Matrox G450 Review

[EvilDonnyboy]

Auric said "Well, true as it is just an "improved" (mosty for Matrox's bottom line) G400 however the G400 was touted heavily for games but just did not deliver. "

Thats full of B.S. I don't know why anyone is comparing a G450 to geforces. do you compare a hyundai accent with a ferrari? They are in totaly different catagories. One is a cheap buissness card, the other is a high-end expensive gamers only card.

And the G400 DID deliver. My G400 at default speed can beat any TNT2 and V3 2K at almost every non-glide game. At max speeds it can beat the every v3 3K/3.5k and TNT2 Ultras at all non-glide games.

 

[NFS4]

And another

http://www.aceshardware.com/Spades/read.php?article_id=15000168

 

[Huma]

I hate it when people discount the Matrox cards for crappy Quake3 performance. Is anyone buying a G400/450 for Quake? I doubt it. Can you get the best 2D on the market from Nvidia, 3dfx or anyone else?

The Matrox cards definitely have their place. Ask any PC using graphics/web pro. If I didn't play games as much as I do, I'd have one in my box for sure.

And yes, I am an official webkid who spends way too long staring at my monitor.

 

[Auric]

EvilDonnyboy, the G450 to Geforce 2 MX comparision is valid. They both are cheap cards with multi monitor support. My guess is that Matrox will try to sell them for more than the MX though but as I implied I would be doubtful of that succeeding. The G400 came out too late and was too expensive. It was not competitive so it is swell that you were content with your purchase but plenty of people were not. I remember I was considering buying one and just kept on waiting and waiting and waiting. After some delay they were only available at full list price directly from Matrox and the drivers stank on ice for ages. I might have bought one eventually except for all the dissapointment over drivers I read about at matroxusers.

Huma, with Matrox's past pricing as a guide I bet you'll get multi monitor support and better gaming for cheaper from NVIDIA or better quality and better gaming and more features from ATI for a bit more.

Conclusion: I'll pass but if it works for you that's swell.

 

[Hardware]

LOL Matrox!! Geforce2 MX is cheaper and better. Come late with an expensive old design. Matrox are you crazy?
Just for fun I was missing the state of the art GTS Ultra in the review.
NT4/W2000 dualhead still isnt working (indeed its worthless with w2k).
Never buy a Matrox again
2.display ramdac has only medicore quality? (according to anand)
For me its more a step back.
As far I know G400 driver for W2000 are still far away from final
As Anand told you for gaming,high end 3D rendering, CAD, etc... the GeForce2 MX is a clearly superior
A desaster for Matrox!

 

[hans007]

yeah, but the 2d on nvidia cards is a lot crummier than matrox. The companies that do their own cards (ati, 3dfx, matrox) all have better 2d from my experience . i've had a v5, v3, riva128, tnt2, geforce, g400 and rage128. I'd rank them in this order. g400, v5/v3/rage128 (i havent had a radeon), tnt2/geforce, riva128 in 2d quality.

 

[Warrenton]

For one, the Mhz of the RAMDAC means squat. All it means it the max resolution and refresh rate. The quality is not a function of the Mhz rating of the RAMDAC.

Take for example my GeForce2 and a circa 1996 Matrox Millenium PCI. At 1280X960X32@85Hz which one do you think looks better?

I have both, and guess what, the Matrox Millenium PCI with 4MB is much more crisp and clear, the colors are more vibrant. Guess what, it only has a 200Mhz RAMDAC.

I have seen the G400MAX with 360Mhz RAMDAC, and to put it nicely, the GeForce2 sucks for image quality in comparison. Not talking things like texturing, but actual image display. The MAX is so clear its unbelievable. My GeForce2 at 2048X1536X16@60Hz is unreadable, yet at the same settings the G400MAX is crystal clear. And the G400 can do X32@85Hz, and my monitor only supports that at up to 75Hz.

Oh and for those wondering, I run my desktop at 1600X1200X32@75Hz, I can do up to 85Hz and would but the GeForce2 is blurry at that refresh, again the RAMDAC is poor quality.

 

[SSP]

What are you trolls talking about? Matrox have bad driver support??

Those of you who really use the G400 every day (like me, and Zippy), knows that Matrox have a strong driver support for Win 2k and 9X.

 

[Czar]

First of all Matrox has had a very good driver support, I had a Matrox Millenium and it rocks, best drivers ever. Now I have a G400 and it has far better driver support than 3dfx has and about simmilar as nvidia has.

The G800 is a complete redesign of the G400 and a single chip G800 will performe a little more than 2x G400, a dual chip G800 on the other hand will probably kill all the other cards on the market (figure of speech).

Hardware
The Geforce2 MX is a value card for gamers, it hardly has the feture called twinview because the drivers for it suuuuuuuuuck. G450 is a value card for normal users who play games occasionaly but usally work in high resolutions or want dual display that works on a single card. The only experience we have of two ramdacs is in the MX, nvidia isnt all that good with 2d and the drivers for the dual display are very bad. Two ramdacs will be alot better than a single 360mhz ramdac, instead of lowering the ramdac for the main display you can run it at very high resolutions with another display.
And as far as you know is a bit wrong, the G400 win2000 drivers have been very final for many months now, WHQL approved and all. The only problem is the Dualhead, you have to use same res and ref on both displays but thats Microsofts foult, a problem that was supposed to be fixed with SP1.

and btw, anand might be a highly valued reviewer but he is not god, his words dont have to be true.

 

[Remedy]

I smell a zealot in here defending nvidia! :Q

 

[Hardware]

My father has my old g400max (he is using it mostly with 640x480 and cant see the difference btw 60 and 85hz!hmm he is 71 years!)
with the dualhead feature I dont know if its a win2000 or a matrox problem but it isnt usable with nt4/w2000 (I tried it!) with a 22" and 19" crt
yes the 2d is crisp but in these days 3d is far more important I would say 3dfx,ati,geforce,matrox are all good enough for 1600x1200x85

Oh I am writin this on my TNT with 1600x1200x85 which is ok
My work g400 is dead the second time (just black screen on startup)
Oh I dont need to defend nvidia! nvidia is defending themself with very good products!

 

[wake]

Don't expect the G800 out until jan-feb 2001. Matrox has much longer product cycles than Nvidia or 3dfx (actually, not that much longer than 3dfx )

 

[Eug]

Well, twinview would be nice, but my IT guy dislikes Matrox cards. Probably has more to do with out crappy motherboards though.

Unfortunately, the 16-bit 3D performance is even worse than my Voodoo 3 it seems.

 

[zippy]

Ignorant Post #1...from Hardware:



<< LOL Matrox!! Geforce2 MX is cheaper and better. Come late with an expensive old design. Matrox are you crazy? >>


Expensive old design? Huh? This is mostly going to OEMs, I doubt you'll be able to buy the g450 from anywhere but matrox.com!



<< Just for fun I was missing the state of the art GTS Ultra in the review. >>


Funny...but the g450 isn't a gaming card.



<< NT4/W2000 dualhead still isnt working (indeed its worthless with w2k). >>


Considering that W2k and NT4 are the restricting factors in dualhead working like it does in Win9x, you really can't complain.



<< Never buy a Matrox again >>


LOL! What a good little troll.



<< 2.display ramdac has only medicore quality? (according to anand)
For me its more a step back. >>


LOL, yeah right...thats why in the G400 MAX review he said it was outstanding...yeah, they downgraded the RAMDAC...lmao!



<< As far I know G400 driver for W2000 are still far away from final
As Anand told you for gaming,high end 3D rendering, CAD, etc... the GeForce2 MX is a clearly superior >>


You know wrong lil man...they are final...WHQL approved and all. BTW, gaming is not the objective of this card man...they want OEM deals and they are getting them! LOL.



<< A desaster for Matrox! >>


English isn't your first language, right? BTW, its not a disaster, IBM, Compaq, etc. will snatch this cheap, cool (temperature), effective, stable, mature card in a second to put in their business machines...just like they did with the G400 series.

Ignorant Post #2...from Hardware:



<< My father has my old g400max (he is using it mostly with 640x480 and cant see the difference btw 60 and 85hz!hmm he is 71 years!)
with the dualhead feature I dont know if its a win2000 or a matrox problem but it isnt usable with nt4/w2000 (I tried it!) with a 22&quot; and 19&quot; crt yes the 2d is crisp but in these days 3d is far more important I would say 3dfx,ati,geforce,matrox are all good enough for 1600x1200x85 >>


Okay, why waste a great card like a G400 MAX on 640x480?! I explained the W2k thing..its MS's fault. No, you clearly have not seen an nVidia product at anything above 1024x768...above that it you can see the difference between that and a G400...or G200, the Matrox card is crisper. At even higher resolutions the degree of crispness really shows...Matrox card in favor of course.

Wait, did you say 3d is far more important than 2d?! I dunno about you, but I am, and I know most people here are, in the 2d world in my computer about 3x-5x more than 3d.


<< Oh I am writin this on my TNT with 1600x1200x85 which is ok >>


Riiiiiight...lol.



<< My work g400 is dead the second time (just black screen on startup) >>


Did you flash the bios improperly? Is it seated correctly? Is it the motherboard? LOL. I've only heard 2 cases of a busted G400...before this thread I'd only heard of 1.


<< Oh I dont need to defend nvidia! nvidia is defending themself with very good products! >>


LMFAOPIMP! You do defend nVidia, and quite poorly I might add! nVidia is defending the speed crown-for now-with the $500 beast of a Gf2GTSultra. LMAO!

Hardware, get some sleep, okay? BTW...

UT benches here at anandtech: http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1315&amp;p=9

2D Quality and Performance here at anandtech: http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1315&amp;p=10

Hardware, what were you saying about mediocre 2D? He said its the best 2d on the market...things that make you go <me smacks Hardware>.

Disclaimer: I am not a matrox zealot...I just don't like people spreading false information about them. Yes, I do favor matrox (cuz I love good 2d!), but if they came out with something that sucked, I'd be the first to recognize it.

 

[Hardware]

LOL post from Zippy:

<< LOL Matrox!! Geforce2 MX is cheaper and better. Come late with an expensive old design. Matrox are you crazy? >>


Expensive old design? Huh? This is mostly going to OEMs, I doubt you'll be able to buy the g450 from anywhere but matrox.com!

Its a one year old design. The g400max is faster und has the same features and the same price



<< Just for fun I was missing the state of the art GTS Ultra in the review. >>


Funny...but the g450 isn't a gaming card.


In todays time there is no way to avoid 3d
If you like business Winword get a onboard gfxchip for free



<< NT4/W2000 dualhead still isnt working (indeed its worthless with w2k). >>


Considering that W2k and NT4 are the restricting factors in dualhead working like it does in Win9x, you really can't complain.

As I said its useless within NT4/W2K



<< 2.display ramdac has only medicore quality? (according to anand)
For me its more a step back. >>


LOL, yeah right...thats why in the G400 MAX review he said it was outstanding...yeah, they downgraded the RAMDAC...lmao!
g400max??

The 2. ramdac is only medicore!!


<< As far I know G400 driver for W2000 are still far away from final
As Anand told you for gaming,high end 3D rendering, CAD, etc... the GeForce2 MX is a clearly superior >>


You know wrong lil man...they are final...WHQL approved and all. BTW, gaming is not the objective of this card man...they want OEM deals and they are getting them! LOL.

Well maybe matrox,ati,3dfx are on one level but nvidia driver support (detonator unified) is outstanding!



<< A desaster for Matrox! >>


English isn't your first language, right?
yes

BTW, its not a disaster, IBM, Compaq, etc. will snatch this cheap, cool (temperature), effective, stable, mature card in a second to put in their business machines...just like they did with the G400 series.

The problem is it isnt cheap!!!



Ignorant Post #2...from Hardware:



<< My father has my old g400max (he is using it mostly with 640x480 and cant see the difference btw 60 and 85hz!hmm he is 71 years!)
with the dualhead feature I dont know if its a win2000 or a matrox problem but it isnt usable with nt4/w2000 (I tried it!) with a 22&quot; and 19&quot; crt yes the 2d is crisp but in these days 3d is far more important I would say 3dfx,ati,geforce,matrox are all good enough for 1600x1200x85 >>


Okay, why waste a great card like a G400 MAX on 640x480?! I explained the W2k thing..its MS's fault.
Thats maybe true but my point is its useless within W2K/NT4


No, you clearly have not seen an nVidia product at anything above 1024x768...above that it you can see the difference between that and a G400...or G200, the Matrox card is crisper. At even higher resolutions the degree of crispness really shows...Matrox card in favor of course.
As I saif nvidia,3dfx,ati is good enough now for 1600x1200x85 not the best but good enough
(last 2d crisp winner was asus 6600 pure!) 2.nd was matrox



Wait, did you say 3d is far more important than 2d?! I dunno about you, but I am, and I know most people here are, in the 2d world in my computer about 3x-5x more than 3d.
And thats the reason you need 1ghz cpu?


<< Oh I am writin this on my TNT with 1600x1200x85 which is ok >>


Riiiiiight...lol.
its just for short time til i get a new gfx card


<< My work g400 is dead the second time (just black screen on startup) >>


Did you flash the bios improperly? Is it seated correctly? Is it the motherboard? LOL. I've only heard 2 cases of a busted G400...before this thread I'd only heard of 1.
Its a bios failure matrox (official!) had a big problem witch bad bios chips!


<< Oh I dont need to defend nvidia! nvidia is defending themself with very good products! >>


LMFAOPIMP! You do defend nVidia, and quite poorly I might add! nVidia is defending the speed crown-for now-with the $500 beast of a Gf2GTSultra. LMAO!

nVidia is defending from $100 to $500 which is awesome!

 

[Czar]

Hardware, you realy are an nVidia zealot

Zealot: Those who ignore facts in favor of a certain product or company.

 

[Goi]

There is more to graphics than 3D graphics. Graphics professionals and web designers will find the G450 great for its affordability, speed, image quality and DualHead capabilities. The GeForce2MX simply cannot compare, at least in its image quality, and yes, its 2D performance is also lower than the G450 AND the G400. It might not be that much lower, but it still is lower. Also, there hasn't been many GeForce2MXs with the TwinHead feature announced/produced, and those that do normally don't have dual monitor display, but opt for DVI or TV-out, which are arguably less important and useful.

The bottom line is, the G450 and the MX are aimed at similar markets, but not identical. If they're identical, then from performance wise the G450 wins, period.

 

[zippy]

Okay, I am not going to even bother with what hardware just said, because frankly I don't have to time to get what he said again...cuz i'd have to do it individually line by line. But, I think it is quite obvious that he is overlooking virtually all of the facts and that the GeForce2MX's TwinHead feature sucks donkey balls (see: Tom's Hardware).

Graphics professionals LOVE dualhead and LOVE the crispness. They use 22&quot; FD Trinitron CRTs and the slightest bit of blurriness is obvious to them because it is their job! A really cool feature in Dualhead NOT in Twinview is the &quot;zoom&quot; feature...where it takes a selection of the 1st monitor and zooms in on it in the second monitor...say in photoshop 5.5 so you don't have to keep zooming in and out. Also, playing a DVD or watching TV on the first or second monitor while doing a paper on the other monitor is a nice feature. The only thing that the TwinView can really do it have an extended desktop it seems.

The G450 is for OEM deals and they will most likely only sell it on their web site, this only further backs up EVERYTHING that they've said about it...that it is a business card, not gaming! Sheesh Hardware, get that through your thick skull! BTW, the G400 MAX performs as well in 2d SPEED as the GeForce2GTS...so does the G450, so if you are looking for 2D SPEED and QUALITY then its G450...no question about it...plus its cheap...probably about $150 retail...even less to OEMs.

 

[Sohcan]

<< In todays time there is no way to avoid 3d
If you like business Winword get a onboard gfxchip for free >>

What part of business don't you understand Hardware? Have you ever heard of some little known programs such as Excel, Word, Photoshop, and Pagemaker? If I ran a business, I wouldn't want my employees spending all their time playing Q3A anyway. The G450's high-res 2D is infinitely superior to any integrated VGA, and much better than any other add-on card in its price range. What the G450 isn't is a CADD/3D rendering card, but not all business applications are CADD...

The G450 is pointed at a very specific market segment, an area where Matrox excels at. I don't think Matrox expects you to buy it, so quit bitching.

 

[Hardware]

For office like there is no need for a g450 get a i810 i815 chipset which is good enough.
We have all 19&quot;-21&quot; crts here and only two of us are using 1600x1200 most are using 1024x768 (even with 21&quot and thats for cad

 

[Czar]

Hardware

I have a 20&quot; artmedia and a G400 and I run it at 1280x1024 32bit 85hz, I would run it in 1600x1200 if my monitor could do it in 85hz instead of 75hz.

At work I had an 17&quot; dell monitor, very good one. And also the dell computer had the i815 chipset with Intels graphics adapter and I forced myself to run it at 1280x1024 75hz even though it was extremely blurry. Cheap OEM adapters are only meant for 1024x768 not anything higher. All the computers in the company are at 800x600 or 1024x768, except mine.

 

[Soccerman]

ooohh.. the G450.. looks TINY! I saw a pic of it a few days ago, MAN that was small. it's packed man. look, there's barely any spots with nothing on it! that chip could be a good OEM chip, with all the features it packs!

I wonder how good an overclock we could get? with 5ns DDR, and up the chip speed to 150mhz, maybe 166, it would be ok! almost as fast as the TNT2 Ultra was?

 

[zippy]

Hmmm...I wouldn't want to sit in front of a computer for 8 hours a day working with blurry video. That kinda thing causes eye irritation, eye problems, eye-sight depreciation, etc. Something a worker can get paid time off from or workers comp if it gets really bad! :Q Some eyes are really that sensitive, believe it or not.

 

[Hardware]

I doubt the i815 gives you with 1024x768 a blurry picture 1024x768 is near to no stress for a ramdac
my best joke was a s4 savage with a 270 ramdac which was blurry like hell.
I am sitting here on a Geforce DDR at 1600x1200x32x85 and I dont know if its the best 2d quality but its ok for me!
maybe the g450 is good for about 0,5% of the market (2d-developers who are using 2 CRTS and not nt4/W2k)
Anyway thats not a big hit for matrox.

 

[SSP]

If you are into Graphic design, this is the card to get. It's not for CAD design or anything like that. Thats QUadro's job. Its really simple Hardware. I just don't understand why you can't get this simple point Zippy's trying to make.

BTW 12x7 for graphic design is unacceptable.