VOGONS


Matrox Mystique: opinions?

Topic actions

Reply 40 of 61, by 640K!enough

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Scali wrote:

The Mystique was basically a 'scaled down' version of the Millennium

Now that I think of it, that isn't quite accurate. The Millennium offered better 2D and probably CAD performance, but the Mystique had more consumer-oriented 3D features, as recently described here; the Millennium only offered fairly basic Gouraud shading.

Reply 42 of 61, by Scali

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
640K!enough wrote:
Scali wrote:

The Mystique was basically a 'scaled down' version of the Millennium

Now that I think of it, that isn't quite accurate. The Millennium offered better 2D and probably CAD performance, but the Mystique had more consumer-oriented 3D features, as recently described here; the Millennium only offered fairly basic Gouraud shading.

That is true of course.
I meant that the 2D core of the Mystique was scaled-down Millennium II tech. Indeed, the Millennium didn't offer the same 3D acceleration (unlike later Millennium/Mystique pairs, where features were virtually identical, but Millennium was a more high-end variation).

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/just-keeping-it- … ro-programming/

Reply 43 of 61, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I meant that the 2D core of the Mystique was scaled-down Millennium II tech

It isn't.

Get up, come on get down with the sickness
Open up your hate, and let it flow into me

Reply 44 of 61, by Scali

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
The Serpent Rider wrote:

It isn't.

Care to be more specific?
Because I had a Mystique at the time, and I had access to Matrox developer documentation. I'm pretty sure the Millennium II and Mystique were mostly the same.

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/just-keeping-it- … ro-programming/

Reply 45 of 61, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Mystique was released before Millentium II, so it's not really scaled down.

Get up, come on get down with the sickness
Open up your hate, and let it flow into me

Reply 46 of 61, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Mystique is a cut down Millennium I 2D core with 3D capabilities. If anything, Millennium II is an improved Mystique with an improved Millennium I 2D core.

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.

Reply 47 of 61, by Scali

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
The Serpent Rider wrote:

Mystique was released before Millentium II, so it's not really scaled down.

Potato, potato.
You could say the Millennium II is a scaled-up Mystique.
Whichever came first isn't all that relevant. It is the core technology. Just like it doesn't really matter if the Core i3, i5 or i7 was first. They all use the same basic technology, in slightly different configurations.
Both the Mystique and Millennium II are built on an improved Millennium core.

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/just-keeping-it- … ro-programming/

Reply 49 of 61, by Jacques

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Oh, I see I triggered a nice discussion here regarding my beloved Mystique and the thread got re-born 😀

So does anyone actually own CD's with Mystique-bundled Destruction Derby and Mechwarrior2, please?

Reply 50 of 61, by amadeus777999

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Which Matrox PCI would be the fastest then?

I have tested the MilleniumII vs the Matrox220 and latter seems a hair speedier. The MilleniumII's sturdier appearance "renders" it a bit more appealing to me though.

Reply 51 of 61, by Scali

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
amadeus777999 wrote:

Which Matrox PCI would be the fastest then?

I have tested the MilleniumII vs the Matrox220 and latter seems a hair speedier. The MilleniumII's sturdier appearance "renders" it a bit more appealing to me though.

I think it depends on the use-case.
From what I understood, the Millennium II has the same 3D core as the Mystique, but clocked slightly lower.
However, it uses WRAM instead of the cheaper SGRAM that the Mystique uess, which has better performance on read/write operations (dual ported), so its 2D/Windows acceleration performance is superior.
The Millennium II can also take more memory than the 4 MB of the Mystique, which may also improve 3D performance in some cases.

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/just-keeping-it- … ro-programming/

Reply 53 of 61, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Neither can do textures so their 3D performances are largely irrelevant. Millennium II is the hands down better 2D card but the Mystique 220 will also not leave you wanting for a better card, so either is just fine in my book. Even Millennium I is just fine, actually. They are great cards to pair with a Voodoo 2 or SLI setup.

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.

Reply 54 of 61, by Scali

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
appiah4 wrote:

Neither can do textures so their 3D performances are largely irrelevant.

I think you are confusing them with the original Millennium.
The Mystique and Millennium II can both do texturing, and have support for Direct3D.
They lack texture filtering though.

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/just-keeping-it- … ro-programming/

Reply 55 of 61, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Scali wrote:
I think you are confusing them with the original Millennium. The Mystique and Millennium II can both do texturing, and have supp […]
Show full quote
appiah4 wrote:

Neither can do textures so their 3D performances are largely irrelevant.

I think you are confusing them with the original Millennium.
The Mystique and Millennium II can both do texturing, and have support for Direct3D.
They lack texture filtering though.

This mirrors my experience of trying GLQuake with a Mystique 220 card..

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.

Reply 56 of 61, by Scali

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
appiah4 wrote:

This mirrors my experience of trying GLQuake with a Mystique 220 card..

Well, there ARE textures.
You see the lightmaps on the walls and ceilings (they look very blocky because they are low resolution, and there is no filtering), and there are textures on the weapon and enemies.
For some reason the lightmaps aren't blending with the colormaps for the walls and ceilings. GLQuake might use a multipass rendering technique with alphablending that is not supported.

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/just-keeping-it- … ro-programming/

Reply 58 of 61, by Scali

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
amadeus777999 wrote:

So, there's zero chance of the MilleniumII supporting GLQuake with "GL_NEAREST" look?

Actually, GL_NEAREST is probably the only look it does support (nearest-neighbour sampling, aka point-sampling, aka no texture filtering).

amadeus777999 wrote:

I guess texturing only works correctly when the lightmaps are turned off?

Possibly, I vaguely recall that GLQuake supports either lightmaps or vertex lighting. Vertex lighting (gouraud shading) should be supported by the Mystique and Millennium II.

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/just-keeping-it- … ro-programming/