Announcement

**Nuno** · 26 March 2001, 06:51

Wait until Christmas if you can, I´m sure by then we should have more, faster, and cheaper cards, cpu´s, motherboards, memory, ... than in the summer

Easy, az

**Pace** · 26 March 2001, 07:13

Does the G400 give you enough FPS?

Do you use DualHead?

The GF2 GTS is obviously a nice, fast card - but I'd say there are 2 graphics card options at the moment:

1) G4x0
2) Kyro II

Check the Kyro reviews to see how it compares on price and performance to the GF2 - and you'll be getting a brand new card to boot (I'm assuming that the GF2 is 2nd hand)

P.

az · 26 March 2001, 07:19

hehehe of course, but i didn't want to say too directly that by summer we will at least know (and hopefully be able to buy) the next matrox card... right, BBz?

AZ

**rylan** · 26 March 2001, 07:44

Wait until summer.. no, wait until christmas.. no.. wait until next year, as faster stuff will be out then. Hell, might as well wait until you're dead, as the cards by then will be amazing.

To be honest, the G400 doesn't cut it for newer games. My MAX has trouble keeping up on a GHz Athlon system even with detail settings turned down. If you use the dual head, then thats a big plus. If not, go with something else.. hopefulyl that Kyro2 will be out within a month.

az · 26 March 2001, 09:42

it will be out in 2-3 weeks

and i just try to say that i'm almost sure a company we all know and love will release their next card this summer... (so we can all spend 700$ on a geforce 3 )

you don't have to believe me that matrox will indeed be releasing their next card by summer, and i take no responsibility for that "info"

AZ

**Jim Sefton** · 26 March 2001, 16:29

G400 or GTS2????

I currently have a G400 32Mb Dual Head. I use my computer for 3D Studio Max and Counter Strike (amongst other things). I have the opportunity to get hold of a GTS 2 for £100. Is it worth it????? or is it better to wait until the GForce 3 comes out and the GForce 2 dropped through the floor?

Any thoughts welcome.

**spawn666** · 29 March 2001, 03:00

in cs you will gain nearly no improvement over the g400, except for a much worse image with the gefrog.
3d studio max benefits from a faster processor more !

**Bursar** · 29 March 2001, 07:44

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by spawn666:
in cs you will gain nearly no improvement over the g400, except for a much worse image</font>

The 10-15 fps that he is likely to gain is nothing?

I don't want to get into a war about this, but if the guy wants to upgrade his card, then give him some helpful suggestions. Comments like "If you wait 6 months, there'll be a new card out" will always be true, and in the mean time his existing card is getting older and slower (in comparison).

Personally, I'd take the jump. No-one can say when Matrox will definately be releasing a new card, and the GF3 cards are so thin on the ground that it's likely to be 2-3 months at least before they are common enough to affect the price of GF2 cards significantly.

az · 29 March 2001, 08:47

that's why i say get a kyro II in 2-3 weeks or wait 3 months ang get the new Mcard...

AZ

**yepitsme** · 29 March 2001, 09:08

Get that GTS if you want to play games
with decent resolutions and higher fps.

And those about image quality if you get
same fps at 640x480 16 bit or 1152x864 32bit
which one has better image quality or which
one looks better ?

In gaming any Matrox card sucks right now.
I'm myself stucked in to Matrox G450 because i need two monitors, but when a card with
good quality DH comes around with at least
GTS level 3d i'll take it and it doesn't matter if it is not Matrox card.

az · 29 March 2001, 09:32

yepitsme, most people who play games still spend some time in 2d (like, for example, this forum), and for those who do, or who play "slower" games, image quality is an issue... what you are talking about is effects quality.. image quality is the sharp delivering of those effects... (so i'm with you when you say a gts is better for fps games, because it allows higher resolutions and/or color depths - but if you chose the same resolution on a g400 and paused the game, it'd look better.. and 2d as well as many games are slow enough to notice )

AZ

**Jim Sefton** · 29 March 2001, 09:42

Thanks for all your advice guys.

I have taken the plunge and got a GForce 2 GTS 32Mb DDR (was offered it at a MUCH lower price) and a Savage 3 16MB PCI.

I shall let you all know what I think of it once it's installed.

cheers again

**Snake-Eyes** · 29 March 2001, 13:19

Good post Az. I've had an Elsa Gladiac for a while now, and I can agree 100% with all of your points.

The GTS is better for fps, since you can use higher resolutions/color depths/feature settings, and still get good framerates. I use it for UT, Q3A, Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force, etc...

Meanwhile, my older G400Max, which is my wife's computer, is better at nearly anything that either isn't framerate intensive, or that doesn't need higher resolutions. For instance, my wife and I occasionally play the computerized version of Life (board game), and the image on her monitor is much more crisp and vibrant than what I have (it's all 2D, with simulated 3D effects and video sequences).

So as long as you want a card primarily for the purpose of higher resolutions and color depths in 3D games, AND assuming framerates are also important, the 32MB GTS cards are currently a very good buy (the MX cards are even better right now, lol). If you play games more as an afterthought, and use your PC more often for image editing, video editing, word processing, or nearly any other type of work-related task more than anything else, the Matrox cards are easier on the eyes, and look better in high-resolution 2D than the nVidia-based cards currently available.

------------------
Ace

**The Rock** · 30 March 2001, 10:51

Well, I just threw out my Geforce 2 in favour of a 64meg ATI Radeon, and now I've got excellent 2D AND 3D. I'm liking this card quite a bit.

Bart