The G550 is here !!!

[windigo]

I was hoping they would be able to utilize the headcasting for online games such UO or Anarchy or that genre but damn its just for headcasting what a b#tch!
a major f#%*@ing disappointment
they just killed their headcasting support because games usually give a new feature more mind share in the market and using the palette in games would have shown how diverse and easy it is to utilize.

------------------
MSI K7TPro2 Duron 750@900
512Ram G400DH32mb
Pioneer SCSI 16xDVD
msn messenger id: mkanashta

[J1NG]

Hey,

Is it possible to "re-enable" those registers from the head casting engine to do standard T&L stuff instead?

And has anyone noticed how small that G550 is? It looks like you coud fit(read: FUSE) another G550 in there...

Speculation of course...

J1NG

[sirhardi]

What is wrong with this ??

Re-enabling T&L, man i want a card that i Don't have to screw with for once....no one ever said they wweren't going to pay more if it's good, just because it's cheap, doesn't mean a thing..........actually it does ....DOESN't it ? :-))

[albatorsk]

Something funny just struck me. What happens if you buy this card OEM? Do you still get the software bundle with the HeadCasting? If not, then what do you get? A G450 with a disabled T&L-engine? Whoopidoo.

[Maggi]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by albatorsk:
Something funny just struck me. What happens if you buy this card OEM? Do you still get the software bundle with the HeadCasting? If not, then what do you get? A G450 with a disabled T&L-engine? Whoopidoo.

</font>

... and a 2nd texture unit per pixel pipeline and integrated DualDVI ...

btw, what's the point of buying OEM cards ?

[rylan]

And its not a full T&L engine anyway... it only has a couple of the T&L features.. just enough for the headcasting crap. So even if you enabled it, it isn't fully T&L compliant.

[Liquid Snake]

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

They have a grand total of something like 400 engineers... 400 engineers working for 2 years can not equal a G550...</font>

Exactly! 400 x 2 = 800 (G800)!!

As for the G550, indeed I am disappointed. HeadCasting is interesting, but it's rather impractical. If I gain some sort of interest in games again, maybe I'll pick up a Kyro II. Last time I checked, ATI's drivers in Win2K still need work and nVidia's 2D quality is disgusting.

[Nuno]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">btw, what's the point of buying OEM cards ?</font>

hmmm... noticeably cheaper if you can pass all the usual crap software bundle retail has? I´m talking generically here. Matrox OEM cards are great deals because they have the same specs as retail cards. Matrox assures the procedure of RMA´ing the card if something went wrong.

My Prophet 4500 is OEM, and it only lacks the fancy box. It even has 5ns memory as the retail one. Europe retail doesn´t even bundle Myst3-Exile with the card. So I lost a fine looking card box and saved around $30...

Now if you´re talking about ATI, yes, avoid OEM like the plague.

And now G550 is official, why not move again this thread were it genuinely belongs, to "Matrox Hardware"? ...Please?

[This message has been edited by Nuno (edited 19 June 2001).]

[Joel]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">The fact is that the oposition is similarly priced and far superior.....unless you want duel head....</font>

Now that is a laugh. The only place that the opposition can possibly be considered superior is with frame rates in first person shooters. And BTW frame rates in first person shooters is not the end all, be all, of a graphics card.

This card will be a very viable card for a lot of people. I for one can't wait to get one so that I can finally replace the G200 in one of my other PCs.

Joel

[Illusion[Spirit]]

Ok Joel, please post reasons for me to buy this card above the opposition. And no, I dont just care about 1st person shooters (if I did I wouldve bought a GeForce looooong ago), and yes I am receptive cos I would love to have positive reasons to buy this card.....



[This message has been edited by Illusion[Spirit] (edited 19 June 2001).]

[Buback]

aw come on. it's not that bad. maybe they'll whip out a Max version of it.

And now my dream can come true. from now on call me Max Headroom!

[Jon P. Inghram]

Isn't getting higher FPS's in FPS's the main reason consumer 3D accelerated video cards were invented in first place? Did very many people buy Voodoo's, or more recently, GF3's to do word processing? The Gx00 design is past it's usefull lifespan IMHO, they shouldn't have tried to turn it into something it isn't. Look what happened to 3Dfx when they tried to stretch the Voodoo chip past it's limits. The Gx00 chipset may be excellent for business use but it falls short when you try to use it for just about any modern 3D application when compared to any modern 3D card.

[This message has been edited by Jon P. Inghram (edited 19 June 2001).]

[Flycat]

OOOmpf?!

That was all Matrox??? Just another piece of that microwaved rotten old pie?!

O.K., don't let's talk about that any longer - ain't worth it . What I'd simply like to know: I'm running two G 400 32 MB for flight sims (no, no first person shoooters ) on different networked 'puters. Does it really pay to upgrade to a G 400 Max (at Ebay et al.) for that purpose (mainly on the primary display/i.e. the fps-sensitive outside view). I'm definitely not into O/Cing these standard G 400s - they both deliberately hate it (got it checked out with different tweaking tools).

What d'ya think, should I stay with my G 400s or at least try to upgrade to a G 400 MAX? Man, that can't be true! That G 400 MAX thingie is two years old and still the fastest Matrox card ever... Hey, you guys over at NVidia: Do you know how to spell "Matrox" (doesn't matter anyway )? And, hey Matrox: If there wasn't the superior 2D quality of your video boards you would have lost another customer by now - me. But I think ya don't care anyway...

CU Thomas

[This message has been edited by Flycat (edited 19 June 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Flycat (edited 19 June 2001).]

[Indiana]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by rylan:
I'd be surprised if it is faster than an overclocked G400MAX.

And I think its funny how people are saying that 'at least its an upgrade if its around GF2MX speed'.. lol.. MX is low end 3D now.. almost obsolote in terms of 3D performance.. you've got GF3 and Radeon DDR.</font>

After a vague statement that the G550 had been faster than G400 when tech-support tested it, some guy called Hein specifically asked Haig in Matrox' tech-support forum if this was meant as faster than a G400 or a G400MAX.
The answer: G400 ....

So not even those low (in 32bit) MX speeds, more likely on par / just above the MAX.

Sirhardi, the G400 could display Overlays on both heads with the PD5 drivers. It was disabled in PD6, maybe to avoid the embarrassment when they'd have to explain why the G400 can do it and the G450 not....

[This message has been edited by Indiana (edited 19 June 2001).]

[MK]

For sure I will now have a look at the competition. Next weekend, I will test a Kyro II and when the first G550 benchmarks arrive I will do my decision.

Hopefully I do not have to turn my back to Matrox. I had them in my computers for years now (Mystique, G200, G400, etc.) and I can tell you that I was very contented with them !

But now I own a game (Colin McRae Rally 2.0) I play regularly (+ from time to time some action titles too), that I want to play in higher resolutions & with good framerates.

Therefore I will wait patiently for the first benchmarks and will judge then. But I have the foreboding that I already know my decision ...

MK


[This message has been edited by MK (edited 20 June 2001).]