Although the G400 has been around for a little while now, it can still compete with the latest and greatest. Best of all because it isn't a brand new release, the G400 can be picked up very competitively now and so is well worth considering.

The version that we looked at is Matrox's pretty much top of the range G400 Max. It was originally released along with the bevy of other cards such as the TNT2, Voodoo III etc. It faired extremely well against the competition at the time but six months plus is an awfully long time in the computing industry, especially the video card market at the moment.

One of the main features of the G400 chipset when it was released was its ability to support a feature called 'Environment Mapped Bump Mapping' (EMBM), a feature supported in DirectX 6 and above. Figure 1 shows an image with EMBM enabled whilst Figure 2 shows the same image without EMBM enabled. The difference in having this feature should be very clear. The only problem with EMBM is that game developers have been slow to implement the features into their games; it's the same old circle- game developers don't want to invest money into their games supporting features that there isn't a large user base for whilst video card manufacturers won't add features onto their cards that the games don't support. It's the same old story, but full marks to Matrox for trying to lead the way.

There are three main revisions of the G400, the standard 16Mg version, the standard 32Mg version and the 32Mg Max version. The G400 Max (as reviewed here) is running at the fastest clock speeds with a 360Mhz RAMDAC as opposed to 300Mhz on the standard G400 cards. There are other revisions of the card such as with a TV tuner and that sort of thing, but they all revolve around the three main versions.

What really sets the G400 apart from the competition is the 'Dual Head' feature available on some of the cards. This basically allows you to output to two monitors at the same time. Whilst this may sound a little redundant, the versatility of this feature is superb. For example if you are editing a picture you can use the first monitor to display the image full screen and the second monitor to house the toolbars, keeping then out of the way whilst altering the picture. The two monitors really do work together rather than just being a duplicate of the first display. If you have a game that supports it (again I think they may be few and far between), you can have the main game on your main monitor and then the additional images on the second. Microsoft Flight simulator is the example used where you have the main game and what you can see on the first monitor and the maps for where you're going on the second. The possibilities and potential for this are brilliant; imaging playing X-wing Alliance with the second monitor showing all the stats for all the other members of you squadron. You could see how they were doing, if they needed help, potentially anything at a glance rather than having to press half a dozen keys and then finding you're dead by the time you finally manage to get your original view back. In theory it's possible and if the game developers start supporting it properly.... Also included in the box is a cable to allow output to a TV instead of a second monitor so large screen viewing can be achieved very cheaply, although obviously that is sacrificing the detail you get using a normal monitor.

Speed wise, the G400Max can't really compete with the latest and greatest video cards, especially those based on the GeForce chipset. Figure 3 shows the 3D Mark 2000 results we were getting and obviously the G400 is lagging quite some way behind. Whilst still a very respectable score, the G400 just doesn't have the advantage the GeForce has of taking the load off the CPU. 3D Mark 2000 is bang up to date in testing the features on video cards, more so than the games currently available, so chances are you wouldn't see such a difference speed wise in the current games. It was a similar story in 2D, with the Winstone results being down when compared to a GeForce card as Figure 4 shows.

In a market jammed full of different products which all do exactly the same things when it comes down to it, a video card really needs something special in order to make it stand out. The Matrox G400 Max has that in the form of the EMBM support and the Dual Head feature. The value of the EMBM is very much open for discussion because the support has been slow in coming, but the fact it is directly supported in DirectX 6 and 7 does show what potential it has. The Dual Head feature is what makes the G400 Max stand out from the crowd, although again the support for this potentially great facility is limited by the slow uptake, mainly from games developers, limiting its appeal. This redirects the card squarely at the professional CAD/CAM market where the twin output should be ideal as display space is always at a premium. The fact you can use one monitor to zoom in whilst having the full image displayed on the other is a fantastic feature that is a real asset to Graphics programs.

All this is ignoring the fact that the G400 is still certainly not slow when it comes to 3D, easily keeping up with our TNT2 based test card. In the light of the newer cards out there and the new chipsets just about to be launched it is difficult to recommend the G400Max to gamers who want the absolute fastest frame rates, but to everyone else, especially those who play with images, the G400Max still has an awful lot to offer.

Test Specifications:

• PIII 550 CPU
• Epox BX3 Motherboard
• 64Mg 7ns PC100 SDRAM
• IBM DNJA-3713500 13.5Gb 7200rpm HDD
• Creative 48X CD-ROM

Drivers Used:

• G400 Driver - Powerdesk 5.52.015
• Diamond V550 TNT2 - Nvidia Detonator 3.68
• Abit Siluro GeForce 256 - Nvidia Detonator 3.68

Figure 1:

Figure 2:

Figure 3:

Figure 4: