And people still doubt Matrox

[Electric Amish]

<< Yeah I see people bragging about Matrox superiority. But may I wonder, how well do they OC? I know for sure that if you increase the clock speed of a Radeon (and Matrox-?) by a mere 5 MHz this thing goes in a downward spiral stability-wise. It's the overall quality of the chip. On the other hand, any GF2MX card can make it from 200 to 240MHz w/o extra cooling. The memory also does OC beautifully from 200 to 240MHz. That is just an example. I doubt very much that any Matrox card is capable of such a great OC. Just my 2 cents. >>



The G400 is a pretty good overclocker. It could get G400MAX speeds easily.

Who knows what this new card will do.



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



Well, only the "Fully" part.

You'll see......

amish

 

[Agent004]

<< Yeah I see people bragging about Matrox superiority. But may I wonder, how well do they OC? I know for sure that if you increase the clock speed of a Radeon (and Matrox-?) by a mere 5 MHz this thing goes in a downward spiral stability-wise. It's the overall quality of the chip. On the other hand, any GF2MX card can make it from 200 to 240MHz w/o extra cooling. The memory also does OC beautifully from 200 to 240MHz. That is just an example. I doubt very much that any Matrox card is capable of such a great OC. Just my 2 cents. >>



I doubt overclocking would improve its image quality

Matrox cards are professional cards, just as you wouldn't be stupid enough to overclock a mission critical server. Or would you

 

[Eug]

<< 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. >>



First of all, on a 19" 4:3 CRT, 1280x1024 isn't even a "correct" resolution. The correct resolution for that aspect ratio is 1280x960 (which Matrox drivers include by default, in addition to 1280x1024). At 1280x1024 your images will be distorted, although you probably don't notice it since you've gotten used to it (assuming you are running a 4:3 CRT).

Second, I find that the image improvement is most noticeable at the extreme. I run 1600x1200 (large fonts) on my home and work computers, and if the video quality isn't up to par my eyes bleed. I have found that Matrox cards consistently are very good at that resolution, but the Radeons and Rage 128s are good too. nVidia cards are all over the map. At least from the few I've seen, some nVidia cards are pretty good but some just are complete suck. (However, I've never tried a Geforce 3 or higher.) Note that if your monitor isn't up to the task though, you won't notice the difference. I run two computers with Samsung SyncMaster 950p's and one computer with dual monitors - Samsung 700NF and 900NF. While these are by no means high end monitors, they are better than average, and even these monitors can show the difference between crappy 2D and good 2D. (I just wish I could run 85 Hz on the 950p, but I can't.)

Third, just as importantly, in the desktop world Matrox has superior multimonitor drivers I've found. Lots of settings, and easy to use.

So if you want to guarantee yourself having lots of configurability and consistent good 2D quality at high resolutions, Matrox cards are excellent. So far the 3D is suck though, I agree. Fortunately, I don't game on my work computers. As for the bugginess of ATI drivers, I haven't really noticed that, but that's probably because I don't game much, and I usually buy my video cards long after they've come out (and have had a chance for the drivers to mature).

EDIT:

Just saw your overclocking comment. Well, it's irrelevant in the business or 2D graphics desktop world, but my ATI Radeon LE 32 MB DDR overclocked stably with a new heatsink/fan (it came with no fan), from 143 MHz stock to over 190 MHz (CPU/memory). Stable as in heavy duty Unreal Tournament. I benched it at over 200 MHz in Quake III, but it was not stable at that speed. For 24/7 usage, it was set at 180-something if I remember correctly. Right now I'm running it at 166 MHz with no fan, but I'm no longer gaming - ie. 2D usage only.

 

[LikeLinus]

Geared - you can sit around and try to nit pick and find any reason to say bad things about Matrox, but it IS a killer 2d card. There is a reason why it is/was one of the best Graphics Arts card there are. The cards are not meant to be overclocked or play 3d games (although this new one is). What they are meant to do is graphic arts and normal desktop functions.

 

[Howard]

I have G400 + 700NF. My brother has CLAP2 + PF775. My image is so much better than his. YOu can almost see every individual pixel where it's supposed to be (not to say grainy, though), but my brother's, it's so freaking blurry...

EDIT:These are with the filters removed.

 

[majewski9]

This is old news! I still am waiting for any kind of reference card or offical matrox statement!

 

[Windogg]

I guess geared doesn't realize that people use their PCs for more than gaming. Sure a GF is kickass when you need to frag some bots but most PCs will be spent doing grunt work such as spreadsheets, wordprocessing, graphics design, and other mundane tasks. If you can't see the difference now, try having to stare at blurry text for 8+ hours per day. In the corporate environment or for those that do not require super 3D, cards like the Matrox G200/G400/G450/G550 are the best choices even today.

As for OCing, yes they can be OCed and can handle high AGP bus speeds too. They were one of the first cards able to tolerate 89Mhz or higher AGP bus speeds.

Windogg

 

[dexvx]

Typing on my home Matrox G450 DH

All I can say is its better than my Creative GeForce DDR at school, not to mention the Dual head capabilities are stunning. The sheer amount of customizable dual head settings makes it a killer Dual head card. And FYI, GeForce cards aren't "horrible"

The only reason that Matrox backed out of gaming was because their G400s sold a WHOLE lot better in the financial industry than in the gaming industry. Think of all them CRTs/LCDs on wall street or any other business that need dual head or quad head. They went where they money was, and gaming isnt where it was at.

Although, I would have to say that the Canopus GeForce line has better 2D image quality than any Matrox card, but then again those cost like 2x more than their corresponding counterpart in the US ($700 for a Ti4600 anyone?).

 

[Czar]

didnt Canopus went bankrupt? havent noticed anything from then in a long time.

 

[NFS4]

<< didnt Canopus went bankrupt? havent noticed anything from then in a long time. >>


They still sell cards overseas.

 

[Mem]

Canopus are still alive and kicking I think,their homepage .As for the new Matrox card we will have to wait and see,do you think ATi and Nvidia will stop with their current and near future models? This is not over by a long chalk .

 

[vash]

*sniff* *sniff*

What's that I smell? Its ASS! Its the ASS-like smell that I'm reminded of when I hear the likes of Matrox, which reminds me of Bitboyz and their 3D gaming card.

Until its in the shelves of stores that people can buy them from AND they work with all games out on the market, the card remains in the VAPORWARE bin.

When a killer card comes, I buy them, but I don't buy vaporeware.

vash

 

[Czar]

<< When a killer card comes, I buy them, but I don't buy vaporeware. >>


exactly why I still use my g400

 

[dexvx]

What's that I smell? Its ASS! Its the ASS-like smell that I'm reminded of when I hear the likes of Matrox, which reminds me of Bitboyz and their 3D gaming card.

Until its in the shelves of stores that people can buy them from AND they work with all games out on the market, the card remains in the VAPORWARE bin.

When a killer card comes, I buy them, but I don't buy vaporeware.

I suppose AMD Hammer, Intel McKinley/Prescott, GeForce 4 Ti 4200, ATI RV 300 are ALL vaporware huh.

Its called the 'in development' phase, something that every product goes through. Bitboyz and marketting/PR people just made a bad name for it.

 

[NFS4]

<< I suppose AMD Hammer, Intel McKinley/Prescott, GeForce 4 Ti 4200, ATI RV 300 are ALL vaporware huh.

Its called the 'in development' phase, something that every product goes through. >>


Big difference. We have product specs, pictures, chipset info, motherboard details, and architectural information on ClawHammer. Ti 4200 is nothing but a downclocked 4600/4400. We even have architectural info specs on McKinley and its performance in relation to Itanium from Intel.

We don't know jack squat about the vaporous card from Matrox.

 

[dexvx]

Yes i know it is a big difference, but I was saying under his definition of vaporware, those products which we know will come out fit under the category as 'vaporware'

 

[spanner]

MMMM, my dream card, matrox+good 3d = unbeatable. I am tired of my R8500's buggy drivers and Nvidia's overtweaking (darn infinate loop bug and in my case its not VIA's fault, can't believe they haven't fixed that yet). Also most nvidia cards before the G3 have super sucky 2d, and yes I am speaking from experience. Every matrox card I have used to date has been 100% solid quality workmanship.

 

[mastertech01]

For slower reaction type older guys like myself, the G450 has excellent 3D capability as well. I can play Quake just fine with it.. I also do a lot of Flight Sim 2002, baseball, golf, etc. Im not able to play as fast as my Geforce so I actually would rather use my G450 for everyday use, as the text and 2D quality is unsurpassed. When I am using the GF3 I can see immediately the difference in 2D quality. THe GF3 is really a major waste in my systems... unless its just for the pure satisfaction of benchmarking

 

[AA0]

geared, running at that resolution, you have serious eyesight problems, or just don't know any better.

GF2 MX cards have amoung the worst 2D there is. Creative does not provide great 2D, and Asus (which you seem to claim is great), is inarguably, the worst 2D of all cards.

A definition for you, fuzzy != good

 

[Aquaman]

Canopus Re-entering North America Market

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[BFG10K]

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

Uh, no. Until we see the card and what it can actually do Matrox isn't going to be kicking anyone's ass. In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised if the demo wasn't even hardware accelerated.

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

Or he's telling the truth.

Of the dozens of nVidia cards I owned/tested not one has had bad 2D image quality. Also I've tried a Matrox G200 and a Radeon VE at 1600 x 1200 x 85 Hz (Matrox might have been 75 Hz, I can't remember exactly) and not one of them looked better than my Leadtek GF3 Ti500. Don't assume that your crappy boards mean that all nVidia based boards are crappy.

Speed wise, very fast. Quality wise, best you can get.

On what evidence are you basing these statements on? There is absolutely no evidence of what the card can really do or if it even exists in the capacity that has been described.

the opengl icd was ready when it came out, just the performance exactly up to par with the directx speed. It took about 1 month to get the speed up

No it wasn't. The OpenGL ICD was plagued with performance and compatibilty problems for months after it was released. In fact Matrox was the last major vendor to get an OpenGL ICD out the door, behind even 3dfx.

 

[gogeeta13]

<<

<< 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). >>


yep

i use a visiontek gf3 and its 2d is picture perfect, dead on quality, same with my geforce ddr, and tnt2, and gf2mx, and voodoo3.

you matrox zealots are friggen retarded, you think your crap is so good, but it is just the same as everyone elses card

 

[Sunner]

People who say the quality of LeadTek's 2D is anywhere near perfect, or near Matrox for that matter, are either suffering from eye damage or just have crappy monitors.

I have a LeadTek GF3, and it's quite ok, but not good enough, and not as good as the G200 at work.

And before someone starts flaming me for being a Matrox fan, I own cards from 3Dfx, nVidia, and ATi, but not a single Matrox card, mostly cause I do play games once in a while, and Matrox sucks big donkey balls for that.

 

[Nemesis77]

Matrox is defnitely making a serious comeback. I have been following these rumours for a while now. And it seems that the new Matrox-card will have:

Close to 20GB/sec memory-bandwidth (about twice as much as current hi-end cards)
48bit internal color-accuracy (as opposed to the current 32bit accuracy found in other cards)
More features than you can shake a stick at
2D-performance order of magnitude better
Speed

And, knowing Matrox, the image-quality will be as good as it gets (and that 48bit rumour supports that assumption). Now, anyone who compares image-quality of GF2 (any model) to a Matrox, needs to get their eyes checked! Matrox really is in a class of it's own when it comes to image-quality!

 

[skace]

I can't believe these video card arguments still exist with the same points used 3 years ago. Even more so I can't believe people still argue 2D quality. I also can't believe people still discredit every current card on the market the second they see a few rumors about a new card, even going to the point of ignoring the fact that EVERY VIDEO MANUFACTURER IS CONTINUALLY MAKING NEW CARDS. That means if you hear a RUMOR for something coming out, you cannot compare it to current cards, you must compare it to cards that will be out when that rumor actually EXISTS.

sigh.........