Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

G400 OpenGL performance

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Hi all,

    A lot of the emphasis on the new G400/max's seems to be on gaming performance with high screen res with high refesh (just waiting on a Quake 3 benchmark at 16384x12288 24 bit colour... Markus? ). This despite my old tread's survey on what monitor setup everyone has. From what I remember most folk have 15"/17" monitors running at 1024x768@70Hz.

    From Markus's earlier post it looks like performance at such "low" res has improved with newer drivers. So maybe the 'avera
    ge' user *might* just benefit from a G400/Max over their current G200 setup without upgrading their monitor.

    Me, with my 17 incher at 1024@75Hz (sometimes that 1158 thingy), I think I'll wait till the price comes down after a while.

    Cheers

    [This message has been edited by Opus (edited 06-25-99).]

    Comment


    • #17
      Hi Opus,

      there is definitely a gain in low resolutions over the G200 ...

      the G400 has a LOAD more stamina and the peak scores are also beyond the G200s ... even in 640x480 !!!

      I think the confusion is caused by comparisons against the competition (V3 & TNT U2) using low res with early beta drivers ... but I think that'll be history too

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

      Not too slow running Asus, Intel & Matrox based system ...
      Heavily boosted by the Millenium G400 32MB SGRAM DualHead


      Comment


      • #18
        The thing is, those of us on a budget wouldn't need a G400 if Matrox would release those G200 drivers (and ICD) that they're holding on to right now. Sure would be nice to have a card that does what it claims to do when I bought it nearly a year ago.
        But if Matrox did that, we might not buy a G400 now, would we? What does it matter if there's a shortage anyway? At this rate, the next generation of cards will be out, and the G400 will lag behind before we could even attempt to buy them.




        ------------------
        503+ rev 1.2a, 128MB PC100 RAM, K6-2/350@400,Win98,G200 Millenium (SGRAM)


        Gigabyte P35-DS3L with a Q6600, 2GB Kingston HyperX (after *3* bad pairs of Crucial Ballistix 1066), Galaxy 8800GT 512MB, SB X-Fi, some drives, and a Dell 2005fpw. Running WinXP.

        Comment


        • #19
          I couldn't agree more!

          Comment


          • #20
            Gets sort of confusing right?

            Comment


            • #21
              Isn't everything?

              Comment


              • #22
                Just thought I'd post an old quote from a gaming site ref OpenGL, this was from a review of the Real3D Starfighter card:

                "Of course, readers want to know about the progress that Real3D is making on the i740 OpenGL driver. We can report that the progress is good, with the older "OpenGL wrapper" that was present a month and a half ago replaced with a full-fledged driver. In regards to the question that we get from readers about OpenGL drivers, and why new chipsets don't come fresh out of the box with them, we offer something told to us by nVidia's Michael Hara at E3:
                The general public doesn't realize that it's a true 10-year man work effort to create a high-performance OpenGL driver for any 3D chipset. That's why even our most recent OpenGL drviers are still at only 70% or so of what they'll eventually be able to achieve speed-wise on the Riva 128 and 128ZX."
                That puts it in perspective properly, and it applies to Real3D as well as any other videocard manufacturer. OpenGL takes time to implement, and the driver that we received for the StarFighter still has room for performance improvement. Visual quality on the Real3D OpenGL driver was incredible, easily one of the best representations of Quake II that we've ever seen."


                ------------------
                BH6 450A 128MB CW7502B CDR SR8583 DVD SBlive! Value Hollywood + AL320N USR Sportster etc. Oh, 8MB G200 Mystique too!


                Office: Giga266A, XP1900+, 1GB PC2100. 80GB Maxtor, Matrox G550 Integraph 21", Sceptre 19"
                Home:#1.Abit IS7, 512MB OCZ DDR 533, P4C2600 at 3260, LiteOn 411S DVDRW, LiteOn 481248 CDRW,WD 80G ATA100, Audigy, 2X IBM P202, Radeon 9600 Pro as well.
                #2. TB 1.33G/KR7AR133/512MB PC2100. MSI GF4-4200TI, Maxtor 13.6/40G drives/Ricoh 121032 CDRW, Hitachi 8X DVD, AOpen 52X. etc.
                #3. P3-700-512MB/BX6R2/GF2MX400/
                etc. #4,#5 Various P2 with G400, G200.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Hey Kruzin,

                  The guy asked if they were improvment in the lower res with the new drivers.
                  Not what YOU think of lower res
                  "Nothing will be played at those resolutions any more." and "1152x864x32 bit is the lowest res I use for any of the OGL games I've tried."
                  That's only your opinion, but that's not the case for most people out there who have a 14", 15 " or lower specs 17" so have a little consideration for them please, not everybody has a 19" or 21" 1000$ and more monitor at home...
                  and also that's fine for you if you play only at 20000x15500x64 bit if you want...but totally irrelevant of the guy question and a bit arrogant if I dare say (prove me wrong please).
                  Again most people won't go at these res, powerusers will, but they're not the mainstream out there. And maybe I didn't read it well, but the g400 regular wasn't meant only for high-end (am I wrong ?), so the lower res is still significant here.

                  No offence

                  Jackzod

                  Athlon64 4800+
                  Asus A8N deluxe
                  2 gig munchkin ddr 500
                  eVGA 7800 gtx 512 in SLI
                  X-Fi Fatality
                  HP w2207

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Even 15" monitors easily support 1024x768 and higher. My kid's 5 year old 17" does 1600x1200. If someone is using a junky old 14" monitor that won't do more than 800x600, then my suggestion would be to take the money they would spend on the G400, and buy a monitor instead. For a hundred bucks, you could even find a used monitor to handle better resolutions than 800x600.

                    But, to answer the question, there has been marked improvements at lower res, when I compare the beta drivers to the reviews I've seen.
                    Core2 Duo E7500 2.93, Asus P5Q Pro Turbo, 4gig 1066 DDR2, 1gig Asus ENGTS250, SB X-Fi Gamer ,WD Caviar Black 1tb, Plextor PX-880SA, Dual Samsung 2494s

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I can't see why anybody would bother with a Matrox card at 1024 X 768 or less. There are too many other cards that are probably faster, likely cheaper, and almost certainly better supported. You get a Matrox when you are running high resolutions on good quality monitors (so clarity becomes a real concern) and you don't want to use OpenGL on NT.

                      [This message has been edited by PaulS (edited 06-26-99).]

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Why not..?
                        Sure I want to buy a MAtrox G400 for OGL under NT 4.0 and 2000.

                        Regards,
                        Elie

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          PaulS, I like how you went back and edited your statement to correct yourself. I have a couple of good reasons to use the G400 at 1024x768 only (60Hz above this). Environmental Bump mapping. Unbelieveable visual eye candy (yes even for us low buget monitor users). Dual Head output. Great support (here and at matrox).

                          This isn't a high end monitor club only. I think you'll find that is a pervading opinion.


                          -neo

                          ------------------
                          Asus P2B-F, 496MHZ Pentium II (4x124!!), Global Win VEK12 hs/fan, 128MB Micron PC133, Maxtor 4GB, SB AWE 32, Creative DVD 2x, Mitsumi CDR 2x/8x, Sony Trinitron 17", Old Matrox Video Card, and a redhead with a pair of 36Cs (O/Ced to 38Cs)





                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Oh yeah! That's why I'm still hesitating and didn't go for TNT2 - image quality ( important for my tired eyes :-) ) and EMBM...
                            I prefer better image quality to raw speed, but to reasonabl;e extent, of course !
                            But guys - thatnks for answering my question - I'll buy G400 :-)))

                            ------------------

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X