'Fusion' cards

[Topha]

Wouldnt it be best for matrox to release a card that is more like the radeon than like the GF? everyone (except Murcers) have the idea that GF is best fixed in their heads. then ati came and made a product that almost matches the GF and is more an all round product (video in&out). so if matrox released a card that is good for gaming, but also has other features, they would slip into a gap in the market, because is not too succesful b/c of their drivers. usually cards that have video editing features have worse gaming performance (ati all-in-wonder, g400tv), so why not make a card that (almost or at least) matches GF in speed, outperforms it in image quality and features and driver support, AND appeals to the customers that are not ONLY, but ALSO into gaming and 3D.
and they should announce it soon or im gonna spend all my money on a radeon (so not to support Nvidia, i know it sounds stupid, but i had a TNT once and it sucked)

[DuRaNgO]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">What's for sure is that we should see the official release of the NV20 within the next month or two,assuming they follow through with their six month product scedule</font>

and that would be 6 month from which "NEW" chip? and don't say what I think you're gonna say (which would be the o/c'd version of an old chip)

[superfly]

New,overclocked,refresh.....

Does it matter????...

The point is,that's their scedule and considering that the ultra was unveiled in september,which was 4 months ago,it's highly likely that their next card will be unveiled within the next 2 months.

[Rags]

Sorry, but the ultra was NOT a new card, not a new chip. Ultra cards were made by the respective mfrs. No new chipset there, pal.

Rags

[superfly]

New,refresh,overclocked,old chip.

Does it matter???

The fact of the matter is,as everybody knows and like or not,they're on a six month release scedule.

Their last card was unveiled 4+ months ago,which if we follow the logic,means that we can expect their next card within the next 2 months.

All the latest info,including the comments made by microsoft's j allard(head of the x-box division)who said and i quote"we've started shipping updated dev kits with nv20 cards to publishers back in december",suggests that nvidia is getting ready to release the retail version nv20 very shortly.

No offense or anything,but do do find your last comment quite amusing

"which would de the o/c'd version of an old chip".

Which is true,but then again,that would make the G400/450 what???.... .

I still stand by what i said,Matrox better release something competitive fairly soon,for their own good here.

[DuRaNgO]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Their last card was unveiled 4+ months ago</font>

they don't make cards, they make chips, their last "chip" was much longer than 6 months ago

[Rags]

You see, you are missing one very important detail. Matrox doesn't claim to have a product cycle requirement. We all know the G450 and what it's for. You seem to have a problem with that. In fact, I would say the G450 is more of a change from the G400 than the ultra is from the normal GeForce2.

Adding faster ram on a board and clocking it up doesn't make for a new product. You know this, and nVidia knows this. nVidia was supposed to have the nv20 done by the end of last year according to their PR machine a nudge over a year ago. Now you want to say "uh, well the ultra is a new card". Don't be stupid. Unless you really are, in that case carry on

Rags

[Rags]

Oh, and I just wanted to add something for you to chew on.

The video card mfrs (AKA nVidia's partners) were told they would have "NV20" shipped to them in September of last year, and the cards would follow shortly thereafter. Well, guess what? NV20 never showed, and nVidia had to come up with something and quick. So they and their partners agreed on the ultra boards to tide the delay. Now, six months later we may see NV20, so nvidia has already not been able to deliver on the 6month product cycle promise.

Their 6month plan was to have a new core every year, and have a refreshing of that core 6 months after it's release. So let's see we have the GeSpot 256, six months later we have the GeSpot2 GTS, six months after that, we have an overclocked GeSpot2 GTS.

All mfrs are subject to delays, as evidenced by nVidia's little mishap.

Rags



[This message has been edited by Rags (edited 23 January 2001).]

[superfly]

I think it's the other way around...

You're right,Matrox never claimed they did have a product cycle requirement.

But IMO they could sure use one,if nothing more to keep oem's happy,as well as individual users.

I mean Nvidia was nearly bankrupt roughly 4 years ago,after the release of their first chip(the nv 1).

You may remember the cards themselves,they were called the diamond edge 3d 2000/3000.

They got to where they are now by doing a lot of things right since then,don't you think.

I'm not saying releasing something every six months,but a yearly update woudn't hurt,no???.

I mean correct me if i'm wrong here but as far as i can tell,matrox was roughly on a yearly product cycle up to the g400.

[superfly]

Oh,and i agree totaly with you on the ultra issue.

But again from what i've heard,due to the fact of adding all the features of DX8 + HSR,they needed to build the chip at the 0.15 micron process.

Something that aparently TSMC,the company who builds them,wasn't yet ready for back then.

But since there wasn't,and to this day there still isn't unfortunately,competition for it,they got away with it regardless.

Compared to the obvious delays that both the voodoo4/5/6 series suffered and the G800 is still suffering from.

Overall,when you look at the big picture, it's a relatively minor bone to pick.

[superfly]

Oh and by the way please enlighten me about the actual differences between a g400 and a 450,oh wise one... .

Does it deserve to be called a new product any more than than a Gf2 ultra does.

I have my doubts....

All i see from it is that they managed to improve the dual head feature slightly and made the card cheaper to build as well,albeit still slower than a g400 max...

Am i missing something here????....

[Rags]

I have no problem with them calling the GeForce2 Ultra that, it's this sticking to a six month product cycle BS that they seem so strongly to believe in, when it's not really all it's cracked up to be.

I would like to see more frequent product updates from Matrox, and I am sure we will.

Rags

[Sasq]

I'm I the only one suffering a temporal time shift here?

[superfly]

I agree that they never claimed to have a six month product cycle,like i mentioned a couple of posts ago.

But am i wrong to assume that in the last few years and up to the release of the G400,matrox had a one year product release cycle,give or take a few months???

Now granted,building a new chip from scratch,having it compete with the best out there and make come out on time is no small task,but i'm sure that matrox must have known for some time that the chances of seeing the G800 last year were very low to almost non existent.

So i ask why didn't they at least release an updated version of the G400max or at the very least 2 versions of the G450.

The one they have now for business and oem's,plus a higher end version better suited for gaming,i'm sure that from an engineering and price standpoint,an updated version based on an earlier desing is peanuts compared to building a completely new one.

Iike Himself said,just something that offers a decent improvement in performance(say 50% or better),that would be enough to hold you over until the real replacement became available.

It would at least generate some extra revenue for matrox,which is always a good thing.


But let's face it,building high end cards gives nvidia visibility in the retail sector that later on translates into oem deals because of all the publicity,it's pretty much why Nvidia got so big so fast(in just four short years remember???)and looks to overtake ATI as the leading oem suplier.

why do you think that ATI released the radion series,not so much for the retail sales that they're making,it's for that same visibility at the high end as well,witch hopefully get's them oem contracts as well.

[Ant]

Matrox have never claimed to have a product cycle at all. What people need to understand is how Matrox view the graphics card market. They sell and sell big to OEMs/business markets etc. To them the retail consumer market is just a minor aside, for what they sell it makes up a small percentage so they have no real incentive to bust a gut to pamper to it. We can see with the G450 that they want solid products that will sell by the barrow load, to whom matters not. It makes me chuckle a little recently to see sites and mags proclaiming that Matrox have decided to step out of the gaming market to try and break into the business market, while in reality this is where they have been all along nothing has changed. Whether their view is the right one only time will tell. I can tell you they have several generations of graphics chip in the R&D pipeline, not they have told me anything, but they must have they are in business