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.
Millenium I => Mystique => Millenium II
I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.
wrote: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).
I meant that the 2D core of the Mystique was scaled-down Millennium II tech
It isn't.
I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.
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.
Mystique was released before Millentium II, so it's not really scaled down.
I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.
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.
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.
Forgetting the g100, i.e. mystique 2.
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?
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.
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.
Mystique 220 can be overclocked better.
I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.
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.
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.
wrote:I think you are confusing them with the original Millennium. The Mystique and Millennium II can both do texturing, and have supp […]
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.
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.
So, there's zero chance of the MilleniumII supporting GLQuake with "GL_NEAREST" look?
I guess texturing only works correctly when the lightmaps are turned off?
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).
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.
what's interesting is that according to gona's compatibility matrix, matrox cards past the original millennium have tearing issues in duke3d and quake: https://gona.mactar.hu/DOS_TESTS/
