I have read a few reviews that flame the G400s OpenGL support. Everything else about the card is supposedly wonderful. I ordered one and would like to know if it really sucks that bad. I haven't found a really good comparison between it and a V3 or a TNT2 Ultra as of yet.
direct3d performance on p3 systems is right up there with the TNT2 Ultra, but the opengl doesnt even touch anybody elses. hopefully they can get their act together and get that ICD worked out before the card officially ships
At last, We will reveal ourselves to the Jedi.
I have gone to look for myself, If I get back before I return.....Keep me here
I took Nvidia a year after the launch of the TNT to get the drivers dialed in. Good thing for TNT 2 buyers because the drivers are great today. My guess is Matrox will need a year to get their drivers right, and since the G400 is totally different from the G200, don't expect any improvement for that obsolete card.
Nvidia has had the best consumer ICd for a while. Back when I ran my riva 128 the ICD worked, not perfectly, but better than all the other companies' ICd's out now. And the G400 is not totally different than the G200. If the ICd sucks for one ,it will suck for all.
I once bought a G200 card, and I'm still waiting for OpenGL support. The wrapper they have delivered with the card is not good enough, only about 12fps (Crusher) om my Celery 450 128mb... dissapointing.
And that is the reason I would never by a Matrox card again... maybe.
Horrendous is only having 5 levels of mip maps for Quake3. Indeed the G400 has a slow ICD, but at least it looks a heck of a lot better then the TNT2 and if you scale it down it will run plenty fast and still look as good as a TNT2. I wouldn't suggest it over a TNT2 for OpenGL only, but I would if you mostly play D3D games with a few OpenGL games.