No custom resolutions?

[ALBPM]

Looks like we can relax a bit. Marketing doesn't want to sell the custom resolutions they appear to be collecting a database on who uses them.

Hey Ant, I don't think that a new res will have a price tag attached to it. Sales simply wants to know who uses funky resolutions and for what

Haig

It's here:
MURC

I just wish they would have stated that upfront instead giving the impression that this had a price tag.

Paul

[xortam]

Originally posted by ALBPM
... It's here:
MURC

I just wish they would have stated that upfront instead giving the impression that this had a price tag.

Its also here in the Matrox forums from last night. People are just quickly jumping to conclusions.

[Ant]

Or quickly changing their marketing decisions.

[Jon P. Inghram]

I didn't think they wanted to charge for the custom resolutions, I just thought it was utterly absurd that they didn't think people would want custom resolutions when that's one of the primary uses of their offical tweak utility that currently exists. And for the triple head issue, it looks like they just don't want to cut into the market of their own MMS cards.

[xortam]

Originally posted by Ant
Or quickly changing their marketing decisions.

That may also be a possibility. I think the best course of action is asking for clarification before drawing conclusions from an ambiguous comment.

[az]

Haig, I think it's really important for Matrox to add custom resolutions & timing ASAP - not only because a certain number of people need those features, but because of Matrox's reputation.

There always were two major selling points for Matrox: Great 2D quality, and stable drivers with all custom resolutions, timing, gamma, etc. tweaking options you'd need, without the need for third party apps.

You say that with the Parhelia, you've outdone yourself with regards to 2D display quality - but this just isn't complete without custom r&t, IMHO. We all know Parhelia doesn't shine 3D-benchmark-wise (whatever the BBz say, people trust Tom's etc.), so you'll HAVE to sell it for its quality and features - and custom r&t should be a GIVEN with Matrox cards. People EXPECT this from you.

AZ

[thop]

Originally posted by Ant
Or quickly changing their marketing decisions.

from the matrox marketing meeting:

john: so hey pete, say hows that custom resolution thing going? is the big cash already coming in?
peter: jeesh, don't even remind me of this. the people over at the MURC, you should have seen their reaction, they freaked i tell you.
john: damn! so bad? maybe that idea wasnt so good after all. i say lets cancel it before it's too late. hmm maybe it is too late already. got any idea of how we can get out of this?
peter: don't worry john, after all we are marketing!
evil laughter from both

it would be funny if it really was like that, but i think we are giving ourselves a little too much credit here

[drslump]

If the problem are custom resolutions, you can always connect the output of the Parhelia to the input of an old Marvel g400 in your old computer and then outputting it in the desired resolution.

But anyway I think that selling custom resolutions is a quite good idea from a marketing point of view. And the true is that the marketing guys at Matrox are doing a very good job. I just received my P. this morning from shopmatrox and I'm very disapointed about it. I think that the only real improvement is the stability of the drivers in XP compared with the ones of the Marvel.

[Rags]

Originally posted by az
...... We all know Parhelia doesn't shine 3D-benchmark-wise (whatever the BBz say, people trust Tom's etc.),

AZ

Have the BBz said it benchmarks well? Tom's says the same thing we do. It gets beat in benchmarks. So I don't know what you are trying to imply, but if it's that people trust Tom's more than us, so be it. Tom had an nvidia fansite guy do his review for him, and they ran a bunch of benchmarks on it, commented on how slow it performed in benchmarks, and then regurgitated some marketing material from Matrox.....if that's trustworthy, so be it, I know who I don't want to help in the future.

Rags

[MetalCartman]

Have the BBz said it benchmarks well?

Rags,

nope, they haven't. I think what AZ was trying to say is, that people don't want to believe that a game is running smooth (or smoother than on a GF4Ti), when the card has a lower (insert benchmark here) score than other cards. I think there was no insult intended by him (nor by me when writing this).

Regards,
Cart

[Ant]

My conclusions weren't drawn from an ambigious comment.

Originally posted by xortam
That may also be a possibility. I think the best course of action is asking for clarification before drawing conclusions from an ambiguous comment.

[Pace]

TripleHead is not 2 steps back, its just not as much as we'd hoped. If you want TriHead, get a G450 PCI, or G200/450 MMS.

If you want SurroundGaming, get Parhelia.

And remember that the DualHead of Parhelia is another jump ahead of their previous card (TwinView isn't even comparable ).

P.

[az]

Rags, I didn't want to insult anyone. If that was the case, I'm sorry. I wasn't so impressed with my wording either, but I didn't find another way of saying what I meant. Now to clarify what I was trying to say:

I just wanted to say "Don't let this be turned into a performance debate. Benchmark results posted at Tom's (for instance) have shown it to be a poor performer, and the average joe won't believe the BBz when they say it's smooth, because the numbers say it's slow. Nobody'll buy the card because of its performance alone - if you want that, it's clearly a GF4 Ti4600. So Matrox HAS to focus on features, and I believe custom r&t are an important feature for them.

Hope that clears it up, if not, just ask - I really didn't want to be harsh or something. It's just that people believe reviews with 3DMark numbers.

AZ

[xortam]

Originally posted by Ant
My conclusions weren't drawn from an ambigious comment.

I wasn't addressing you in particular but rather everyone who posted comments that reflected that conclusion. Perhaps you have some additional information that wasn't made public beyond the conversation I had with Haig in the Matrox forum o/c thread. Can you share with us any additional information you may have on this subject or is that you feel Haig's comment wasn't ambiguous?

[Ant]

All I can say is I stand by my comments