Re: Matrox Millenium II vs. #9 Revolution 3D
Alex Yukhimets wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> I am about to get a new P II system and had to decide on many
> alterantives available. My current concern is what video card
> would suit me the best. I have no doubt that I would go with AGP one
> (even not for the sake of performance, but to save PCI slot :)
> and my current choice is between Matrox Millenium II AGP and
> Number Nine Revolution 3D AGP. Matrox seems to be the fastest under
> X (and free driver is already available from S.u.S.E.), Revolution 3D
> is faster under Windows. I do not intend to use Windows a lot, so
> the best bet would be Matrox, but I heard the opinion that in spite of
> the fact that it is the fastest, it's image quality is substantially
> worse than that of Number Nine cards. Could anyone confirm this?
>
> And another thing, assuming I would have to use Accelerated X server
> with my card, what are the cons of the fact that server is libc5
> compiled and my system will be libc6-based (of course, I would have to
> install libc5 runtime libraries also).
>
> I would greatly appreciate any input.
Both cards use WRAM. Millenium II uses 250Mhz RAMDAC and Revolution 3D
uses 220Mhz, if you have a high end monitor, eg. Viewsonic 815, I don't
think Revolution 3D can display 1600x1200 16-bit color at 85Hz refresh
rate.
If you plan to upgrade the on board memory, Millenium II is easier.
Matrox sells 4MB, 8MB and 12MB modules while Number Nine sells 4MB and
8MB, therefore a 4MB Revolution 3D card can only be upgraded to 12MB at
most.
There is a mailing list for Matrox card users and it is more easy to get
technical questions answered.
I choose Millenium II anyway, even though Revolution 3D obtained the
Byte 97 Comdex award.
--
Lawrence Chim
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: