Comparison Table
More technical details can be found in the following table.
| Header Cell - Column 0 | Matrox G450 | Matrox G400 | GeForce 2 MX | ATI Radeon |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AGP Type | AGP 4x | AGP 4x | AGP 4x | AGP 4x |
| integratedRAMDAC | 360 MHz primary+ 230 MHzsecondary | Up to 360 MHz | 350 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Memory | max. 32 MBDDR SDRAM | max. 32 MBSDRAM | max. 32 MBSDRAM | max. 64 MBDDR SDRAM |
| Memory Clock | 166 MHz DDR | 166 MHz | 183 MHz | 166 MHz |
| Memory Bus | 64 Bit | 128 Bit | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Chip Clock | 125 MHz | 125 MHz | 175 MHz | 166 MHz (32M)183 MHz (64M) |
| Dual Display | yes | optional | optional, still rare | no |
| Price for 32 MB-Versions | $149+ | $120+ | $100+ | $135+ |
| Process | 0.18 Micron | 0.25 Micron | 0.18 Micron | 0.18 Micron |
| Active Cooling | no | no | yes | yes |
| Versions /Variations | IntegratedTV-Encoder,16/32 MB DDR SDRAM or16 MB SDRAM | 16 MB SDR32 MB SDR | 16 MB SDR32 MB SDR | 32 MB SDR32 MB DDR64 MB DDR |
Matrox changed their production from 0.25 µm to 0.18 µm for the G450 without increasing the clock speed. That's why all G450 cards can live without fans. It's quite obvious that Matrox is trying to maximize the yield. Both the unchanged clock speed and the smaller chip size contribute to lower costs.
Looking at the price for a 32 MB card, the Millennium G450 can only be characterized as competitive if the Dual Head Feature comes onto the scene. If you don't care about that, the new Matrox card is either too slow or far too expensive - a GeForce 2 MX board would then be the better choice.
If you are in the market for a dual monitor solution, I would think about a 16 MB version as well. If you don't need 3D at all, you can also live with the smaller video memory size. 16 MB are still enough to run two monitors e.g. at 1024x768x32 and ergonomic refresh rates. The prices for 16 MB bulk versions should level off at approximately $120.
