Why did Matrox lose the battle?

[xMax]

And why did they not make that decision to go public when there is so much glory and glamour and fame and money that comes out of going public and becoming one of the leading companies. And i know Matrox had the experience and talent to become a leader, if not 'the leader'.

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

*shrug* how should I know? I'm just a humble engineer 😛

 

[xMax]

OK. Fair enough. But as an engineer at Matrox, and one who is off duty and having fun on a forum, then which card would you recommend i get, the Parhelia APVe or the P650e 128?

You can scroll through this thread to see what i need from the cards.

Im asking because the logic is not allowing me to figure out which card is the right one. They both have the same features that i need, but im thinking that maybe one of them may have better image quality, even in DVI mode. Im suspecting this because i saw a test showing analog signal quality on many cards, not just matrox, and a millenium P550 had a better signal than the Parhelia 512. And so, if the same applies to DVI signal quality, then maybe i should get the P650e 128.

What do you say Santa?

 

[Gamer X]

Seems they are not completely dead.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: xMax
OK. Fair enough. But as an engineer at Matrox...

OK, this explains a lot. I was wondering yesterday, "Where in the heck did we come up with a Matrox fanboy". Not fanboy, interested party. 😛

Hey, Axio looks interesting, but I use Avid Liquid, not Premiere. An ATI card gives me a lot of the same.

 

[Trente]

Originally posted by: fisher
3dfx signed their own death certificate when they bought diamond and began making their own cards.

Diamond was purchased by S3; It was STB that 3dfx had bought

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Trente

Originally posted by: fisher
3dfx signed their own death certificate when they bought diamond and began making their own cards.

Diamond was purchased by S3; It was STB that 3dfx had bought

my bad. my memory isn't what it used to be. both of those worked out well eh?

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: xMax
OK. Fair enough. But as an engineer at Matrox, and one who is off duty and having fun on a forum, then which card would you recommend i get, the Parhelia APVe or the P650e 128?

You can scroll through this thread to see what i need from the cards.

Im asking because the logic is not allowing me to figure out which card is the right one. They both have the same features that i need, but im thinking that maybe one of them may have better image quality, even in DVI mode. Im suspecting this because i saw a test showing analog signal quality on many cards, not just matrox, and a millenium P550 had a better signal than the Parhelia 512. And so, if the same applies to DVI signal quality, then maybe i should get the P650e 128.

What do you say Santa?

I'm sorry, I can't be of much help on this since I don't work in the Graphics division. Ironically enough, the PCs we have in the office are Dells with ATI cards in them :shocked:.

 

[SickBeast]

IMO Matrox was very smart to bow out of the 3D "arms race" when they did. If they had not done so, they probably would have gone out of business.

Things might have turned out differently if the Parhelia hadn't flopped. It is an example of highly inefficient hardware engineering. On paper it outdid the 9700Pro in quite a few areas, plus it came out a fair bit earlier.

I think they would do very well to licence a modern ATI/nVidia GPU and incorporate it into one of their uber-2D workstation cards.

 

[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.

 

[xMax]

Santa,

so what if you work in an office, you said you were an engineer.

But it doesn't matter anyway. Im getting the APVe.

Sick Beast,

your probably right, matrox just may have very well flopped on thier parhelia 512. But that card was called the comback kid in one of THGs articles. If they were calling it that, then that means they were already slipping away, and perhaps by a far margin as they made just one last attempt. One that clearly didn't work.

 

[Fox5]

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.

I'd say Matrox was competitive in 3d up to early to mid 1999. I might even consider the Parhelia a competitive entry, but the G400, though rather late, was competitive in price and speed with the other cards available, and better in features and visual quality. (at least until the geforce came out like a month or two later)

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: xMax
Santa,

so what if you work in an office, you said you were an engineer.

But it doesn't matter anyway. Im getting the APVe.

I am an engineer, but I don't work in graphics so I'm not familiar with our graphics products.

 

[xMax]

Fair enough. It doesn't matter anyway, i just placed the order on the Parhelia APVe. I hope i made the right decision.

But i think i did.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: xMax
And why did they not make that decision to go public when there is so much glory and glamour and fame and money that comes out of going public and becoming one of the leading companies. And i know Matrox had the experience and talent to become a leader, if not 'the leader'.

i dunno about canada, but going public involves huge expense in the US, not to mention that you now have to put up with tons of minority shareholders who will sue you at the drop of a hat.

 

[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.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
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.

TNT2

the G200 wasn't a bad card to pair with a couple v2s once it finally came out.

 

[xMax]

i dunno about canada, but going public involves huge expense in the US, not to mention that you now have to put up with tons of minority shareholders who will sue you at the drop of a hat.

But is not going public a process by which the company going public acquires shareholders or investors that provide the company with loads of money to use for the massive expenses that come about from going public. I mean, if your a company like Matrox, and you make excellent quality products, and these big companies come along to battle out the market, isn't there such a thing as approaching investors and getting them to poor in their money to allow you to have the financial ability to battle out the war.

At least thats what i thought going public involved.

But whatever...Matrox is out of the 3D market now, and there is no chance they will ever come back, as the 3D market is now the backbone to a video card company, which in turn allows the company to make enough money to then expand outwards to support all markets, which of course leads to the dissimination of all smaller companies.

But no flames please. Im just guessing and could easily be totally wrong about every assumption im making.

 

[kobymu]

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

@Wolfshanze ati was never junk, EVEN back at mach8 gen. thier windows nt/95/98 DRIVERS WAS JUNK (dos games worked flewlessly), btw at the same time a lot of server boards came with integrated ati video chip and as long as you didnt install thier driver (using the windows driver) they would work without a hich (emphasis-> server boards)

/edit
oops forgot my on topic comment 😱
Matrox G200 did "rule" in its day, G400 not so much. I still have G200 and Matrox millennium ISA with 2MB of ram in a box somewhere :Q

 

[BenSkywalker]

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.

The G400 bested the TNT2 overall but in terms of the workstation drivers- it took Matrox years to get what I would consider tollerable drivers for OpenGL functioning on the G400. That is the reason why nVidia is still widely considered to have had the superior product- Matrox performed very poorly in Q2 and Q3 powered games in relative terms.

 

[Topweasel]

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.

The cross license agreement that AMD and Intel sign every 4 0r 5 years is Intels way of avioding being a monopoly if they got their way they would like keep AMD at sub 5% of the market, not the 15%-20% they have now. Intel also has an Issue with the fact that the 15% that AMD has is the most immportant for retail bussinesses. The only thing the still have a strangle hold on is the build to order machines (dell). AMDs success right now sets the ground work for the next 10-15 years of increased sales as long as they can stay with Intel in performance.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

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.

The G400 bested the TNT2 overall but in terms of the workstation drivers- it took Matrox years to get what I would consider tollerable drivers for OpenGL functioning on the G400. That is the reason why nVidia is still widely considered to have had the superior product- Matrox performed very poorly in Q2 and Q3 powered games in relative terms.

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.

Linkified

The G200's OpenGL ICD ended up being too little, too late, and Matrox may run into the same problem with the G400's TurboGL. The next generation of cards from NVIDIA, 3dfx, and S3 are due within the next few months and all promise more features and raw power. Thus, if you can, it is probably a good idea to wait a little while and see how things pan out in the next generation. At the very least, the price of the current generation will probably drop significantly when the new cards are finally available.

However, for anyone that needs to buy a card now the TurboGL definitely brings the G400 back into contention as a great all around 3D accelerator. Just remember that the TurboGL only works with Pentium III and Athlon CPUs. Without the TurboGL, the G400 is severely crippled, making a TNT2 or Voodoo3 a better choice for Pentium II, Celeron, or K6 users. Unfortunately for Matrox, that takes out a huge chunk of the market.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: xMax
Matrox used to rule back in the days. But now they have been cornered into a niche market that seems to be shrinking with each passing day. It seems almost inevitable that they will be out of business within the next 5 to 10 years. Of course i could be wrong. I hope im wrong. I really liked Matrox, and they are based out of Montreal, the city i live in.

So what happened? Clearly its the 3D market that has crushed them. But they were making 3D cards, so why didn't they battle it out with ATI and Nvidia?

Im assuming there are three reasons why they lost the battle:
1- They didn't have the money and thus the resources.
2- They were too deep into the 2D market and couldn't battle it out in the 3D market.
3- 2D rendering was no longer a big deal for modern computers to handle.
4- DVI emerges and makes all 2D analog image quality, their specialty, somewhat obsolete.

Maybe i dont know what im talking about, but i am interested in knowing why they went down.

Main reasons IMO:

1. Way back when Matrox was on top, the main purpose of high-end video cards wasn't 3D gaming or even designing 3D games. It was graphic design, publishing, electronic art, etc.. So what Matrox needed were good desktop cards that could also handle the relatively primitive games available then (strategy/war games, flight simulators, etc.). The only 3D games were like Wolfenstein, which didn't require a dedicated GPU capable of the kind of effects, textures, lighting, and so on seen today.

2. With above being true, they could straddle both sides of the fence with a small range of high-quality but affordable cards. And back then, there wasn't a breakneck 6-month product cycle, and people couldn't even imagine the "price points" of today. The most high-end beast was $200 or less, and it wasn't loaded with memory, fans, hardware monitoring chips, logos, etc. Just an ugly green PCB with a no-frills heatsink.

3. Once games like Half-Life started coming out, the industry branched off and a whole new market opened up: cards specifically for gaming. For whatever reason, Matrox didn't take the bait, and within a few years things had progressed so fast that they were left behind. When they finally tried to catch up (Parhelia), their part just couldn't stand up to the competitors whos entire business was researching, developing, and manufacturing cards made just for gaming and/or developing games. Those few years proved to be crucial for whatever reason (likely because Nvidia and ATI were progressing by leaps and bounds in an effort to top each other), and since Parhelia was a flop, they just dropped out of the race.

Just MO. I alway used Matrox cards at home and at work until Half-Life came out, at which time I switched and never looked back.

 

[xMax]

That sounds very logical Buck.

But where does Matrox go from here. If they are out of the 3D market completely, and really dont stand a chance to get back in when Nvidia and ATI are leaps ahead, then all they can do is rely on their Multi Display Solutions.

At present, they have excellent 2D processing, excellent image quality (for analog), and probably the best multi display solutions. But again, with 2D processing being easilly handled by any top notch Nvidia/ATI card, along with the growth of DVI LCDs which dont have 'image quality', then Matrox is left with only one specialization: Multi-Display Solutions!

If they can keep dwelling on that market by producing more superior products than what ATI and Nvidia could come out with, and if ATI/Nvidia dont go all out on that market, then Matrox may have the ability to sneak through and remain as the leader in that niche market. That would be the positive outlook for Matrox.

Then there is the negative one. This is where ATI and or Nvidia become so large and aquire so much money and resources that they can put a lot of emphasis on Multi Display Solutions and eventually surpass Matrox. At which point Matrox would be in a lot of trouble.

I guess its hard to say which way things will go. Matrox should make merge with somebody.

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?

 

[gsellis]

One thing Matrox is doing that no one seems to do well is multi-display cards. We run four information displays from a PC in customer areas with them.