Matrox making a comeback?

[Denithor]

Linkage

...features two pixel pipelines, does not support pixel shader 2.0 and therefore is not compatible with Microsoft Windows Vista Aero interface.

The Matrox Millennium P690 Series graphics cards will be available in October, and list at the following prices:

P690 PCIe x16 128MB ? $199
P690 PCI 128MB ? $199
P690 LP PCIe x16 128MB ? $249
P690 LP PCIe x1 128MB ? 249
P690 Plus LP PCIe x16 ? 256MB $289
P690 Plus LP PCI 256MB ? $289
Quad-monitor upgrade cable (CAB-L60-4XAF) ? $99

Boy, are they living in the past or what?

 

[GTaudiophile]

How could they make a NEW graphics card that is NOT Vista compatible?

 

[mruffin75]

Matrox are (in some areas) considered to be great for video editing... however I don't see what's different to paying $200 for the lowest end Matrox cards and spending $60-70 on an ATI (or maybe Nvidia) low end card of today...

 

[Deleted member 4644]

No.

 

[Pocatello]

Sad

 

[Griswold]

Neither of you is the (professional) target audience of these cards, so why bother trying to compare it to consumer products? If there was no market for these products, dont you think matrox would have went out of business years ago?

 

[taltamir]

the "professional target audience" are people like my ex boss, who bought macs for everyone because he thought they are "supposed to be better for graphics" and thats why we should use photoshop on macs and not on PCs...

The matrox cards are supposedly good for encoding files... but thats not useful anymore because its all done in the CPU, and modern CPUs are much better for it then a matrox card (what with SSE4 support more then doubling performance on encoding vs SSE3e)

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Could someone please explain to me why anyone would want one of these cards at those prices?

 

[taltamir]

because matrox cards contain hardware acceleration of video encoding... and some tech ignorant bosses will just go and grab that instead of buying a higher end CPU (which gives you even more). Especially if the tech ignorant boss has a bunch of preconceptions and fancies himself "tech savvy"

Those things don't even fully support DX9 (they are only shader model2) and have 0 CUDA capability... so they are ONLY for crappy video game performance or their built in encoding... totally worthless

 

[QueBert]

dunno how the new cards stack up IQ wise, but my old Matrox totally blew anything from Nvidia or ATI out of the water, granted this was ages ago, hell 3DFX was still around. But I'd imagine if you're not into gaming and IQ is your main concern you won't beat a Matrox card.

 

[Skunkwourk]

man I miss my Voodoo3 3000

Old 3dfx commercial

 

[videogames101]

uh... wtf

 

[vanvock]

Originally posted by: Eghck
man I miss my Voodoo3 3000

Old 3dfx commercial

That was cool

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: vanvock

Originally posted by: Eghck
man I miss my Voodoo3 3000

Old 3dfx commercial

That was cool

that was awesome

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: QueBert
dunno how the new cards stack up IQ wise, but my old Matrox totally blew anything from Nvidia or ATI out of the water, granted this was ages ago, hell 3DFX was still around. But I'd imagine if you're not into gaming and IQ is your main concern you won't beat a Matrox card.

weell the used to matter before dvi. it doesnt matter anymore.

if you want the crispest analog output for a crt, then matrox is probably still the way to go.