Re: Video cards? - impressions, not necessarily facts
Hello!
On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 09:09:00PM +0300, jin@sci.fi wrote:
> > interesting :) and have trouble deciding on a video card.
> > I thought 3dfx was supposed to be a good choice (looking
> > at the 3000), as was Matrox (the G400).
>
> I would go foor 3dfx and Matrox based cards, when comes
> need to buy new videocard.
>
> I don\'t remember Matrox\'s case, at least they have very
> good drivers.
My advice is: Go for a Matrox!
Matrox driver's are great. I own a Matrox G400 Dual Head.
I guess the one thing that really matters is how it works with Quake3:
Perfectly.
The DEMO for the Transmeta chips, where Linus Torvalds played Quake3 with
one of the Q3 designers, was done with Matrox G400s. That has to be worth
something. :)
I did a lot of research to buy my new video card, I chose the G400 because
it seems that it is the one with the best support for Linux. I read in the
glx mailing list that the benchmarks for the G400 indicate that the Linux
driver is faster that the one for winbugs.
It seems that the Matrox people have been very helpful to the Linux
developers.
The Matrox G400 also has a lot of extra toys that are supported in XFree
4.0, like support for dual-head (two-monitors). Also very good support in
the kernel for framebuffer (matroxfb).
> > NVidia (sp?) was mentioned as a possibility, but I
> > didn\'t know it was supported well.
> So don\'t expect
> NVidia cards work with future X or kernel.
I have heard that NVidia releases drivers with obfuscated code that no-one
can really understand or modify much. A lot of my friends feel frustrated
because their TNT2s don't perform well in Linux. (Bad drivers)
Good Luck, have fun!
Alexis Maldonado
Electrical Engineering Student
University of Costa Rica
Reply to: