How many of you think it ´d be a good idea Matrox releasing a m3DII

[Nuno]

I know it´ll never happen, but let me say why I think it would be nice:

- Matrox is only covering a niche market. Dual-display users with hi-end monitors that will not take less than stellar 2d Matrox quality and features for a good price. (please don´t talk about headcasting, I´m still laughing at the demos in Matrox site)

- PowerVR KyroII is a very decent chip, performs on par with a GTS on pretty much everything but 3dfark´s and Vulpine Glfart´s. Its rendering quality (both 2D and 3D) would have no dificulties meeting Matrox standards. 270Mhz Ramdac could be a limitation, though.

- It wouldn´t be the first time. They did the m3D because the 3d card market was booming and they really haven´t a viable solution until their own G200. So I guess they should have their connections inside powerVR.

- STM and IT sure could use some more respectable name manufacturers doing KyroII cards besides Hercules and of course VDO and maybe Inno3d (ok, there´s 11 more card makers manufacturing KyroII cards, but I wouldn´t buy a card called VGA Nº1) after all others got scared to death with nvidia´s threats (It makes me remember the pressure Intel put on motherboard makers to not realease athlon motherboards. Anyone still remembers Asus boards shipping on a very discrete white box with not a single reference to asus on the manual?)

- I don´t think Matrox would care too much on Nvidia pressure to not make Kyro boards

- So they could have 2 markets covered: desktop application bussines users and all-around users. Ok, still lacking the ultra-hi-end-3d-fps-is-all, but I really don´t care that much about it and let´s face it, it´s a niche market

[Rags]

I think Matrox should stick with making their own solutions. Relying on third party chipsets have been bad business for Matrox *cough*Zoran*Cough*.

I bet Matrox surprises the shit out of us sooner than later.

Rags

[Nuno]

Well, yes, and you can say it, m3D was a disaster too PCX2 really had it´s limitations... but hey, for some bucks you could got a Ultimate Race acelerator

But they have come a long way and Kyro is their first truely viable chip using tile rendring. Even Neon250 had too much incompatibilities.

VDO is realeasing nice drivers with regular updates.

[Admiral]

"I bet Matrox surprises the shit out of us sooner than later."

Sure hope so
For the moment I think I'll skip the G550 and stick with my Kyro II.

[Arsa]

I think it would be nice.
If it will work.

[DentyCracker]

I agree that Matrox should stick to their own chips.

[mdhome]

As long as they dont ham it up, i'm not interested who does the 3d core, it could be nVidia or BitBoys for all I care. I just want the 2d done by Matrox

[Alec]

I agree completely. But wouldn´t PCI and the lack of AGP texturing be serious limitations?

2D is the reason why I haven´t bought another card yet. I just finished Serious Sam... looked like shit, with all those rainbow-coloured textures and artifacts everywhere... couldn´t play with all the eye candy on... I remember when Matrox made efforts to patch the games (along with the game manufacters themselves) that worked incorrectly.

Nuno,
Today a saw 2 Kyro II on sale (Carrefour): one (32 Mb) costs 26 contos, the other one (64 Mb, 175 Mhz speed) costs 43. Are the prices OK? (the prices are in portuguese money, folks)

[Nuno]

Oi Alec (desta vez em inglês para o ppl perceber )

No Agp texturing is hardly a problem on a 64 Mb board. Really. Specially on Kyro boards because they *don´t use an external z-buffer*, saving alot of memory space on framebuffer and bandwidth. Throw DXTC to that and you´ll have a virtual 368 Mb card... 3dmark2001 is using up to 40Mb textures on the infamous nature test only GF3 are able to run.

Àcerca dos preços, os 26 cts são de certeza de uma Kyro I (Hercules 4000 XT?), não?

Olha vai a www.unreal.pt ,que eles estão a vender a Hercules 4500 64 Mb OEM à volta de 34 cts. Compra OEM se puderes, a placa é a mesma...

[rubank]

Rags says

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">I bet Matrox surprises the shit out of us sooner than later.</font>

They just did.
Headcasting !!
Un****ingbeleivable

[Alec]

Nuno,

Yes, it´s the Kyro I.

Obrigado pelo link. Um abraço.

[xortam]

Hey, I recognized a word ... "Obrigado". That's about all I picked up during my three days in Lisbon.

[harkpabst_meliantrop]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by Nuno:
No Agp texturing is hardly a problem on a 64 Mb board. Really. Specially on Kyro boards because they *don´t use an external z-buffer*, saving alot of memory space on framebuffer and bandwidth.</font>

Even if they would opt for that solution (and just like you, I don't think they ever will), there was one big problem.

How is the 3D card's output sent to the monitor?

m3D way (Matrox): The card wrote it's output into the main card's memory (over the PCI bus) -> 64 megs on board don't really help, as everything has to pass that PCI bottleneck.

M3D way (Diamond): Using a loop-through cable, the main cards output was send through the 3D card and blocked whenever it was in use -> image quality in the royal vomit class.

In the end, I'm afraid there's no way for Gxx + Kryo xx, just the choice of one or the other.

--E<:|

[Pace]

Who said it had to be PCI? They could release an AGP card too, no?

However, if I wanted a Kyro, I'd buy a Kyro. But I don't...I want a Matrox While having a gaming card might bring in some money to them, does it say that their existing cards aren't for gaming?

I dunno, I just want a G800 Plus

P.

[Nuno]

Yes, of course I was talking about the AGP card reference design. Add-on 3d cards just don´t cut it no more.

I though of m3D-II because m3D used a PowerVR chip after all.