What about Matrox?

[NeoNemesis]

Everyone keeps talking about the ongoing battle between ATI and NVIDIA, but from what I have seen, Matrox has some pretty good video cards as well, has anyone here had any experience with some of the newer models?

 

[E4g1e]

Many of us play games on the computer. Unfortunately, Matrox isn't part of that market. Their very newest cards do suck for gaming - because Matrox has chosen to no longer pursue the gaming market.

That said, the current Matrox offerings are meant more for graphics designers than for gamers.

 

[NeoNemesis]

Thats a shame. Still, I wouldn't mind trying out unreal 2k4 with surround gaming, that would certainly give you the advantage.

 

[Kruzin]

True, they have stopped worrying about the gamers market. The new P650 and P750 don't do much for gaming. But Parhelia does respectably in games. I just came out of a round of UT2004 in surround mode. 3072x768, 16x FAA, all game settings maxed. It rocks.
I only buy games that support surround these days.
I'll take surround over raw FPS any time, as long as the games are playable, and so far, my Parhelia has played everything I've tried on it just fine.

 

[obyj34]

If Matrox would build a card with the sheer power of a 9800XT/5950 and their features of triple monitor and 16xAA. You might be able to pump out either some triple monitor gaming with no AA, or some insane triple monitor gaming.

 

[raz-0]

well lets see.. Matrox is completley useless for 3d apps since they first declared they had 3d acceleration. For a brief period, the g400 was useful for games, but matrox has been useless for games for a while.

They have good 2d image quality, but the latest ATI cards are so close it doesn't matter.

The ONLY area matrox has been putting effort into has been serious multi-head display. THe main market for this is mostly complicated financial apps that banks and brokers use that need a 5 or 6 head display and don't care about 3d acceleration.

that's about the only venue they have any compelling advantage in.

 

[Kruzin]

"complely useless" is an extreme overstatement.
No, the cards don't get xxxx fartmarks in this or that benchmark. But the games are completly playable, at acceptable framerates (as long as you enjoy playing the games, and not wasting time bragging about timedemo scores). They look great, and offer surround gaming (something nobody else does). Hardly 'useless'.
And they are very usable for light-medium 3D work in CAD or 3DS. And a high-end 3Dworkstation card is worse for gaming, and even more expensive than Parhelia.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

amen if matrox offered a card that was as fast as my 9700p i woukd take that over a 9800xt

matrox = eye candy

 

[seanmcd]

Originally posted by NeoNemesis
Everyone keeps talking about the ongoing battle between ATI and NVIDIA, but from what I have seen, Matrox has some pretty good video cards as well, has anyone here had any experience with some of the newer models?

uhhh yeah. Matrox. Great 2d cards, possibly the best in 2D quality. A total loser in the gaming market. If I'm building a machine for things other than gaming, I look for a Matrox card. But their last decent groundbreaking 3d card was the g400 series. I played a lot of Halflife/CS with the G400 card. The Pirahlea (sp?) card is nice but way overpriced for it's performance. And the surround monitor thing is just kind of pointless when you think about it. I mean when you really sit and ponder it.

 

[NeoNemesis]

In most games it may be useless but in fps' a wider range of vision would really help you out.