Need Opinions

[dguy6789]

On my secondary system which is an athlon xp 2000, should I use A Matrox G400 16MB, or a Geforce 2 MX400 64MB? I have the geforce2 right now, my friend says, that his matrox gets around 2000 3dmarks, when my geforce 2 gets 2500. But he says it overclocks stabily to where the matrox will get 3000 3Dmarks, when my gf2 overclocks to get 2800. Do you think I should make the trade? How is image quality?

 

[kurt454]

If you are a gamer, you might want the Geforce. Better driver support for games. If 2D is what you are after, go for the Matrox.

 

[dguy6789]

ok, thanks

 

[Blastman]

The 2D display quality I?ve seen on GF2 MX400?s is so poor that text looks blurry compared to my ATI 7500. Considering they are close in performance I would go for the Matrox, like kurt454 pointed out - better 2D - easier on the eyes.

 

[dguy6789]

Cool, would a matrox G400 have image quality comparable to say, my radeon 9000 pro?

 

[Blastman]

Matrox is known for good 2D, but I?ve read ATI cards these days are just as good. I don?t know about that particular Matrox card.

 

[Blastman]

I should add, that the problem with that Matrox card is that it only has 16MB, and I'm not so sure a lot of games are going to run on only a 16MB card.

So, you?re essentially between a rock and a hard place

Better 2D, lousy game performance or ?

? lousy 2D better game performance.

LOL

 

[dguy6789]

But it is AGP, and the geforce 2 is PCI, so I assume it could go down the AGP bus for more memory if it needs to. What do you think about that?

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
But it is AGP, and the geforce 2 is PCI, so I assume it could go down the AGP bus for more memory if it needs to. What do you think about that?

Is there any chance you could use a Matrox G550 or something like that (the cost is about US$95 from Newegg)? It would get you the best 2D, plus acceptable (unless you're a hardcore gamer) performance in games. If you want to do gaming primarily, you definitely need an ATI or Nvidia card, as the Matrox is oriented more towards business use where 2D matters the most. N.B. that if you get an Nvidia Geforce 2 MX card, the 2D IQ is almost definitely going to suck. ATI cards are much better (though a few old powered-by-ATI OEM cards did have bad 2D IQ), and Nvidia's modern Geforce 4's come in not too far behind (I don't suppose you'd notice unless you ran very high resolutions).

 

[selfbuilt]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Cool, would a matrox G400 have image quality comparable to say, my radeon 9000 pro?

The G400 is one of the best 2D quality cards out there, and should look better than your 9000 Pro. I "upgraded" my G400 to a GeForce2 Ti was very displeased with 2D performance, to put it mildly (the older nvidia cards are known to suck). I quickly upgraded to a Radeon 9500 Pro when it first came out, which gives acceptable 2D performance.

But my needs may be different from yours. Frankly, it all depends on what kind of monitor you have and the apps you run (if you have an inexpensive entry-level monitor, it won't matter much). But I am running a high-end professional series 19in viewsonic, and photoshop at high resolution was gorgeous on the G400. The 9500 pro is pretty good, but GeF2 sucked rocks!

That being said, I've played around with a GeF2 MX (PCI version) on an entry-level 15in monitor, and found it quite acceptable for general use and gaming (I just wouldn't try photo-editing on that setup). The colors are crisp on the GeF2 series, which is what gamers like. In contrast, you'll find the G400 rather dark at default settings (and will require a little fiddling with for games). The GeF2 MX is also moderately faster for games at stock speeds, as you've noticed

So, if you are planning on using it more for gaming and fooling around, then I would go for the GeF2MX. But if you want it as a general-purpose system, go with the Matrox.