Why did Matrox lose the battle?

[Howard]

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: xMax
It's a sad world we live in. So brutal.

So what's going to happen with all these other companies as ATI and Nvidia just keep rolling out with so many up to date highly compatible and high performance products? Is it just innevitable doom or what? I mean, once ATI/Nvidia become larger and larger, then they will have enough resources to excel in what these leftover companies still excel in, like Matrox and thier 2D image quality. Although of all those companies, i still think Matrox will be able to hold its ground with Multi Display Solutions. But thats just a guess on my part.

And heres the thing. Has their ever been a 2-company monopoly? Because if one of these companies, either ATI or Nvidia, starts to take over the other, then we get a monopoly as the other companies just get the bread crumbs. And if that happens, then that company, wether ATI or Nvidia, which gets the monopoly, will eventually be dismantled.

In my view, i think ATI and Nvidia will probably make sure they both stay on top. I honestly believe thats the way of modern capitalism. Because if their is 2 companies, then they cant be taken apart.

Im almost certain that Intel made sure AMD caught up to it so that it didn't become a monopoly. Of course i could be wrong, and dont think anybody could prove this theory wrong or right. But it could make sense.

Poor Matrox. But hey, its all about survival of the fittest, and thats natures way, and nobody could argue with that.

as for monopoly, Creative's Sound Blaster line is a virtual monopoly

Creative will make sure it stays that way.

Over $100 for a sound card. Wow.

 

[xMax]

So in conclusion, Matrox is still the way to go for multi display solutions and image quality for analog connections. They are also a safe route for digital DVI connections since many cards from Nvidia and ATI still have problems with a perfectly clean digital signals. This is the reason why i have chosen Matrox. A giant like ATI turned out to be incompatible with my Eizo CG210 LCD display. And Eizo is a world leader in high end LCD displays. And this is not based on my opinion but a fact stipulated on the an Eizo technical note on ther US web site.

As for why Matrox fell and where they're going...I would say its for some or many of the reasons mentioned in this thread.

I dont see any further discussions adding more clarity to my initial question.

ATI and Nvidia rule. Matrox is OK. For now!

 

[StrangerGuy]

I didn't read the entire thread, but maybe they gave up on the gaming market and concentrate on something else where there is far less competition and higher margins?

 

[xMax]

I guess thats one way of summarizing the entire thread.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Most reviews of the G400 were done with very early drivers that performed poorly. A few months after it came out, Matrox brought out a driver that made it the fastest card out there until the GeForce was released.

Try and dig up some benches from that era running some Viz benches and you will see what I mean(I made my comment about workstations). They had, in essence, a mini GL driver to handle Quake powered games and that was it. I was working with viz apps during that timeframe and Matrox was absolutely horrific in terms of performance(if apps would run at all) and IQ(massive image corruption from driver bugs).

Once games like Half-Life started coming out, the industry branched off and a whole new market opened up: cards specifically for gaming.

HL came out years into the 3D era. Quake is the game most oft considered to be the catalyst into 3D gaming for PCs(Quake hit in '96 along with the Voodoo1- HL didn't come out until '98).

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Wolfshanze
The repeated statements about "Matrox ruled back in the day" is totally dependant on your definition of "back in the day".

I've been around for a long while, and computing and gaming since the C64 days.

For awhile, Matrox did rule video... pre-3dfx/pre-Voodoo-1.

In other words, Matrox hasn't ruled since roughly 1994 or so (give or take a year).

Ever since Rendition, 3DFX in-particular, and the rise of NVidia (and much later, a quality ATI product [I remember when ATI = junk]), Matrox has always been a "also ran" video card maker, and that lasts to this day.

Yes, Matrox ruled in the 2D-only era, and still pride themselves on 2D output, but they never were, never have been, and still aren't competing on the 3D market with the big boys (3DFX, NVidia & ATI). 3DFX folded mostly from poor capital investment and partly from market strategy. The decision to buy STB and produce their own cards, combined with a HUGE "money is no object" add campaign both backfired and sent 3DFX to its grave.

Matrox has been smarter with its money, but hasn't really been putting out any cards that compete (besides the 2D-only nitch) since the early 90s.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Matrox G400 "rule" in its day? It was faster than anything available at the time PLUS it had full workstation drivers PLUS it had the best 2D output on the market. That happened not all that long ago, and definately well after 1994.

I can't remember if the G400 was king in the TNT2 era or the GeForce 2 era.

G400 came out way too late, it was king for like a month. I don't believe it was faster either, just competitive speed and better in everything else.

G400 came after the TNT2 and than came the geforce (dont remember about 3d though, not alot of 3d games at the time)

Eh, most games at the time were 3d.
BTW, didn't Matrox release one card that was a PowerVR based card, fastest thing out at the time by far but didn't look all that hot compared to voodoo? (no bilinear filtering)

In fact, why dont all these remaining 3D companies, excluding or including Matrox, combine or merge and form a powerhouse alliance that would enable them to compete with Nvidia and ATI?

What remaining 3d companies? Most have disappeared entirely (3dfx) or sought out other markets (PowerVR, Matrox). Sure, I guess XGI and VIA are still in business, but they aren't even close to competitive, with their best chips probably only around the Parhelia's level of performance. (ok, not that bad, but the Parhelia in its day was still far more impressive than anything XGI or VIA have put out)

So in conclusion, Matrox is still the way to go for multi display solutions and image quality for analog connections. They are also a safe route for digital DVI connections since many cards from Nvidia and ATI still have problems with a perfectly clean digital signals. This is the reason why i have chosen Matrox. A giant like ATI turned out to be incompatible with my Eizo CG210 LCD display. And Eizo is a world leader in high end LCD displays. And this is not based on my opinion but a fact stipulated on the an Eizo technical note on ther US web site.

Have you tried it with a Matrox card yet?

 

[xMax]

So in conclusion, Matrox is still the way to go for multi display solutions and image quality for analog connections. They are also a safe route for digital DVI connections since many cards from Nvidia and ATI still have problems with a perfectly clean digital signals. This is the reason why i have chosen Matrox. A giant like ATI turned out to be incompatible with my Eizo CG210 LCD display. And Eizo is a world leader in high end LCD displays. And this is not based on my opinion but a fact stipulated on the an Eizo technical note on ther US web site.



Have you tried it with a Matrox card yet?

No i havent. The card should be arriving in a couple of days. But i did my research and strongly believe that the Matrox Parhelia APVe that i bought will do the job its supposed to do. Sure, there are no guarantees, but i cant imagine a company like Matrox, with their specialization in analog image quality, not being able to deliver a properly functioning digital signal. It would be almost impossible for them to fail at such a task when the essence to their products revolves outstanding video card signal qualities that produce their renown image quality.

Also, the parhelia won the DisplayMate 'best computer signal source' award for analog, digital, and multi display solutions just a couple of years ago. And they are still producing the best 'CRT analog' and 'multi display' signal source awards till this day, according to DisplayMate. And DisplayMate carries out the most prestigious testing for all sorts of electronic products relating to image quality. So im pretty confident that Matrox will deliver.

The only thing that i couldn't understand is why DisplayMate stopped giving out awards for digital signal quality. This is the statement that they gave:

"In principle all DVI sources are equivalent. In practice some combinations of graphics
boards and monitors don't work properly together. Use the DisplayMate Pixel Tracking
and Gray-Scale Linearity test patterns to evaluate compatibility."

So far, ATI didn't work with my monitor, as Nvidia seemed to work but still had produced some noise on screen, the typical artifact that results from incompatibility, and was also very uncompromising with all kinds of strange artifacts appearing on screen during the bootup process. So Matrox is the only one left to try. Im almost certain that it will be equal to or greater than Nvidia. I say equal to or greater than since the remaining noise on my display could be from my monitor and not the graphics card.

So in the end, with all the thinking and research, along with 'Karma', something i believe in, Matrox has to be the one.

 

[xMax]

I just found a link for all of Matroxs' press releases and noticed that Matrox is still big time in the medical industry. They are huge actually.

Also, Matrox graphics, the division that makes desktop and workstation cards, is actually just a division to Matrox Electronics, which makes a lot of stuff.

From what i saw, Matrox is here to stay!

News and press releases from Matrox Graphics

And heres a picture oftriple display setup for surround gaming driven by a triplehead card, only offered by Matrox.

Some guys Matrox Surround Gaming desktop

Imagine an ATI X19000XTX with triple head! I say this because the Matrox card has such poor 3D performance that it almost doesn't make sense. But with a top geforce or radeon, and you get gaming as its supposed to be.

Most people who use surround gaming could never go back to even dualhead. After seeing that picture, i agree with them anymore.

 

[Dean]

I see the reason why the could not make a foothold in the 3d industry as simple. They remained a privately owned company and did not have R&D money to expand in other areas. They tried too, but spread themselves too thin.

So they have concentrated all their efforts into a niche market, and still have very nice products.

 

[SickBeast]

I'm not sure how relevant this is, but as someone who has owned a Matrox card, several ATI cards, and several nVidia cards, I've noticed this:

- the Matrox cards have a blue "tinge" in their output
- the nVidia cards have a green "tinge" in their output
- the ATI cards have a red "tinge" in their output

This also corresponds to their logo colours.

Does anyone else notice this?

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I'm not sure how relevant this is, but as someone who has owned a Matrox card, several ATI cards, and several nVidia cards, I've noticed this:

- the Matrox cards have a blue "tinge" in their output
- the nVidia cards have a green "tinge" in their output
- the ATI cards have a red "tinge" in their output

This also corresponds to their logo colours.

Does anyone else notice this?

? no... maybe your monitor? Maybe work on lighting or color profiles? White looked white to me on my Ati/Nvidia/3dlabs cards.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I'm not sure how relevant this is, but as someone who has owned a Matrox card, several ATI cards, and several nVidia cards, I've noticed this:

- the Matrox cards have a blue "tinge" in their output
- the nVidia cards have a green "tinge" in their output
- the ATI cards have a red "tinge" in their output

This also corresponds to their logo colours.

Does anyone else notice this?

? no... maybe your monitor? White looked white to me on my Ati/Nvidia/3dlabs cards.

Maybe I phrased it wrong.

Colors looked "warm" to me on the ATI cards.

Colors looked "cool" to me on the Matrox cards.

Colors looked "neutral/green tinge" on the nVidia cards.

 

[Brian48]

I used to own a G400. I don't ever recall it "ruling" in any category except 2D, which was what I bought it for. I believe it was the G400 MAX version that was released later that put the G400 on a competitive 3D level with the TNT2/TNTu, but it was very overpriced for what it offered and certainly couldn't compete with the then-new GeForce 256.