The end for Matrox and gaming?

[wumpie leBeumb]

Got this ominous bit from Anandtech's site, covering the Comdex:

"...., Matrox is back to focusing on the corporate side of things (for now...), ...."

Comon people, tell me the G800 is still in the pipeline (yes I know, nobody knows) and Anand is talking out of the wrong hole. Matrox will have to announce a G800 on Comdex if it is to survive in the gaming community, game card product cycles being what they are ->3 times shorter then corporate products.
Gamers are not the focus group of Matrox, but look at the new mobile Geforce chip ; how important is a fast gaming chip for notebooks really ? Not very much, but it's a strong selling point, and will be another hit for nvidia no doubt, even if your battery will last only 30 minutes playing Quake on your laptop.

[Ryuhei]

I honestly hate to say this, but yesterday I ordered an NVidia based card! I've had my G400MAX for 11 months. I've had nothing but headaches trying to run 3D games. I REALLY wanted to keep it, but I don't have the time to try to make it work when I could be using it. Don't hurt me.

[DosFreak]

"doubt, even if your battery will last only 30 minutes playing Quake on your laptop."



Go look at the specs on the GO. Read them carefully. Now come back here and wipe the egg off your face.

[DuRaNgO]

Go look at the specs on the GO. Read them carefully. Now come back here and wipe the egg off your face

it's not the card that would kill the battery, it's the whole system running fast enough to play it well =/
so the egg is actually on your mirror

EDIT: ripped from the Firing Squad:

According to the Go PowerPoint presentation, the Go operates with a typical power consumption of 0.9 watts, and a maximum power consumption of 2.8 watts as compared to the ATI Rage Mobility 128's 0.8 watts for typical consumption and 2.3 watts for maximum consumption.

Update:
We just spoke with ATI, and they told us that the 2.3 watt consumption number for the Rage Mobility 128 also accounts for the video memory's power consumption while the Go's 2.8 doesn't. The video memory for the Go will raise the total power rating considerably.

[This message has been edited by DuRaNgO (edited 15 November 2000).]

[Arsa]

To the original subject:
Do you know the company that concentrated on corporate graphics market? SonicBlue ;-)
IMHO they had the same problems...

[joelau]

No offence to all the hardcore Matrox lovers.

People shouldn't be looking at Matrox cards if they are only interested in frame rates.

If i wanted top performance 3D, i would have bought a Nvidia card.

It's just unfortunate that the king of 2D is not the king of 3D.

Regards.

------------------
Dell Dimension 4100|P3-733|128MB PC133|G400 32MB DH|SBLIVE|3Com 3c905c|Diamond fireport40|Quantum 15G|FUJITSU 1.3G MO|YAMAHA CRW4416SX|MGE 480VA UPS|Sony G500 21"

[wumpie leBeumb]

yes, more eggs please,
you're right Durango -> processor and harddisk as well have some work to do when playing Quake on a notebook.
Game performance is important even if it is not your core business. Look at nvidia, got big with the Riva128 and now has cards in highend workstations with full support for Maya, Softimage etc. Elsa Gloria II for example, a card with superior speed and high graphics quality due too good logic circuitry (the analog RGB part).Now where do you think nvidia got the revenues to finance the development of their their new chips and buy Matroxpeople ? Take a look at what Dell offers in their whole range, not a G400 like they used to.
Well, the comparison is somewhat hobbled but my point is ; game performance affects sales even if the focus of your product is the corporate market.

Oh, and before everybody get's anal about me mentioning nvidia -> I haved used a g400 for more then a year now in my system at home to do some serious work on and fool around with, and am quit pleased with it,
Sofar.

[Targon]

While I don't care about having the highest frame rate, I WOULD like to run the games I play without artifacts, and other problems. I'm not talking about only in OpenGL, but even playing in D3D mode, I've found MANY problems over the years. Any of you remember the driver problems with Thief, Thief 2, and many other games? How about Baldur's Gate 2, which really doesn't use OpenGL for a huge number of features in OpenGL mode? And for many of us, who are willing to pay the money for the MAX over the OEM versions, how long do we need to wait for even the ANNOUNCEMENT for an upgrade we have wanted for the past 10+ months?

I don't know about you, but even people who buy their video card mostly for professional reasons have been screaming for a new card, with drivers that WORK in the applications and games when we choose to play them. Would I pay $300 for a card that's fast, and is stable with GOOD drivers? You bet. Will I pay $240 for a G800 that has drivers that don't work with the games I want to play? Hell no. Do I want a Nvidia POS card with nothing going for it besides high frame rates? Hell no, but I may have to if Matrox doesn't do something soon.

[Salmonius]

I got a nvidia MX card and I am quite happy with it. The only problems I find are the artifacts, flashing textures in UT, and a low MIN fps. Reviews like saying how fast the cards are, but in reality, I find that the MIN fps is very important as well. So I am a bit sceptical about the geforce2 ultra. Sure it's fast, but I don't want to get 20 fps when the rockets are in my face.

Nonetheless, if the g800 is not available after Christmas, I am getting a geforce2 ultra. Then, they will be cheaper.

[Bixler]

Now where do you think nvidia got the revenues to finance the development of their their new chips and buy Matroxpeople?

I understand that there is a lawsuit being filed by Matrox on the issue of this personnel piracy. Can anyone point me to any solid information on the status of this suit? Someone told me that they just about stripped the development team clean...something like 18 engineers/staff in one big gulp.

Now that is pure corporate hardball!!

[AJ]

18!!! Wow, that suXors! No wonder the G800 is so late! What a drag.

Anyone know when (date wise) this happened?

-AJ

I may wind up going for something other than Matrox for my next card - my vanilla g400 is getting a bit weak in terms of game perf
I would have replaced it alread, but moving from a cel 400 to a PIII 733 kicked some life into it.

I won't go with a Nvidia card though.

[wumpie leBeumb]

about the lawsuit:

"Lawsuits between corporations can sometimes be compared to a tennis match: One corporation serves another, and the other side fires one in return. In its April 2000 SEC filing, NVIDIA Corporation reported that Matrox filed suit against NVIDIA for the improper solicitation and recruitment of Matrox personnel. The complaint, filed on Feb. 22 in the Superior Court for the judicial district of Montreal, alleges that NVIDIA solicited and recruited Matrox personnel and encouraged them to breach their confidentiality and non-competition agreements. The suit, among other things, requests certain injunctive relief. In its filing, NVIDIA said the claims are without merit and it will fight the suit.

On May 19, NVIDIA answered with a complaint of its own, filing suit against Matrox in Santa Clara Superior Court. The complaint alleges that Matrox's efforts to prevent its current and former personnel from pursuing jobs with NVIDIA constitute interference with prospective economic advantage and unfair competition. NVIDIA is calling for, among other things, unspecified fiscal damages, a declaration that Matrox's confidentiality and non-competition agreements are not enforceable under California law, and a declaration that the use of those agreements and other tactics constitutes unfair competition. The case has been transferred to the San Jose division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California."

original link: http://www.avault.com/news/displayne...=7112000-82028

Filing counter-lawsuits = standard corporate delay tactics = deadly in the computer business.
Makes me kinda sad, all this corporate shit getting in the way of innovation ->free market ideology is usually good for technological progress, but not all the time I guess


[This message has been edited by wumpie leBeumb (edited 20 November 2000).]