Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Matrox G800, wake up...please

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Matrox G800, wake up...please

    G800 are late but it's not too late.

    Why geForces are so fast??
    Why geForces are too expensive??
    Does Fast has to be expensive??

    Well, the following is my opinion about nvidia and geforce, and might be some suggestion for matrox.

    GeForce are fast but actually they use conventional (old style) rendering techniques that very unefficient (slow). But however they can render very fast. This is because geForce core equipped with many texture engine so they can finished their rendering works faster.
    Is it really necessary to armed every graphics chip with large number of texture engines?? Well, it depends in what rendering tecniques it uses. If the chip utilizes old stly rendering tecniques the more texture engine will perform better.
    Graphic Chip with more texture engine will have more complex architecture that results as higher production cost.
    Many graphic chip developer compensate the slowness of conventional rendering techniques with faster hardware (e.g memory chip) resulting another impact in production cost.

    By developing better and more efficient rendering techniques we (or Matrox I should say) can develop a simpler graphic chip with 'not that fast' memory chip. This will results in: production cost reduction, shorter graphic chip development time, better rendering result, etc etc..

    ..so Super Limited Budget Gamers with Slow Gaming Rig aka SLUGGERS (tm) like me will survive.

    'What You See Is What It Renders'

  • #2
    What you're talking about is hidden surface removal which illminates overdraw. I am sure matrox will use this, I heard the Nv20 will also use this, ATI already does it. It be crazy for a 3D card company to come out with a card in 2001 that doesn't have this, 3D games are getting much more complex now, like team arena the maps are HUGE.


    Comment


    • #3

      I'm sure that Matrox is awake. Unlike 3dfx, they choose to make sure that their OEM business was solid over delivering high performance (and much lower volume) gaming cards.

      HSR and HyperZ are means for reducing the amount of bandwidth the rendering pipeline demands from local memory. Some here have mentioned that Carmack said in some interview that Matrox had solved the bandwidth problem. The latest speculation was that they were using eDram, but no one can say for sure (well, those under NDA know, but can't say). Matrox is keeping a tight lip on their next card except to say that it will fully support DX8.


      I'm just glad that they are moving forward, hopefully I'll be replacing the Elsa Gladiac (GF2 GTS) that I'm getting for Christmas with a Matrox card later on this year. In the meantime, I'll suffer the inferior 2D of NVidia cards so that I can get better gaming performace (though Elsa supposedly has noticeably better 2D than most other Geforce card manufacturers).

      My G400 will go in my wife's machine.

      -AJ

      Trying to figuring out what Matrox is up to is like tying to find a road that's not on the map, at night, while wearing welders googles!

      Comment


      • #4
        The 2D quality. If you see a difference between the Matrox G400 and a GTS then please let me know. There is no difference.

        ** Being whopped by a ten year old at quake 2!!!! ARgg!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Bacardi_breezer:
          The 2D quality. If you see a difference between the Matrox G400 and a GTS then please let me know. There is no difference.
          Try settings like 1600x1200x32bpp @ 100Hz on a good monitor and have another look ...
          Despite my nickname causing confusion, I am not female ...

          ASRock Fatal1ty X79 Professional
          Intel Core i7-3930K@4.3GHz
          be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 2
          4x 8GB G.Skill TridentX PC3-19200U@CR1
          2x MSI N670GTX PE OC (SLI)
          OCZ Vertex 4 256GB
          4x2TB Seagate Barracuda Green 5900.3 (2x4TB RAID0)
          Super Flower Golden Green Modular 800W
          Nanoxia Deep Silence 1
          LG BH10LS38
          LG DM2752D 27" 3D

          Comment


          • #6
            Put the G400 and GTS on a high res monitor, and run at 1600x1200 and you'll notice the differance. I can even tell at 1024x768.. the matrox colors have better saturation and clarity than the Geforce cards.

            But at the rate things are going, someone else will catch M in 2D quality, since its getting close now. And at this rate, the G800 will have to have DX9 drivers when its released.

            Comment


            • #7
              If you are looking to bargain shop for a new Matrox card, I think you'll be disappointed. When has a new Matrox card ever been cheap? Hell, where are the cheap G400s today, they are practically the same price they were when they came out. Even the G450s are pricey here in Canada.

              Comment


              • #8
                When I get the GF2 I'll report back on it's 2D quality. With my G400 I run 1280x1024 @ 85Hz on a Sony 200PS when coding - text is sharp as a razor, color saturation is great (ie, not washed out).

                -AJ

                Still, something about buying a non-matrox card makes me ill. I've had good experiences with the MillII, G200 and G400 (well, except the OpenGL drivers, but they've gotten *much* better). I'll probably switch out my GF2 once the "G800" is out in volume (maybe I'll step up to the plate and get a dual chip version if the rumors are true and the price isn't too far out there).

                Trying to figuring out what Matrox is up to is like tying to find a road that's not on the map, at night, while wearing welders googles!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by AJ:
                  ...
                  Still, something about buying a non-matrox card makes me ill.
                  ...
                  Waaaaaaa ... there you go ... you're a MURC-a-holic !




                  Besides that, I respect your observations and in your case there seems to be no image degradation, thus there's no need to get rid of your GF2 (yet).

                  Cheers,
                  Maggi
                  Despite my nickname causing confusion, I am not female ...

                  ASRock Fatal1ty X79 Professional
                  Intel Core i7-3930K@4.3GHz
                  be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 2
                  4x 8GB G.Skill TridentX PC3-19200U@CR1
                  2x MSI N670GTX PE OC (SLI)
                  OCZ Vertex 4 256GB
                  4x2TB Seagate Barracuda Green 5900.3 (2x4TB RAID0)
                  Super Flower Golden Green Modular 800W
                  Nanoxia Deep Silence 1
                  LG BH10LS38
                  LG DM2752D 27" 3D

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Thank you for responding.
                    Hidden Surface Removal
                    HyperZ
                    Tile Base Rendering...

                    Those are other companies' idea and invention.
                    How about Matrox's ORIGINAL improvement??
                    AGP 8x specs was Matrox's idea??
                    Do we really need AGP 8x?? Because depelopment of future 3D cards will be concentrated to their internal bandwidth improvement.

                    BTW, all I need is AGP slot that can handle 100+ Mhz of AGP clock (OCers' favorite)

                    Pentium II 350@466 (133 FSB)
                    128 MB CAS3 3/3/3 (doh..)
                    Abit BE6-II v1.2
                    Less but not least Matrox G400 16MB SH

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      AJ: Do you have a 5:4 aspect ratio monitor?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I don't know if the GTS 2d is better than a Geforce 256 2d, but on my 256 here at work I can tell a helluva lot of difference in 2d from my PC at home with the G400.

                        amish
                        Despite my nickname causing confusion, I have no religious affiliations.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ares' Lament:
                          Thank you for responding.
                          Hidden Surface Removal
                          HyperZ
                          Tile Base Rendering...

                          Those are other companies' idea and invention.
                          How about Matrox's ORIGINAL improvement??
                          AGP 8x specs was Matrox's idea??
                          Do we really need AGP 8x?? Because depelopment of future 3D cards will be concentrated to their internal bandwidth improvement.

                          BTW, all I need is AGP slot that can handle 100+ Mhz of AGP clock (OCers' favorite)

                          Pentium II 350@466 (133 FSB)
                          128 MB CAS3 3/3/3 (doh..)
                          Abit BE6-II v1.2
                          Less but not least Matrox G400 16MB SH

                          I heard AGP 8x won't be available till around 2004.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Whoa Maggi,

                            I don't have the GF2 yet, I said I'd report when I get it. The reference to sharp text was on my G400 (of course!). I don't expect the GF2 to match it, I just hope it's acceptable. I'm stuck with an ATI Rage Pro at work, it's acceptable, so long as I stay at 1280x1024 (on a 21" mitsu tube), my G200 in my last machine was clean up to 1600x1200.

                            dZeus,
                            I don't know, if I get around to it i'll check out sony's web page, maybe they list the info there. 1280x1024 does look a bit "squished" vertically, so it's probably a 4:3.

                            Supposedly the GF2 has better 2D than the GF1, and Elsa (the card I'm getting) is supposed to be the best of the lot - we shall see. My brother had a GF1 in his computer for a while, it was just awful.

                            I'm going with a GF2 just so I don't get fragged to death playing UT online and so I can turn up the eye candy when playing against bots. I also don't want to be stuck playing Tribes2 at 800x600x16 with all the detail settings on low quality (I heard it eats up cpu, ram and vid resources like mad).

                            -AJ

                            Trying to figuring out what Matrox is up to is like tying to find a road that's not on the map, at night, while wearing welders googles!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I going to buy a new gaming rig in march. I want a Matrox card...but, a G400 is to slow on a >1GHz CPU. I´m going to be utterly dissapointed at Matrox if they don´t release the X-card by then. Then Matrox have lost an another customer.

                              But I will continue to post here, this forum is the best!!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X