Announcement

**dZeus** · 14 January 2001, 12:00

If we wanted only to play games on a videocard, we would have gone for a GF or GF2 long ago... obviously, most of us don't

**Grego** · 14 January 2001, 12:32

Well, I am not going to dignify that 100%speculation-post with a comment.

[This message has been edited by Grego (edited 14 January 2001).]

**Tom** · 14 January 2001, 12:41

Grego,

Too late!

**Kruzin** · 14 January 2001, 12:54

1st - You have no clue what "G800" is going to be, or IF it's even going to happen, any more than the rest of us do. Your made-up specs mean no more than anyone else's speculations.

2nd - You have no right to tell people what to buy, or how to think. If you don't want to use your G400, then don't. I for one am in no way, shape or form "torturing myself" by continuing to use my G400, and I don't need you telling me that I am. The only torture is having to endure the ignorant posts of fps junkies who think they are all-important and oh so superior to those of us who can enjoy a game without obsessing over the frame rate.

3rd - Your post is a pointless flamebait rant, and definatly did not deserve it's own thread. This either belonged in one of the G800 speculation threads (as your opinion, which is no more valuble than anyone elses)...or even better, at some nvidiot forum where other timedemo addicts might give a crap.

[This message has been edited by Kruzin (edited 14 January 2001).]

**SCompRacer** · 14 January 2001, 14:22

Going through my PC receipts (wow, have I really spent that much?), I took a moment to reflect. I realized the G400 sets the record as the longest I have owned a video card.

I can remember the constant Diamond upgrades, the VooDoo II cards in SLI...what was I looking for..??? Must have been image quality.

**xortam** · 14 January 2001, 14:35

You made the right decision Kruzin (your "edit"). I started a smart azz reply when I saw Freak post this message. I thought better of it and backed off. It will be nice to start reading about problems people are having with their next-gen Matrox card versus this rampant speculation and bitching.

**DivZerO** · 14 January 2001, 14:40

Obviously this a troll, but I figured I'd help in showing how much of a pathetic troll this is.

First 200mhz Core, and 200mhz ddr (what bit?) and 3 pixel pipes and 3 textures per pixel pipe.
Okay time to do some math.
Given that Matrox is going to use at least a 128 bit memory bus (given the G400 memory bus is 128 bits) And given no new 512 dual bus (to make things easy) we'll go through how to find the fill rate (Mpixels/s) and texture rate (Mtexels/s). Now as it takes a lot more texels to make a scene then it does pixels, your texel/pixel remark is complete false. The actual #'s would be closer to:

(200mhz core) * (3pixels pipelines)=600Mpixels a second fill rate. Okay you were right on that one. However for each of those pixel pipelines the g800 by your account would have 3 texel processors running. So (200mhz core)*(3pixel pipelines)*(3 Texel pipelines per pixel pipline)=1.8GTexels/s. Right near a GforceGTS, with a much more reasonable top fill rate to get to also. The GforceGTS core may be faster but its memory subsystem is the hold back from meeting it. And just to help with the uninitiated, 600mpixels a second (without taking into account texel rate, and multipass rendering which the Gforce may have to do if parts of the scenes would have more than 2 texels per pixel to be rendered, or with the G800 or Radeon [as both have a similar engine design in the pixel/texel pipelines) could still do single pass mutlitexturing up to 3 texel's per pixel]), your top frame rate at 1024*768 (Color depth doesn't matter here, as a 32bit internal pipeline isn't effected by this) would be 1024*768 pixels per frame (786432pixels). Take that # and divide 600,000,000 (600 million) by 786432, and you get 762.94 frames per second. Not bad eh? And how on earth gets these lovely frame's per second. No one, why because we're still texel limited/memory limited.

Well somewhere along the line I lost the continuity of this post, so I'll leave the evidence as such...Have fun.

**Indiana** · 14 January 2001, 14:56

Yes, you should definitely give a source where you got that specs from. The only thing I believe is near to reality is the availability-date
And even if those specs were correct you still rendered your own post invalid with the last part: "Multi-Chip versions". This reduces it to the question how much the cards will cost since a Dual-Chip version with the named specs is not that bad performance-wise:
12.8 GB/s Mem-bandwidth
1200Mpixel/s 3600Mtexel/s
40-60Mtriangles/s.

Note especially the mem-bandwidth of this beast which would enable it to leave the current Geforces and even the NV20 (considering it'll have 250-300MHz DDR-RAM) behind in high-res@32bit, since the NVidia-chips by far can't reach their theoretical fillrate-/tringle-specs because of bandwidth-restraints.

**mdhome** · 14 January 2001, 14:57

Hiya DosFreak
The key to this years *top* spot for video cards will be those that implement an efficient and intelligent design. Take the latest Kyro boards For example. A suggested fillrate of 6/800Mpixel would give them
a fill rate of approx 3-4 times that of their current specs. i.e frame rates of 100+ at 1600*1200*32bit. Heck, that is with all details set to max. You wouldnt even need to use large amounts of expensive ram or ultra fast clock speeds (GF2 Ultras etc) bringing the cost down and making them more affordable.
Unfortunately I dont know how Matrox will implement the *G800* or whether it will use other technologies such as tile based rendering or HSR etc. All I do know is that I will evaluate all possible cards based on the following criteria.
1) Image quality
2) cost
3) Raw speed

So far this weekend I have spent over 5 hours looking for a possible replacement for one of my G400's.
Geforce MX (considered and dropped)
Radeon sdr (my original preference)
Kyro powerVR (My current favourite)
All others are out of my price range.

Because none of the cards looked at are sufficiently superior to my G400 to warrant
spending money (all have good/bad points), I have decided to save my money and wait until Spring to see what new products appear. Hopefully by then some sanity might have arrived within the graphics market.

regards Michael

------------------
Interests include:
Computing, Reading, Pubs, Restuarants, Pubs, Curries, More Pubs and more Curries

**cerb** · 14 January 2001, 15:22

I for one am amazed that this thread has lasted so long here in this Forum (and not been moved to the Soap Box)

**DuRaNgO** · 14 January 2001, 15:29

what a dick, there that was easy.

**Rags** · 14 January 2001, 15:45

No, DosFreak is just showing his true colors that is all.

He enjoys being a troll.

Rags

**superfly** · 14 January 2001, 19:51

We all know that the main benefit of the G800 will be mostly centered in it's 3d capabilities,because let's face it,the G400 is more than enough for everything else.

Every other improvement that the G800 may have will probably be relatively minor in comparison to the G400(2D,dvd,dual head,etc...)

Let's face it,everyone here,regarless if they're forum participants or moderators,gamers or non gamers alike,that haven't yet upgraded their card wants a G800 for one thing and one thing only.

It's called gaming....even if a lot of people here won't admit it.

Heck i'll even go as far as saying that as soon as a lot of people here get their hands on a G800,one of the first things they'll do is run 3dmark 2000 to see just how high they score.

I sure hope that the G800 is truly a revolutionary card and can compete on an even basis with whatever Nvidia will have by then,because it will have to.

Even if die hard matrox loyalists here will settle for second place,as long as as it's a matrox card,the rest of the world won't,and that's what will determine it's success in the market place.

But it is a fact that with every month that goes by that the card is not available,matrox is losing potential sales to competitors.

That,infortunately IS a fact.

**paulcs** · 14 January 2001, 20:45

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by superfly:

Heck i'll even go as far as saying that as soon as a lot of people here get their hands on a G800,one of the first things they'll do is run 3dmark 2000 to see just how high they score.
</font>

I, myself, will look for the Render Subjects Nude feature. If it's there, I will then benchmark how fast it takes NVIDIA and ATI to go out of business.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

Announcement

Ok Murcers GIVE UP!

Ok Murcers GIVE UP!

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment