Why did Matrox lose the battle?

[xMax]

I get it now. It seems like there was major buyouts and mergers that lead to the current ATI/Nvidia ruling. After all, one cannot say that 3DFX lost out since they were bought out by Nvidia, while ATI bought out this ArtX company. Of course, maybe Nvidia bought out 3DFX when they were going downhill. But i dont know if that's true. Point being is that there was a scramble and just like that a few maneuvers are made and out comes ATI/Nvidia with the rest scattering for the crums.

Of course, there is probably a million little details that make up the full story. So far there hasn't been one consistent theory said by anybody as to truly and fully explain what happened. And again, the reason for that is because all the theories contain some truths as the full truth is some complicated story that is made up of all these elemental theories.

But anyhow, i just need a top notch 2D video card that specializes in producing ultra crisp image qualities on a display. Of course, im not even using an analog connection. But im not going to get into that subject matter. All i can say is that theoretically, there is no such thing as DVI image quality, but in practice, there definitely is an issue. And that issue is the DVI compliance test that many cards cant seem to pass. The end result in on screen noise and speckles on the LCD display. But i believe that there is more to it than that.

Its almost like saying that all digital is made up of binary analogs, and that those binary analogs in themselves could be made up varying qualities. Then there is encoding and decoding issues that could also play a role. I dont know. Im just blabbing now.

But i have always wondered about that. Digital being made up of binary analog signals, which may in turn also possess quality like normal analog. Hmmm...

 

[Pete]

Apparently Parhelia also flopped, performance-wise, b/c they had very little compression going on with AA and Z-ops and all that jazz that lets ATI and NV show pretty low performance hits from adding AA.

Both ExtremeTech and TomsHardware wrote articles on DVI compliance, but I don't think they include anything past the GF6/X8 generation.

 

[xMax]

Both ExtremeTech and TomsHardware wrote articles on DVI compliance, but I don't think they include anything past the GF6/X8 generation.

And why is that? Could it be because they just suddenly decided to drop the DVI compliance issue, or is it because most if not all modern cards above the GF6/X8 will pass the DVI compliance test. And i wonder if there are other issues besides the DVI compliance that play a role in the image quality.

And most of all: Why wasn't Matrox ever tested for DVI compliance? I would love for somebody to answer that question. Because i have not once found a single article or test discussing or showing benchmarks for DVI compliance for Matrox cards.

But anyhow, im still gonna get the Matrox Parhelia APVe PCI-e x16 or the Millenium P650 128 PCI-e x16. As of yet, i dont know which of those two would be best for compatibility, image quality(DVI), and performance for media playback in windows media player 9 or 10 in Windows XP pro SP2.

They just might be the same.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Matrox hasn't come remotely close to failing- they still dominate the markets they always have- maximum performance 2D setups and video products.

Four displays driven by a single board, no problem. Nine Megapixel displays with 10bit grayscale(medical imaging)- Matrox is the way to go. Want real time HD editing from your vid card? Again Matrox is your only choice.

Matrox has a much larger lead over nV and ATi then the other way around when looking at their respective markets. The only thing that could 'kill' Matrox is if they were purchased by nVidia(they would like to get serious about the medical imaging market) or ATi(if they would like to get serious about the video market). Not saying that either of these things are going to happen, but Matrox is doing very well for itself- they just exited the 3D graphics arena.

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by: xMax
And why is that? Could it be because they just suddenly decided to drop the DVI compliance issue, or is it because most if not all modern cards above the GF6/X8 will pass the DVI compliance test.

Could be simple lack of time or reader interest.

 

[dfloyd]

Where are you people getting that Matrox ever was the best? I have been working on computers and following them very closely since before Rendition and 3dfx hit the market. Since the day that they did, Matrox has been dead. Sure they make great 2d, but when its gaming that is pushing the market, 2d does not cut it. I cant recall one review ever where Matrox has overcome any other high end video card from the NV1 on up. (At least within the same timeframe, I am sure the G400 surpasses the NV1).

I am not cutting down Matrox or Matrox fans but every single review I have ever seen has shown Matrox sorely lacking the 3d dept when compared to their competitors, Nvidia, 3dfx, and so on. That is why they are falling, its because they have not really done anything special in the 3d dept. Now sure they may still be the best 2d graphics card for your office, but if so its not by much as Ati and Nvidia have made some pretty nice strides in the 2d dept. So heres your choice, you get 2d, or you get 2d, 3d, and more. And thats not even counting the extreme prices Matrox puts on their cards. Buy a Matrox its got W-RAM woo hoo, what does it do? Elephant and Rhino but you gotta pay bookoos of cash to have it. And sorry if my post comes across as harsh, not meant that way, just shocked that anyone ever thought Matrox has lead anything since desktop pcs 3ds birth.

 

[gsellis]

Matrox is their own worst enemy. I have a 450 sitting in my basement. Why? Matrox would not write XP drivers for it. If you have a 2 year old card and the mfgr decides not to support it for the new operating systems, would you buy from them again?

 

[yacoub]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Matrox used to rule back in the days.

Never heard of them.

You're probably too young then. Matrox made excellent cards back in the day.

 

[compuwiz1]

You guys have it all wrong.

Matrox and 3Dfx have been sitting back, partying on their profits, and the scary part is, they have been taking notes. Both will be back within 6mos.
Notice how quiet Nvidia and ATi have been lately, as far as press releases?

When those two re-emerge with their qu8tech technology, the others are sure to scramble. It's a new day coming. Trust me, and remember where you heard it first!

 

[xMax]

Everybody here seems to have a different theory on why Matrox has lost market share. But as i said earlier, the truth may be little bits of what just about everyone has stated.

Nonetheless, I think the bottom line is wether Matrox still does produce better products when it comes to 2D, image quality, and Multi Head solutions.

Now i know that 2D rendering is not difficult for any card to process these days, and for this reason it sort of doesn't make any sense to bost about 2D performance.

But then comes image quality for analog and digital connections.

For analog, i would have to believe that they still make the finest products. Their ultra crisp output display technology seems to be the real deal.

For digital, well, thats a tough one, because there is really no such thing, but there also seems to be a lot of cards out there that dont fully comply with the DVI specs and will result in a poor signal transmission that in turn will produce image artifacts on the display. And since Matrox doesnt just make high quality RAMDACs, but all components that make all signals clean and proper, then i would say that there are many cards out there from may companies that have a proper DVI implementation, and that Matrox will definitely be one of them. That is, you cant go wrong with Matrox when it comes to DVI compliance. After all, if they decided to go cheap and produce cards that dont ever comply with the DVI specs, then they would defy the whole essence and purpose to their company.

As for Multi Display solutions, i dont see anybody really competing with them right now. Only Nvidia and NVS product lines seem to up there, but it just seems like they are not at the same level matrox is at. Although Matrox may be for more medical, while Nvidia may be for the corporate market.

Where from here for Matrox? Who knows! I just hope they can keep making good products for audio, video and photo professionals, along with maintaining themselves as the leader for multi display solutions and the medical field. After all, the company is based out of Montreal, the city i live in, and for this reason i cant help but wish them the best.

 

[jazzboy]

Interesting comments. Ever since i've been involved with gaming or just video cards in general, it has kind of been interesting to see what matrox has been up to.

But today this appeared on Dailytech. I know a lot of people would love this sort of product (assuming its not too pricey!).

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: jazzboy
Interesting comments. Ever since i've been involved with gaming or just video cards in general, it has kind of been interesting to see what matrox has been up to.

But today this appeared on Dailytech. I know a lot of people would love this sort of product (assuming its not too pricey!).

Im very impressed with this new design, it would be a great item for businesses.

 

[marill]

Originally posted by: gsellis
Matrox is their own worst enemy. I have a 450 sitting in my basement. Why? Matrox would not write XP drivers for it. If you have a 2 year old card and the mfgr decides not to support it for the new operating systems, would you buy from them again?

Might want to make a trip to the basement. If you check here, they have g450 xp drivers dated Oct 2004. In fact, they even have 64-bit drivers.

Interesting discussion but I noticed no one mention the biggest difference between matrox and the ati/nvidia juggernaut. Matrox seems to exclusively sell their cards while ati/nvidia cards are produced by a variety of mfg. Also (I might be wrong here) I doubt matrox has the resources of ati/nvidia because I don't think matrox is publicly traded. Heck, they only have around 1,000 employees worldwide.

Anyway, back to my g400 powered dual displays Sure, it's completely useless for games but I'm not a gamer and the 2d image quality is far superior to the fx5200 I tried.

 

[xMax]

What do you guys think i should get: A Parhelia APVe PCI-e x16 or the Millenium P650 128 PCI-e x16? I dont have an AGP motherboard and dont plan on downgrading just to get an AGP video card.

This is my rig:
Eizo CG210 LCD Monitor
Intel P4 3.73 ee Processor
Asus P5WD2 Motherboard (PCI-e x16)
Corsair 2 x 512MB 5400UL RAM modules
WD Raptor 74gig Hardisk
Windows XP Pro SP2

My sole function with the computer is to play short clip 1600x1200 AVI animations at 4FPS in Windows Media Player (9 or 10). The CG210s native resolution is 1600x1200, which means all the animations will therefore be played out in full screen mode.

My primary focus is to get the card that will produce the best possible image quality when connected via a DVI connectin with my monitor. In theory, there is no such thing as DVI image quality, but in practice that is not entirely true. I have been through countless Nvidia and ATI cards that seem to produce DVI noise artifacts on my screen.

Another focus for the card is for it to not have compatibility issues. The last thing i need is a card that needs all kinds of fixes to get it up and running.

The thing is that i scanned through the Matrox forum and noticed 3 different users having the same motherboard that i have, the P5WD2, but with theirs being the Premium version, which is probably fundamentally the same as my non-premium, and they all said the Parhelia APVe PCI-e x16run flawlessly with their system.

And then i did a scan on the P650 128 PCI-e x16 to see what people were using that card and the P5WD2 board that i have. Sure enough, one person couldn't get the drivers to install from a clean XP 32-bit installation, while another guy had problems with Full Graphics Hardware Acceleration, which is a critical feature that i needs to function properly.

And both cards apparently have the same 'Matrox Ultra Crisp Display Output Technology' that is responsible for producing crisp image quality on a display.

I posted a thread asking the tech support crew or anybody on the forum to comment my request to seek out which card would be most compatible with my system, but didn't get any response.

My post at the Matrox forum

Unless im moronic, i should get the APVe without thinking twice, especially when that card is made for audio, photo, and video, while the P650 seems to be more directed for photo and imaging professionals only.

There is only two reasons why im holding back:
1- The P650 was sold out everywhere, at ShopMatrox.com and through all online resellers, while the APVe was available in abundance at both ShopMatrox.com and the online resellers. So one would think that a product thats sold out is probably good, while one that is not is probably not good.
2- I noticed in an analog signal quality test that was conducted by some company on numerous cards from all the varying major card manufactorers to show the Millenium G550 AGP having a much better signal quality than a Parhelia 512 AGP card. Although those tests were conducted for analog signals, i could only assume that the digital signals would probably be good aswell. Of course, that particular Parhelia card was supposed to be Matroxs' attempt to get back into the 3D market, and for this reason may have lacked on signal quality.

Anyhow, so far it looks like i'm going to pull the trigger on the APVe, but i was just wondering if anybody here has anything to say. Assuming anybody has the interest in reading this long thread.

 

[Budarow]

Originally posted by: xMax
I get it now. It seems like there was major buyouts and mergers that lead to the current ATI/Nvidia ruling. After all, one cannot say that 3DFX lost out since they were bought out by Nvidia, while ATI bought out this ArtX company. Of course, maybe Nvidia bought out 3DFX when they were going downhill. But i dont know if that's true. Point being is that there was a scramble and just like that a few maneuvers are made and out comes ATI/Nvidia with the rest scattering for the crums.

Of course, there is probably a million little details that make up the full story. So far there hasn't been one consistent theory said by anybody as to truly and fully explain what happened. And again, the reason for that is because all the theories contain some truths as the full truth is some complicated story that is made up of all these elemental theories.

But anyhow, i just need a top notch 2D video card that specializes in producing ultra crisp image qualities on a display. Of course, im not even using an analog connection. But im not going to get into that subject matter. All i can say is that theoretically, there is no such thing as DVI image quality, but in practice, there definitely is an issue. And that issue is the DVI compliance test that many cards cant seem to pass. The end result in on screen noise and speckles on the LCD display. But i believe that there is more to it than that.

Its almost like saying that all digital is made up of binary analogs, and that those binary analogs in themselves could be made up varying qualities. Then there is encoding and decoding issues that could also play a role. I dont know. Im just blabbing now.

But i have always wondered about that. Digital being made up of binary analog signals, which may in turn also possess quality like normal analog. Hmmm...

Oh yeah...I can say I LOST out due to the "merger". As in like $5k:brokenheart:

nVidia bought 3DFX for ~$100 million only because nVidia was found guilty of patent infringment through litigation.

 

[BFG10K]

Apparently Parhelia also flopped, performance-wise, b/c they had very little compression going on with AA and Z-ops

I don't think they had any, relying simply on the brute force of 256 bit memory to carry them through.

Of course when 9700 Pro came out with twice the pixel pipelines and third generation Hyper-Z with 256 bit memory as well the world soon saw the folly of Matrox's ways.

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: Lifted
It's a cut throat market. I think it comes down to management, then talent/resources. If management lacks vision and the skills to succesfully compete in a very fast industry, a multi-million dollar company can fall apart in a years time, or less. Same thing happened to 3dfx, Hercules, Trident, Cyrix, VIA (CPU's), Transmeta, etc.

I agree completely Lifted. Matrox predicted the market horribly wrong and thought they could of squeezed in the market easily. However ATi and Nvidia squashed their hopes of ever making a marginal profit off their card with stiff and competitive competition.

They are now in financial ruin. They were in a do-or-die situation with not enough capital as the two monsters to make a sizeable comeback. Unfortunately, they took the latter.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: xMax
I get it now. It seems like there was major buyouts and mergers that lead to the current ATI/Nvidia ruling. After all, one cannot say that 3DFX lost out since they were bought out by Nvidia, while ATI bought out this ArtX company. Of course, maybe Nvidia bought out 3DFX when they were going downhill. But i dont know if that's true. Point being is that there was a scramble and just like that a few maneuvers are made and out comes ATI/Nvidia with the rest scattering for the crums.

Of course, there is probably a million little details that make up the full story. So far there hasn't been one consistent theory said by anybody as to truly and fully explain what happened. And again, the reason for that is because all the theories contain some truths as the full truth is some complicated story that is made up of all these elemental theories.

But anyhow, i just need a top notch 2D video card that specializes in producing ultra crisp image qualities on a display. Of course, im not even using an analog connection. But im not going to get into that subject matter. All i can say is that theoretically, there is no such thing as DVI image quality, but in practice, there definitely is an issue. And that issue is the DVI compliance test that many cards cant seem to pass. The end result in on screen noise and speckles on the LCD display. But i believe that there is more to it than that.

Its almost like saying that all digital is made up of binary analogs, and that those binary analogs in themselves could be made up varying qualities. Then there is encoding and decoding issues that could also play a role. I dont know. Im just blabbing now.

But i have always wondered about that. Digital being made up of binary analog signals, which may in turn also possess quality like normal analog. Hmmm...

3dfx signed their own death certificate when they bought diamond and began making their own cards.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: dfloyd
Where are you people getting that Matrox ever was the best? I have been working on computers and following them very closely since before Rendition and 3dfx hit the market. Since the day that they did, Matrox has been dead. Sure they make great 2d, but when its gaming that is pushing the market, 2d does not cut it. I cant recall one review ever where Matrox has overcome any other high end video card from the NV1 on up. (At least within the same timeframe, I am sure the G400 surpasses the NV1).

I am not cutting down Matrox or Matrox fans but every single review I have ever seen has shown Matrox sorely lacking the 3d dept when compared to their competitors, Nvidia, 3dfx, and so on. That is why they are falling, its because they have not really done anything special in the 3d dept. Now sure they may still be the best 2d graphics card for your office, but if so its not by much as Ati and Nvidia have made some pretty nice strides in the 2d dept. So heres your choice, you get 2d, or you get 2d, 3d, and more. And thats not even counting the extreme prices Matrox puts on their cards. Buy a Matrox its got W-RAM woo hoo, what does it do? Elephant and Rhino but you gotta pay bookoos of cash to have it. And sorry if my post comes across as harsh, not meant that way, just shocked that anyone ever thought Matrox has lead anything since desktop pcs 3ds birth.

the mystique was the hotness back in the day. and a matrox millennium with 2 12mb voodoo2 cards ruled the world.

 

[mrzed]

Originally posted by: Regs
I agree completely Lifted. Matrox predicted the market horribly wrong and thought they could of squeezed in the market easily. However ATi and Nvidia squashed their hopes of ever making a marginal profit off their card with stiff and competitive competition.

They are now in financial ruin. They were in a do-or-die situation with not enough capital as the two monsters to make a sizeable comeback. Unfortunately, they took the latter.

Evidence? Matrox is a privately held company. They are not required to post public financial statements.

Maybe parhelia was just a last kick at the can. I seriously doubt that even in those days the management thought they could compete for long in the 3D arena. Perhaps they just tried to pick up whatever sales they could from gamers before retreating into their core business/video/imaging markets.

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: Lifted
It's a cut throat market. I think it comes down to management, then talent/resources. If management lacks vision and the skills to succesfully compete in a very fast industry, a multi-million dollar company can fall apart in a years time, or less. Same thing happened to 3dfx, Hercules, Trident, Cyrix, VIA (CPU's), Transmeta, etc.

I agree completely Lifted. Matrox predicted the market horribly wrong and thought they could of squeezed in the market easily. However ATi and Nvidia squashed their hopes of ever making a marginal profit off their card with stiff and competitive competition.

They are now in financial ruin. They were in a do-or-die situation with not enough capital as the two monsters to make a sizeable comeback. Unfortunately, they took the latter.

A couple of comments about this:
A) Matrox is not in financial ruin, as a matter a fact, I doubt anyone can get any really solid information about how well/poorly they are doing since they are privately held.

B) Matrox being privately held makes it difficult to compete in the high-end gamer market. Competing for this market costs a lot of money, requires many resources and is very risky, this is why you only have two real competitors in that market. It's qute possible that Matrox pulled out of this market after Parhelia simply because management feels it is not worth the risk.

C) Matrox has diversified significantly, the Imaging and Video divisions of Matrox are much higher growth than the graphics dept as far as I can tell. I work for the company and I can tell you that Imaging seems to have the most openings and is growing very rapidly.

 

[extra]

Matrox is in anything but financial ruin from what i've heard.

Look at the medical field, where once a vendor is in, they are usually in for a very long time as long as they deliver a 100% solid product. Matrox dominates in the medical imaging field *from what i've seen and heard i do not have direct experience, if i'm wrong i'm wrong no flames plz*

Look at it this way: let's make a HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION in which Ford and Toyota produce SUVs with more and more horsepower and more car-like handling and better interiors, and someone with somewhat less experience making cars, Isuzu, cannot keep up with Ford and Toyota's sales in the SUV market. However, Isuzu makes better light commercial trucks, so they decide "maybe we should re-focus our company on what we really do best instead of spreading ourselves thin in markets that are risky". So, Isuzu gets out of the consumer SUV market and focuses on light commercial trucks, where they continue to grow. Has Isuzu failed? No, of course not, they are just focusing on a different market. Matrox hasn't lost a battle, they just focused themselves in a different direction.

And you never know when another company may come up with a competitive gaming graphics card that gains a foothold in the market. Remember years and years ago when intel had a great budget 3d gaming chip out?

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: Lifted
It's a cut throat market. I think it comes down to management, then talent/resources. If management lacks vision and the skills to succesfully compete in a very fast industry, a multi-million dollar company can fall apart in a years time, or less. Same thing happened to 3dfx, Hercules, Trident, Cyrix, VIA (CPU's), Transmeta, etc.

I agree completely Lifted. Matrox predicted the market horribly wrong and thought they could of squeezed in the market easily. However ATi and Nvidia squashed their hopes of ever making a marginal profit off their card with stiff and competitive competition.

They are now in financial ruin. They were in a do-or-die situation with not enough capital as the two monsters to make a sizeable comeback. Unfortunately, they took the latter.

A couple of comments about this:
A) Matrox is not in financial ruin, as a matter a fact, I doubt anyone can get any really solid information about how well/poorly they are doing since they are privately held.

B) Matrox being privately held makes it difficult to compete in the high-end gamer market. Competing for this market costs a lot of money, requires many resources and is very risky, this is why you only have two real competitors in that market. It's qute possible that Matrox pulled out of this market after Parhelia simply because management feels it is not worth the risk.

C) Matrox has diversified significantly, the Imaging and Video divisions of Matrox are much higher growth than the graphics dept as far as I can tell. I work for the company and I can tell you that Imaging seems to have the most openings and is growing very rapidly.

I don't know why Matrox even bothered going after the gaming market, they definetely had the 3d skills to go after the prosumer creation market. At the time of the Parhelia, they still had notably better image quality than ATI and nvidia's offerings, they were always on the forefront of features, and they could have done a 3dlabs and gone all prosumer cards. I think graphical quality matters a lot more than pure speed in that market, and the various hacks and optimizations ATI and nvidia use for games negatively affect 3d modeling.

 

[xMax]

So Raynor: Why did Matrox stay privately held. Why didn't they go commercial, if thats what its called, and become a giant like Nvidia and ATI?

Just curious? I've always liked Matrox. I have a long history with that company. For instance:

- I've owned a mystique and a millenium back in the days
- The company is based and headquartered in Montreal, the city i live in.
- The company was founded in 1976, the year i was born.
- And it has a really cool name that sounds a little like 'Matrix', and this was before the movie Matrix came out, just in case anybody thinks they copied the name from the movie. (of course this has nothing to do with me.)

Most of all, i actually saw the building that existed on the property that Matrox built their headquarters on burn to ashes. Thats right, i litterally was one of the people standing and watching that company burn down with all these firefighters helplessly trying to stop the fire. And thats when Matrox came along and cleaned up all the rubble and built their headquarters.

And after discovering that ATI was incompatible with my Eizo monitor when connected through DVI, which resulted in massive screen noise or speckles if thats whats its called, i then went through two Nvidia products, both of which had their own annoying problems and still had a little bit of DVI noise, i then was told a professional computer tech guy that i should look into Matrox. And what do you know, the two things im looking for, a 2D card and outstanding image quality, happens to be exactly what Matrox specializes in.

Talk about Karma. And as im writing this letter, i just noticed that the CSI show im watching is about 4 murdered buddhist, where the word Karma comes from. 4 buddhists too; where four means quatro in spanish, which sounds like 'quadro', as in Nvidia quadro, the card that i just recently shot down as a possible solution, as this association with the 4 dead buddhists can be taken as another sign to stay away from the Nvidia quadro.

Pretty freaky stuff. Or maybe im just some fool who draws assocications from anything and then gets all excited about it as though its some kind of a powerful sign.

I guess one could draw such a conclusion, but one also cannot deny that there is something strange about it all.

Anyhow, now i just have to figure out wether i should get the APVe or the P650e 128. On specs they are the same, but in practice maybe one is better than the other, as i have to figure out which one is the 'one'.

Maybe i should rely on Karma and not logic to figure this one out! Really!

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Matrox never went public simply because the owners never decided to take the company public: both owners Trottier and Matic are still active in the company (I actually crossed Mr. Trottier the other day on my way out of the office). I imagine they feel no need to compete in high-end gaming cards, preferring instead to develop tools for video-editing and imaging for medical and industrial applications, both of which are high-growth sectors.