And people still doubt Matrox

[Czar]

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/pc/docs/2002/0322/dx9.htm
(check out videos)

translations
http://forums.matroxusers.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32006
http://forums.matroxusers.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32007

baahaha, someone is going to get their ass kicked (read someone=ati,nvidia)

 

[Oyeve]

Cool, but we are still waiting for something to really utilize Dx8, some of us a tired of 3dmark2001!

 

[Windogg]

Good too see Matrox is still fighting. Still love their cards. When I upgraded my father's company, everyone got a nice Matrox G550 plus 15" Viewsonic LCD w/ DVI. Truly great cards when used in a corporate environment.

Windogg

 

[Electric Amish]

<< I don't believe than Matrox can come out with a competetive video solution. I don't game much these days, that's why I'm using a measly GF2 MX. Reasons why? Great 2D performance and compatibility with each and every chipset out there. The 2D quality is great (I got Creative), why should I ever need Matrox? My next upgrade will be nVidia, too. >>



WTF!!??

You must be freakin' blind...or have a crappy monitor...or both!

Every Geforce...ESPECIALLY THE MX, that I have seen has been blurry in 2D. Used to have one here at work. I couldn't stand the blurry anymore so I yanked a Matrox G450 out of another machine.

amish

 

[SCSIfreek]

Back in the days Matrox advertised the G400 will kick ass but when it finally came out. Well their 2D was great but 3D sucked hard. I'll have to wait til they release their actual card before saying anything. But nonetheless, its great to see competition in the 3D industry.

 

[Czar]

<< Back in the days Matrox advertised the G400 will kick ass but when it finally came out. Well their 2D was great but 3D sucked hard. I'll have to wait til they release their actual card before saying anything. But nonetheless, its great to see competition in the 3D industry. >>


erm no, the G400 came out the time of Voodoo3 and TNT2 and of those three card the G400 came out on top.
the G400 2d is still the best that can only be beated by matrox's newer cards and in 3d the quality is still among the best ones out there.

Matrox = Quality

 

[Czar]

Geared,
What resolution do you run at and what refresh rate?
Have you tried a matrox card?

 

[LikeLinus]

"The 'bad 2D quality of the GeForce' is a myth, and it has always been"

Nah its not. I have a G200 that is clearly better than My Creative Geforce 2 32mb that i had in my computer and then my wifes. The G400 has even better quality. The Geforce 2 always had some shotting 2d compaired to Matrox and ATI, thats just how it was. You gave up a bit of 2d, to get better 3d.

 

[Laguna]

It's Canadian. If anything remotely good comes out of Canada, by law, we must brand it as "great". Give them some credit, eh?

 

[Czar]

<< -------> I run it at 1280*1024*100Hz typically (19 incher). I have never had a Matrox card, but have had a plenty of ATI Radeon 'superior' 2D that proved to be nothing but buggy drivers. I have been using Matrox at work, and nothing impressive, I've to say. It's slow and the image is not as good as some people here say.

Can anyone explain what's so special about Matrox? Maybe I should consider it as an upgrade option (DX9-compliant?) Will it feature the T&L block? If it will, I might give it a spin. >>


What type of a matrox card at work and what resolution and monitor?

My friend had a g200 and he bought a geforce2mx and he liked it, except how horrible the 2d was compared to the g200.
I was testing a few cards a while back, nvidia and ati cards and then I had my own and I must say that nvidia sucks in 2d and ati is ok.

Why next matrox, because it will have more fetures than you can shake a stick at and will support dx9 fully. Speed wise, very fast. Quality wise, best you can get.

 

[Sunner]

I had a Creative GF DDR, and it had absolutely horrible 2D quality.

The LeadTek GeForce 3 Im using now(way supperior to Creative's I might add) is pretty decent, but not as good as the Matrox cards I use at work.

Oh and as for the Pharelia(or whatever), talk is cheap, when Matrox has the card in stores, I'll cheer at it, until then it's vapor, it's not like Matrox has pulled anything impressive since the original G400 and MAX.

 

[NFS4]

<< Why next matrox, because it will have more fetures than you can shake a stick at and will support dx9 fully. Speed wise, very fast. Quality wise, best you can get. >>


Wishful thinking for a card we know nothing about. Matrox doesn't have the balls or capacity to fight ATi and NVIDIA right now in 3D.

And with the rise of LCD's, 2D quality is going to be a thing of the past thanks to DVI. Come to think of it, I never had problem with NVIDIA 2D quality when I was using an analog monitor (TNT, GeForce 256, GeForce2 GTS, GeForce3 Ti 200).

 

[Czar]

<< Sounds tempting. The GF2 is old. I would gladly upgrade it. Does anyone know when these new DX9 parts will be available and will they be compatible with SiS and VIA chipsets? >>


Beta or alpha (forgot) of dx9 will be relased this summer. Directx has nothing to do with chipsets. But this new card is not meant to compete in the dx9 market, it will only proved "good" enough performance for dx9.

 

[ObiDon]

<< the G400 came out the time of Voodoo3 and TNT2 and of those three card the G400 came out on top. >>


I thought the G400 was the card whose owners waited something like 1-1/2 years just to get an OpenGL ICD? :Q

 

[Electric Amish]

<< Why next matrox, because it will have more fetures than you can shake a stick at and will support dx9 fully. Speed wise, very fast. Quality wise, best you can get. >>



I'm admittedly a Matrox fanboy, but I think that's a bit of an overstatement. nobody knows if it will be FULLY DX9 compatible since DX9 isn't and probably won't (hopefully) be out before the next card is.

Though, as demonstrated at CeBit, the card will most-likely have some DX9 features, namely Displacement Mapping.

amish

 

[Electric Amish]

<<

<< the G400 came out the time of Voodoo3 and TNT2 and of those three card the G400 came out on top. >>


I thought the G400 was the card whose owners waited something like 1-1/2 years just to get an OpenGL ICD? :Q >>



No, that was the G200. I didn't mind, tho because nothing I played used OGL

amish

 

[LikeLinus]

NFS4 - to any normal person the 2d you probably wouldnt notice it's flaws. I do graphic arts, marketing, website development stuff = where good 2d is an absolute must. I never cared for the 2d quality of the Geforce series of cards, but i used them for 3d.

Alot of people might not notice it, but had you seen the cards side by side, you'd be able to tell the G400 definately has an advantage over Nvidia.

 

[NFS4]

<<

<< Why next matrox, because it will have more fetures than you can shake a stick at and will support dx9 fully. Speed wise, very fast. Quality wise, best you can get. >>



I'm admittedly a Matrox fanboy, but I think that's a bit of an overstatement. nobody knows if it will be FULLY DX9 compatible since DX9 isn't and probably won't (hopefully) be out before the next card is.

Though, as demonstrated at CeBit, the card will most-likely have some DX9 features, namely Displacement Mapping.

amish >>


That's what I'm saying. You can't rave and go pyscho over a card that we know nothing about

But feature/performance wise, I don't think that NVIDIA and ATi will have any problem or any cause for concern.

 

[Czar]

<<

<< the G400 came out the time of Voodoo3 and TNT2 and of those three card the G400 came out on top. >>


I thought the G400 was the card whose owners waited something like 1-1/2 years just to get an OpenGL ICD? :Q >>


the opengl icd was ready when it came out, just the performance wasnt exactly up to par with the directx speed. It took about 1 month to get the speed up. Fittet perfectly for me since I bought mine about a month after it was released.

 

[ObiDon]

<< No, that was the G200. >>


Ah, I knew it was one of those two...I wanted one for a while but didn't get one just because of that. Boy, that was a long time ago

 

[Czar]

<<

<< Why next matrox, because it will have more fetures than you can shake a stick at and will support dx9 fully. Speed wise, very fast. Quality wise, best you can get. >>



I'm admittedly a Matrox fanboy, but I think that's a bit of an overstatement. nobody knows if it will be FULLY DX9 compatible since DX9 isn't and probably won't (hopefully) be out before the next card is.

Though, as demonstrated at CeBit, the card will most-likely have some DX9 features, namely Displacement Mapping.

amish >>


ah yeah, sorry, it will most likely only have some dx9 support, but definetly more than ati and nvidia will have.

 

[Electric Amish]

<<

<<

<< Why next matrox, because it will have more fetures than you can shake a stick at and will support dx9 fully. Speed wise, very fast. Quality wise, best you can get. >>



I'm admittedly a Matrox fanboy, but I think that's a bit of an overstatement. nobody knows if it will be FULLY DX9 compatible since DX9 isn't and probably won't (hopefully) be out before the next card is.

Though, as demonstrated at CeBit, the card will most-likely have some DX9 features, namely Displacement Mapping.

amish >>


ah yeah, sorry, it will most likely only have some dx9 support, but definetly more than ati and nvidia will have. >>



hehe... Arguing DX9 compatiblity is kind of pointless anyway since when are we going to see any games that implement it??

amish

 

[NFS4]

<< ah yeah, sorry, it will most likely only have some dx9 support, but definetly more than ati and nvidia will have. >>


So you mean to tell me that Matrox is going to have more DX9 features that both ATi and NVIDIA (after being out of the serious 3D market for years now)? I find that a little hard to believe.

ATI and NVIDIA have always been right there with DX support. Heck Microsoft and NVIDIA have such a close relationship that we know that NVIDIA will at least have a fully DX9 compliant part out with their next-gen silicon.

 

[Electric Amish]

<<

<< ah yeah, sorry, it will most likely only have some dx9 support, but definetly more than ati and nvidia will have. >>


So you mean to tell me that Matrox is going to have more DX9 features that both ATi and NVIDIA (after being out of the serious 3D market for years now)? I find that a little hard to believe.

ATI and NVIDIA have always been right there with DX support. Heck Microsoft and NVIDIA have such a close relationship that we know that NVIDIA will at least have a fully DX9 compliant part out with their next-gen silicon. >>



Hehehe.... Matrox wrote the Displacement Mapping standard for DirectX 9

amish

 

[AGodspeed]

I had a G400 in a older 450MHz PII/PIII system at work last summer. I used it for about 2 weeks. The 2D was rediculously sharp, truly surprising.

I was using (and still use) a VT GeF3 with my main rig, and there was a noticable difference. However, I don't run a high enough resolution (or have a 19" monitor) to really care one way or the other. Not all GeForce cards have bad 2D by any means, it just depends on:

1. Monitor resolution
2. Monitor size
3. Typical usage

All these "fully DX9 compatible Matrox NV30/R300 Killer" talk is hogwash.