The G400 is usually the better performer, however far too often both will not be able to play the latest games. And actually the TNT will 'work' in more games than the G400, but when they are head to head the G400 will do better, not that that's much consolation.
Take a look at this big comparo, and you'll get an idea of their relative performance, and what is playable and what is not;
Actually, the best way to look at it IMO, is the G400 is better because it will show the Demo-movies of 'the game you can't play on either' with better quality.
- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com/" target="_new"><font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by TheGreatGrapeApe on 07/07/05 10:59 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
Well judging by the specs on the above link it seems that they are identical with the onlybenefit of the Matrox having two monitor outputs - surely the Matrox has limited compatibility in gaming though, making all that power go to waste?
Yes me and my computer buff mates argue over these things - we (mostly I) have no life! LOL
PC Spec: AMD Athlon XP 2000+, ECS K7S5A Motherboard, 768MB SDRAM PC133, Sparkle nVidia Riva TNT2 M64 32MB AGP Graphics Card, Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 2 6.1, Windows XP
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Read discussions in other Graphics & Displays categories