Matrox G800 vs. Nvidia's next card

[Buback]

That's true. matrox does have inovation, where nvidia has speed.

But nvidia can steal matrox's inovative ideas before they get truly implemented and incorporate them into their cards.
matrox can't do the same to nvidia, and so are always trying to catch up to nvidia(in speed).

I just wish matrox had the fastest card on the market for more than a couple weeks

Buback

[superfly]

The other thing to remember is that the G800 will probably be released around the same timeframe as Nvidia's new card.

It is imperative that matrox doesn't aim for GF2 like performance,especially since they only release new products every 12 months.

This is just my opinion of course,but the G800 has to beat the gf2 by at least 50% in real world performance so that when nv 20 comes along,the the speed difference(in fps) probably won't be too big.

Right now,there are only two things that make everyone upgrade their video cards at least on a yearly basis,you either use the card to create 3d images or you play games.

Let's face it folks,having extra features is nice and all,but fps sells and in the end,if one specific card sells more that the others because of it's speed,and the advantage of that is that developers start implementing features on their games with the most popular video cards in mind.

[HollyBerri]

I can't speak about using the card for CAD/CAM or other professional OGL apps, but as far as gaming goes, you're all forgetting something.

All gamers are not alike, and all gamers do not play UT!!!.

Think about it. Adventure and RPG gamers don't care about fps. Those of us with older games that we still love to play need a card that can run a wide range of games and look as good as the game is capable of, not FSAA. I'm playing ChronoTrigger on Zsnes, Tex Murphy: Overseer and FF7, Starfleet Command, GTA2, The Tainted, Thief 2, and hopefully soon The Longest Journey and MDK2. And I still love a good Duke map every so often. Some of us maybe have kids that have to share our PC's to play their games as well.

My G400MAX means that I can play any of these things and it will look great (within the limits of the game engine). I could give a toss for FSAA or T&L. I don't care about fps, because I don't play online at this time. And there are a lot of people like me. People who play Daggerfall and Baldur's Gate and TR4. People who write TCs for Duke and Wolfenstein (!!!!). People who will install ME and use the online play facility to play <u>Bridge and Hearts</u>, not UT.

I do understand the needs of you UT players and even of you heavy flight and war sim-ers, but I must admit that I'm a bit tired of this assumption that UT and CounterStrike comprise the whole of the gaming world, so the G400/450/800 - GeForce controversy relies on their performance in those games.

So could we please look at the whole picture when we talk about such things?

---------------------------------
Holly

[superfly]

All the titles you mentionned are a joke in terms of video card requirements and any card that can display 32 bit color in games would also play those titles with ease.

The games i'm talking about are the ones that will push your video card to the limit,like star trek elite force,b-17 flying fortress,the models of the planes themselves look drop dead gourgeous,freelancer and many others,all of which will be released in the next few months.

What drives the market for faster-better-more feature packed video cards is the ever increasing requirements to display the ever increasing visuall eye candy of todays games.

And as incredible as it may seem,games that will be released in just 3 short years,will make anything we see today look positively pathetic,just look at the improvement make since the first consumer 3d cards became available(voodoo 1).