G400MAX is NOT a slouch!

C

[CQ]Violator

Guest
#1
Today I received my G400 MAX. I immediately started up GlQuake (which is the only game I actually play frequently) and ran some timedemos. At 1024x768, with all effects on, I got 93 fps (timedemo demo2). Although some of you profoundly believe that the G400MAX is a slouch compared to the TNT2 and the V3. It's not! It beats both of them at high resolutions, starting from 1024x768. And why the hell would you even think about running graphics cards like the G400MAX and the TNT2 at any less... I mean, folks, you don't but a new graphics card to run it at 540x380.. Am I right, or am I right? Also, you get the best image quality money can buy.
 
W

WuLabs

New Member
#2
Where can I get one now? I ordered one already but it won't be arriving until the second week of Oct.
 
S

ScottSOK

New Member
#3
What are your system spec.? Cause I got a friend who has a 400mhz PII with 128megs with a voodoo3 2000 and he can run Glquake at around 115fps in 1024.
 
J

JGene

New Member
#4
Hah, K6-III 475, 128MB RAM and a riva 128 (boat anchor)--55fps @ 640X480... Man I need a new video card.

-JGene
 
C

Can'tUseFrank

New Member
#5
I am with you CQ. I was totally dissappointed at my G400 performance when I first got it. "Damn, why didnt I get the TNT2 Ultra for an extra $30!!This thing hardly passes my current TNT!!!" But as I started benching at higher res's I discovered how powerful this apparently underrated card really is and was very happy with my investment.
To be completely honest my 8Mb V2 SLI and TNT setup BEATS my G400 and also ScottSOKs' friend with the voodoo3 2000 at resolutions below 1024x768. But above that res is where my new card really shines.
And the opengl performance seems to be lacking in a lot of sites regardless benchmarks. I could not tell the difference when I had started playing QI/II engine games like Sin and HalfLife at the highest possible res and colour depth being 1280x960x32! Man its like all of my Directx and opengl games(execpt Unreal...heh) were suddenly given a new life. I certainly dont mind the consistant 30+fps in Q2 at 1600x1200x32 with Highest Quality Textures auotoexec.cfg and HalfLife at 1280x960x32 with command line gl_texsort"1".
Anyway I could post heaps of benchmarks from all sorts of games to show it is not an unplayable performance in D3D and OpenGl. But that is purley subjective for my system and settings.
So I will simply state that my G400 is a very satisfying performer and is not a TNT2 Ultra or V3500 which have a higher clock speed. Some comparisons for + and - are peoples benchmarks show bad opengl perf but the Directx performance on Forsaken benchmark (quote)"smokes" the competition. Again these are numbers representative of that persons system. I shall try to be as unbiased as I can.
Having said that I am the owner of just the 'vanilla' G400 32Mb DH clocked to Max spec's quite readily. I am very impressed with the visuals and that alone on my 20" screen is to behold.
I am sure I would have been just as happy with a TNT2Ultra, but this cards feature rich offerings above that of nVidia's attracted my $$$$.
Enjoy your Max CQ. BTW. I have better performance with Matrox's recently overclocking utility than with powerstrip 's or MatroxUsers'.
Regards,
Frank.
 
R

renegade

New Member
#7
No flame intended but I get 149.1 FPS in GLQuake with my Diamond 770 TNT 2 at 1024 by 768. (no ultra)
With my ATI 8 meg AGP with a Voodoo II 8 meg add on I can get 94 FPS when tweaked out but most the time around 80 FPS.

[This message has been edited by renegade (edited 09-18-99).]
 
T

TawnosJR

New Member
#8
I don't know if this is the right thread for this, but anyway....
I was going to invest in a G400 instead of my TNT2 but I decided to go for the latter. Now I am wondering which would have been wiser? Also....my monitor doesn't go over 640x480, which monitor would be the best buy to use with the V770 TNT2 (not ultra), I have around 300-400 to use.

------------------
What do u mean teenagers have a short attention...what was I saying?
 
C

cyphen

New Member
#9
I can't wait to get my G400 - any of you guys try the dual monitor thing out yet - one showing windows the other quake2?

Tawnos -
I'm very happy with my KDS 19" monitor. I usually dont' buy big heavy stuff off the net because shipping is expensive, but i fouind a reseller on pricewatch.com that was selling it for $339 with free shipping. I went in to best buy to compare - the same monitor was $440. And this was back in march - i have no complaints. It's 1600x1200 max res, .26mm dot pitch at 75Hz. Pretty damn good. Best monitor for the price - i love it. the price at pricewatch now is about the same - $300 with $39 shipping. i didn't check extensively, but at least that's a place for you to start.
 
D

djroberts

New Member
#10
I like my G400 much better then my Diamond Viper V770 Ultra. The speed in OpenGL is better on the Viper, but I play the game with VSync enabled, and I can't tell a difference unless I benchmark. Plus my G400 plays EA games better, and looks better in Quake 3 then My Viper. I prefer the higher levels of Mip-Mapping and added color quality over and fps over 60. Half Life is the only game that is significantly better on my Viper that I've found.

- DJ
 
S

ScottSOK

New Member
#11
I just wanted to know what he's running it on it really does me no good to read of some frame rate and res, when I don't even know what his system specs. are. I've only seen one Max on a system which was a PIII 450, and I could honestly say Quake3 was impressive, but watching him play an openGL game like Half LIfe was almost pure horror. Had the most powerful machine at the last LAN party, and he was constantly freezing up. He finally gave up on the card and got a Xentor 32 meg.