Comparison between the Matrox G400/G450 and the GeForce MX

[LickEmSmack]

I'm looking for a copmarison between these two cards in terms (in order of importance) of 2D quality, drivers (Win2000 and Linux), 3D performance, and price. Any other comments are welcome if you own one of these cards. Help me make my decision. I was considering the Radeon 32 MB, but I heard that the drivers really blow in both the OS's I run.

BTW: I will be running the card in a KT7A mobo

 

[Actaeon]

2d: will have to go to the matrox (G400/G450)
Drivers: will go To Nvidia (GF2MX)
3d: will to to Nvidia (GF2MX)
Price: is about the same

 

[Ogo]

I've recently upgraded from a Matrox G400 dual head to a GF2 MX, and I run Windows 2000.
The first thing I noticed is that the incredible speed in GL, any GL, games, screensavers, anything, also I noticed that D3D in W2K is not up to par as with ME/98.

Also, the 2D quality seems about the same as far as I can notice. But the real draw-back to the G400/G450 (especially G450) is the terrible gaming performance, I mean really bad. The G450 is clocked at 90MHz I think and that is really slow when it comes to gaming. A G400 is way faster than G450 in games. In 2D I'd say they are about the same. The Dualhead in the Gxxx cards isway better than the GF2 Dual head.

Nvidia drivers seem more frequent and more reliable than Matrox's. And W2k performance is as good as the 98 performance (except in D3D).

I would definitely go with the Geforce 2 if you're working on professionnal OpenGL apps or are a gamer.

Hope it helps

 

[LickEmSmack]

Great! That's just the info I was looking for. I guess I have made up my mind to get the GeForce MX. Unless someone has anything to say about the Radeon? It's too bad because I would buy one if it had decent driver support!

 

[Biggs]

Look under here.