What needs to be followed is in the videos, the rest you substitute with your opinion.

I did not find in videos what makes 640x480 the best resolution.

One of the many advantages of 640 x 480 is that it equals 307200. Try 1024 x 768 = 307200 and you see it doesn't work, so 640 x 480 is the way to go if you care about accuracy.

vvbee wrote:

One of the many advantages of 640 x 480 is that it equals 307200. Try 1024 x 768 = 307200 and you see it doesn't work, so 640 x 480 is the way to go if you care about accuracy.

you worked with trolltech before, right?

The videos were captured using custom software I built on a framework originating at trolltech. You can say I worked with them, but really it's unpaid community work.

Any chance to resurrect videos? Need to compare smth 😀

vorob wrote on 2020-02-03, 17:51:

Any chance to resurrect videos? Need to compare smth 😀

Don't bother looking for it.

vvbee wrote on 2017-08-20, 06:05:

Bottom line, the G400 tends to win in image quality, the GeForce2 tends to win in speed, and there are exceptions.

Who made this affirmation was drunk or high. Or he was trolling. Or he has no idea what he's doing.

G400 was at about the same level (in speed) with Voodoo3 3000 and TNT2. GF2 Ti is *much* faster. Like at least 2x faster, maybe 3x faster in some games.

Image quality is debatable, but I wasn't impressed at all.

My experience with the G450 was that it was inbetween TNT and TNT2 levels, the G400 slightly faster and comparable to a TNT2. The G400 MAX is even faster and about Radeon VE levels. They are all waaaay way way slower than a GeForce2 Ti.

RaverX wrote on 2020-02-12, 15:43:

Who made this affirmation was drunk or high. Or he was trolling. Or he has no idea what he's doing.

Really? And what gives you the privilege to claim that? Wonder who's trolling here.

Also, he said that the GF2 is faster. Besides, a - let's say 3-times - faster graphics card doesn't mean that it runs every game 3-times faster. If you believe that, then it's clearly you who has no idea what he's talking about. If the CPU can't keep up, you won't get more frames per second.

Image quality is debatable, but I wasn't impressed at all.

That says about all. Geforce2 had one of the worst image quality of all consumer cards back then. Matrox was on the other end, having one of the best. Whatever you want to debate here...

Let's try again.

vvbee wrote on 2017-08-20, 06:05:

Bottom line, the G400 tends to win in image quality, the GeForce2 tends to win in speed, and there are exceptions.

I'm not expert in english, it's not my primary language, but if somebody says "tends to win" I understand that it's slighty faster. That's far from 2x-3x difference.

Also, he says "there are exceptions". That makes perfect sense with the previous statement (tends to win), meaning that, altough Gf2 is "slighty" faster in general, sometime G400 is faster. I find that very hard to believe.

derSammler wrote on 2020-02-12, 15:50:

That says about all. Geforce2 had one of the worst image quality of all consumer cards back then. Matrox was on the other end, having one of the best. Whatever you want to debate here...

I say it again. Image quality is debatable. That's my opinion. You cannot measure it with a real mathematical scale. Aside from that, I have tested quite a few G400 cards and also a few GF2 Ti cards. On CRT monitors and on LCD monitors. In Windows 98 desktop, playing movies, games. Matrox G400 had a slighty better text quality and movie playback, but in games was not that great.

Even a GeForce 2MX beats a G400 in every Situation except Image Quality..

Guys, I think you're way too serious about this. It's not worth fighting about.

And no, the comparison is not really fair. After all, hardware T&L puts any Geforce series card in a whole different league.

Texture filtering is better on G400. That's for sure.

good said, a G400 is more like TNT2..

for a fair comparison at least a Parhelia needs to be used..

There's no "fair" comparison, when it comes to that time period.

yeah parhelia is already DX 8.1 and G550 is just a G400 with a bit more features..

if someone wants to play Games its the best to avoid matrox.

matze79 wrote on 2020-02-13, 14:33:

yeah parhelia is already DX 8.1 and G550 is just a G400 with a bit more features..

if someone wants to play Games its the best to avoid matrox.

I wouldn't go so far as saying that, if you pair them with a Voodoo 2 for GLIDE games then you get a very decent all around gaming PC, they provide quite decent 32-bit performance for OpenGL/D3D games at 800x600.

yeah at least if you want to play games from "GeForce Times" i mean 😀

A G400 Max is pretty decent for early 2000 Gaming.

One should not forget that resolutions where much lower back then i usually played with 640x480/800x600 max.

I love my G400MAX. I got one the day they came out and build a P3-450 slot 1 box back in the day. Id take one over TNT2 anyday, but GForce 256 will kick its butt

BloodyCactus wrote on 2020-02-13, 15:23:

I love my G400MAX. I got one the day they came out and build a P3-450 slot 1 box back in the day. Id take one over TNT2 anyday, but GForce 256 will kick its butt

My point exactly. And G400 < G400 Max. And GF256 << GF2 Ti. That's why I said that comparing those two cards it pointless. It's like comparing Pentium II 300 with Athlon 800. Sure, you can do it, but why?