; he has both cards-- not supposed to flame him; he has both cards-- not supposed to flame him; he has both cards-- resistresistresistresistresist

Of course that would be somewhat easier if you had not said this--

there is very little difference in image quality. i think that alot of matrox owners say this because they have a matrox card and not a geforce.

<grrrrrowwwwwwl>

As if most of us are secretly kicking ourselves for our "stupid mistake", our "foolish impatience".

As if most of us want or need a GeForce, whose only benefit over the G400 is speed <u>in games</U>-- and ONLINE FIRST PERSON SHOOTER GAMES, at that (some of us play other things, you know)-- as if most of us have no other interest in our PCs than gaming...

As if most of us give a flying sh.... excuse me.... about being the <u>boy</u> who can pee the biggest circle in the snow by buying the "fastest, greatest" card every time one comes out and selling last month's "fastest, greatest" card to some other sa... excuse me.

We have readily admitted (in this very thread) that the G400 is not designed to suit everyone's needs, but that for those whose needs it does meet, it does an admirable job.

So I don't much appreciate some speed jockey acting like we're a bunch of idiots just because we *cough*have a li....excuse me.

Just because you own both cards is no excuse to be rude to us.

&#60;/grrrrrowwwwwwl&#62;

----------------------
Holly

[Jorden]

I would like to read the uncensored mail )

[Thundrchez]

I, too, have both a G400 and a Guillemot 3D Prophet SDR GeForce256 video card. There is a difference.

For kicks, play Unreal Tournament, get the biosludge weapon, and shoot off a bunch of shots. Look at where they hit. With the GeForce, there are green squares surrounding the sludge splat. With the G400, you see the splat without a square of green around it. This is just one example of the image quality compromises that GeForce does to get higher frame rates.

The G400 is in my top of the line system because it really does look that much better.

[Velocity]

Hey, just tell me the address, I've got your G400max right here. Seriously, overnite shipping in its retail box, I can even shrink wrap it for you.

I am more of a hardcore gamer, so the Annihilator Pro makes more sense to me. The details that the people in this forumn have listed are all true, but for the hardcore gamer, we could care less.

Please contact me immediately if you are interested, my email is jwcrosby@gte.net, icq number is 10129349, aol im is MrTonSpeed. If you want any more info, just request it in an email or im or anything.

[DuRaNgO[MU]]

"MUCH FASTER?"
could you post some benches to make that statement more substancial since you owned both cards?
jim
and be sure to list the settings, i.e. bi or tri linear etc.


------------------
Abit BE6 with P3 500 @ 5*124=620
14.6 gb Maxtor ata66 and 128mb ram
G400 vanilla 32mb @ 168/210
Sblive with Altec Lansing speaker combo
384k DSL and Realtek nic
Windows 98se with DX7a
3dMark2000 = 2956
Worn out reset button :O)

[Tom]

DuRaNgO,
I also would like to see some benchmarks......high res. 32bit.
P.S. I'm glad you mentioned trilinear/bilinear filtering.


------------------
MatroxG400MAX, AsusP2B-L rev.1011), PIII 617(5.5x112MHz), 128MB PC100 SDRAM, QuantumFireball(KX)27.3,Promise Ultra66,
ADI MicroScanG66(19"), MonsterSoundMX200, PioneerDVD103-S, MotorolaCyberSURFR modem, Logitech iTouch
cordless keyboard/mouse,
Yamaha speakers (4+1sub),
Iomega Zip drive (100MB internal),CanoScan FB630U

[Zebra]

Thanks for all the help guys. Velocity, YGM.

[rdnzl]

I too, have both cards on separate systems.
I agree that at lower resolution there isn't a whole lotta difference.Althought I think the colors are richer on the G400.
But in higher reolutions and 32bit color, only a blind person couldn't see the difference...
I run NFS PU on my G440 at 1600x1200 32bit and the picture is amazing..the Geforce just can't duplicate the clors and clarity.

Crank the GeForce up to 1600 x 1200 and try and read some black text on white background.
You eyes will be begging for mercy in 5 minute..on the G400 I can read all day at that resolution..

Both good cards, but don't try an tell me there is no difference in image quality!!



------------------
"That's not a bug, that's a feature!!"