ATI Radeon?

[DosFreak]

http://www.3dnow.net/ubb/Forum3/HTML/002062.html

[Sicna]

Well ATI has done it hehe

It seems like a good card but I'll still wait for the G800 if only Matrox could annonce it's coming.

It at least we knew it was in the works (I know it supposetly in the PD6 drivers) and when it's coming I would be in heaven.

I think I'll consider the Radeon if I don't have any news. I'm a newcomer to Matrox and I like it. Though they are a little slow on driver updates.

I don't like the attitude of NVidia and their business pratices so I don't really want to buy one even if they have great cards.

Go Matrox...give us something at least


------------------
Asus K7V
Athlon 750Mhz
256 megs 133 Mhz
Matrox G400 MAX
Sblive Value
Windows 98 SE & 2000

[HedsSpaz]

Xortam, it's not that the Radeon or any other card isn't within my budget, hell, I could afford to get an Oxygen board if I really wanted to, it's a matter of me being stingy.
It comes down to what I judge(in my own warped way)to be a value to me. If I spend money on a card right now, knowing what kind of performance I will get out of it and how long I will actively use it, knowing also that I will likely be purchasing whatever M's next card afer the G450 is, is it worth the cost of the card. For the performance of a 32mb G400 SH(or DH(or even a 16mb)), I'm not quite sure it is worth the cost. This is not of course to say that the Radeon IS worth the cost, I'm just suffering from upgrade fever and new technology syndrom.

Anyway, I agree with a point that several of you have made. A lot depends on driver support, which traditionaly ATI hasn't been all that great about.

The Big M surely has something up their sleeves to counter the latest nVidia and especially ATI
I know Ace, I agree completely. I just wish that they would roll their sleeves up so that we could see what it is.

And Jorden, I would just like to point out that the Marvel G400 is 299$(granted it's an entirely different class of card), the Voodoo 5 6000 will reportedly cost 600$, the Oxygen GVX1 is 999$, and the GeForce2 ranges from 250$ to 425$. Besides which, I wouldn't get the 64mb variant myself, the 32mb Radeon is supposedly going to retail for 279$.

Boy, whether it's going home time or early in the morning I'm really good at rambling.

Ian

[andrei]

Hmm... I wonder how much a G800 would cost (if it ever comes out), can't be under 300$.
Hell, I'll give it a 400$, if the rumored specs are true.

[LAMFDTK]

ATi I got 150.00 for a Radeon, Is that not the gas in the basement that can kill you?

I am putting all Chips on the G800 !

------------------
PIII-650, 256 HDSRAM, Asus CUBX, G400MAX, SBLive!,Sony G400 19", Nokia 447Xi 17",AOPEN DVD-1040 10x slot,PLEXTOR 8x4x32 ATAPI CD-RW,and some fish,

[archangle]

A couple of points,

I think the Rage Fury Maxxs W2K drivers never appeard because it's realy hard to program, 3DFX managed it but no one else has tried yet.

This could also explain the delay in the G800, two chips and W2K is V hard.

Also ATI has said that there could be a two chip Radeon on the way, imagine the performance of that... The G800 might not be as fast as a GTS/Radeon and is already using two chips!

Just wish M would get on with it and stop trying to get the last juice out of the G400 core when everyone else has come out with new designs.

Realy they need a card that's 10-20% faster than the GTS/Radeon and includes FSAA, EMBM, Per-Pixel Shaders, better DVD decoding (ATI still the best here using the old 128 chip!), advanced T&L and the usual DualHead.

To get the performance they need to incorporate V fast DDR mem (225+) or use a similar tecnique to ATI reducing the amount of data being proccesed.

Realy a new chipset is needed to implament all of the above which could take another year to complete!

Also remember the price of the G400 Max when it first came out, probably the most expensive card at the time (Matrox have never been particularly cheap). The G800 will have two G450 chips needing 64Mb of ram to compete with a GTS 32Mb card!

------------------
Cheers,

archangle

[archangle]

A couple of points,

I think the Rage Fury Maxxs W2K drivers never appeard because it's realy hard to program, 3DFX managed it but no one else has tried yet.

This could also explain the delay in the G800, two chips and W2K is V hard.

Also ATI has said that there could be a two chip Radeon on the way, imagine the performance of that... The G800 might not be as fast as a GTS/Radeon and is already using two chips!

Just wish M would get on with it and stop trying to get the last juice out of the G400 core when everyone else has come out with new designs.

Realy they need a card that's 10-20% faster than the GTS/Radeon and includes FSAA, EMBM, Per-Pixel Shaders, better DVD decoding (ATI still the best here using the old 128 chip!), advanced T&L and the usual DualHead.

To get the performance they need to incorporate V fast DDR mem (225+) or use a similar tecnique to ATI reducing the amount of data being proccesed.

Realy a new chipset is needed to implament all of the above which could take another year to complete!

Also remember the price of the G400 Max when it first came out, probably the most expensive card at the time (Matrox have never been particularly cheap). The G800 will have two G450 chips needing 64Mb of ram to compete with a GTS 32Mb card!

Tell me if I am wrong with any of the above (I hope that I am as I love big M cards).

------------------
Cheers,

archangle

[Snake-Eyes]

I don't think we've ever come to the conclusion that the G800 would be made up of two G450 chips yet. In fact, some of our rumors (and that's all they are right now) are that there would be a standard G800 (single chip) and a G800 Fusion (possibly dual G800 chips?).

And I don't really think that the G800 HAS to use G450 chips to be supported by the drivers (which is the reason you made the assumption of G450 chips, archangle?). I mean, the current drivers support the G200 and the G400 series both (most of the time), and those are definitely not the same chips.

I'd expect the G800 chip to build on the technology established by the G200, G400, and most recently G450 chips, but to be a new chip, though mostly driver compatible with the others. So it very likely will be MUCH faster than any of the others, even in a single chip configuration. Now, whether it's slightly slower, as fast as, or faster than, the other cards on the market remains to be seen.

As far as cost, that was pretty much on the mark, I'd bet. That's part of their history, and part of a capitalist market. If the market will bear the cost (given the current going price of similar competition), then they'll aim to be competitive (ie. more features at close to the same price, etc.).

On the other hand, Matrox cards tend to last us longer than nVidia cards (and have to, too, hehe), as well as more reliable (hey, at least all the features are used in the drivers, whether successfully or not..).

------------------
Ace



[This message has been edited by Ace (edited 19 July 2000).]

[archangle]

That's what I get for using old rumors (told you to correct me)

I've been off-line for about a month now so hadn't heard the latest rumors

Yes made the assumtion that if the G800 was two G450 chips, it would be harder to make drivers for W2K.

If the G800 is single chip, this is V good as it shows that they are developing newer technology instead of getting the last out of the G400 core.

I still think that they need to incorporate all of the latest technology (don't want to speculate here) which includes all of the Radeon features plus they should make better DVD playback (as ATI are the best here).

I wonder how long it will be before cards can use all the features (EMBM with 4xFSAA and per-pixel shaders) at the same time with no slowdown (Matrox have the head start with EMBM and Dual-Head (probably the best feature of all the cards at the moment...

Think the G800 (if it's configured like this) Fusion could split into to halves giving near the performance of two single G800's when using two moniters? (could mean realy good news for us)

------------------
Cheers,

archangle