PDA

View Full Version : This is not the power of Matrox



Amiga Blitter
28th April 2001, 14:10
It seems that Matrox does not have the possibility to enter in the market of the graphical 3d Card for the HARDCORE Gamers. Matrox has focused its attention to the market business/professional. Ati and Nvidia succeed to manage all and the three bands of market well. Lately they have strizzato the eye to the market business/professional. which is then the limit of Matrox?

Sorry for the bad babelfish translation.

My System was upgraded

Atlhon 1G
Video Card????
Asus AV7Pro
...
...

Pace
28th April 2001, 16:52
You can apologise for the translation, but where's the apology for the post? http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

Seriously, I'm not sure what you mean, but there is no real possibility of Matrox entering the hardcore gaming sector - maybe they will, but it will not be a 'gaming' card - even the G400 wasn't a gaming card, and was, as far as I'm concerned, the fastest card around for games http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

Matrox have often made business products, but also made general consumer - the G200 spawned the G250, the G400 spawned the G450 - the real question is what the next generation will bring. If they spawn another OEM product then it would indicate something wrong I think...surely the G450 is still doing ok in OEM? They should be looking at another high performance all rounder like the G400 was at the time of it's release. It's still an all rounder, but not high performance - just adequate http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

P.

Amiga Blitter
29th April 2001, 12:48
Hi Pace

Compare the various product of these 3 company (Matrox, ATi, Nvidia) in the following sectors:

Home
Gamers
Professional
Video
Business

Ati and Nvidia have a wider range of products????

Do yourseld the math

Can anyone create a comparative table?


Sorry for my bad english and for the POST



[This message has been edited by Amiga Blitter (edited 29 April 2001).]

dZeus
29th April 2001, 15:48
I don't understand how you can make a general statement like 'Matrox can't make products for hardcore gamers' when you have absolutely no clue at all of what's being developed by the Matrox engineers?

Jorden
29th April 2001, 16:00
Night of the trolls again?

AB, do a search within these fori on what you try to say, then read all the answers there, then delete this thread and try again http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

If that's too difficult English for you, here's what my babelfish made it into Italian:
"Notte dei trolls ancora?

L' ab, fa una ricerca all'interno dei questi fori su che cosa provate a dire, quindi ha letto tutte le risposte là, allora cancella questo filetto e prova ancora"

Any increpancies, blame it on http://world.altavista.com http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

Besides, Ati might make good gaming cards, their drivers suck from here to eternity http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

Do the translation yourself this time..

Jord.

Rob M.
29th April 2001, 21:53
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by Amiga Blitter:
Hi Pace

Compare the various product of these 3 company (Matrox, ATi, Nvidia) in the following sectors:

Home
Gamers
Professional
Video
Business

Ati and Nvidia have a wider range of products????

Do yourseld the math

Can anyone create a comparative table?
</font>



---------------------------------------------
| Market | ATI | Nvidia | Matrox |
---------------------------------------------
| Home | R128 | TNT2 | G4X0 |
| Gamers | Radeon | Geforce3 | - |
| Pro | - | Quadro3 | - |
| Video |Allinwonder| - | Marvel |
| Business | Radeon VE | Geforce2MX| G4X0 |
---------------------------------------------


Matrox: We look pretty good as long as you ignore our competitor's products...

Muted
29th April 2001, 22:25
What about the digisuite , rt2500

isn't that , Pro/video ???

sorry for my bad english i drunk http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

Amiga Blitter
30th April 2001, 03:58
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by Rob M.:
[CODE]</font>

Thanks for the table. Anyway there are some infos you omitted:

ATI is entering in the professional market acquiring FGL professional OGL card from SonicBlue.

ASUS is still producing excellent video cards with TV I/O option.

Thanks again !

Pace
30th April 2001, 05:30
Why have we to make the table for you? Just you go into a corner, babble away everything you know about the graphics industry...then start repeating. After, oooh, 5 seconds you might notice things getting repetitive.

After 7 days you'd be bored.

After 7 months you'd be going insane.

After 7 years, you'd feel like I feel after reading your posts http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/tongue.gif

Can someone just lock this thread? It's pointless discussion, I've already started to turn it into a flame thread, and it's not as if we're going to serve any purpose continuing it http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

Thanks http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

P.

PS: Oh, final point for AB - WE ALL REALISE THAT MATROX DON'T HAVE A HARDCORE GAMING PRODUCT AT THE MOMENT. WHY DON'T YOU MAKE A TABLE FOR YOURSELF, FROM DECEMBER 1999, FROM DECEMBER 2000 AND SEE WHAT YOU SEE IN THEM!

Then we'll look this up again in December 2001 and see what's up http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/tongue.gif

Rob M.
30th April 2001, 07:18
I was thinking pro as a CAD user, but I guess a pro video editor would use the rt2500. Different markets, I guess the 'Pro' category needs more clarification.

FireGL: I hadn't seen these marketed as 'ATI' cards yet. Soon I guess...

ASUS: I know about the v7700 deluxe, but I don't think it comes with the video editing tools that the ati and matrox cards come with. Plus it doesn't have a TV-Tuner either, it's only VIVO.

Amiga Blitter
30th April 2001, 09:59
If you don't want to read the post
just leave the forum "pace". Come si dice in italia, lasciaci stare in santa PACE. Here we talk, discuss, exchange our opinion etc. etc. We are all free to talk.

What have you wrote for 1720 time?

Sorry for my bad english translation and off course for my post.

franklar
30th April 2001, 10:03
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by Jorden:</font>


L' ab, fa una ricerca all'interno dei questi fori su che cosa provate a dire, quindi ha letto tutte le risposte là, allora cancella questo filetto e prova ancora


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif


that's not Italian !!!!


ALTAVISTA RULEZ http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by franklar (edited 30 April 2001).]

Amiga Blitter
30th April 2001, 10:06
Ciao Bari. Come si dice da quelle parti???
E ci je

Il tuo post è simpatico.

franklar
30th April 2001, 11:03
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by Amiga Blitter:
Ciao Bari. Come si dice da quelle parti???
E ci je</font>

Alè Roma !!!
Che sse dice ? stò a 'nnavigà, stò a postà...fra poco vado a ggiocà... http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif

( for other guys: that's not properly Dante's Italian http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif )

Vabbè, non andiamo troppo offtopic...cmq stai tranquillo che l'inglese si capiva http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif

Ciao !



[This message has been edited by franklar (edited 30 April 2001).]

frankymail
30th April 2001, 11:31
Guys, could you use something called "English"
(or french) please http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/confused.gif

Francis,

------------------
What was necessary was done yesterday;
We're currently working on the impossible;
For miracles, we ask for a 24 hours notice ...

franklar
30th April 2001, 11:42
Je puis parler anglais assez bien, mais peu probable je ne parle pas
français, mais Altavista fait la traduction pour moi http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

Quoi qu'il en soit ne vous inquiétez pas, il était juste de petits
offtopic http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif

Wulfman
30th April 2001, 12:13
wenn das hier jeder macht bringt das überhaupt nix

(sorry)

mfg
wulfman

ckj
30th April 2001, 13:02
My opininion is that Matrox will release a good card for everyone (picture quality, speed in games, video) for christmas 2001.
It will not be the best for games but enough to change my old marvel G400 which is suffering with actual games.

What do you think of that ?

Pace
30th April 2001, 13:40
The point of my post was to make you realise that Matrox are indeed lacking in the area you mention, but they have been at the top in the past. Just give them time to get out their next (real http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif) generation card out that damned door and then we can make comment that they've left whatever market.

Matrox have an excellent footing in various segments of various markets, a slight lapse in this area doesn't mean they've left...

Just a shame I wrapped up a (possibly) valid point in a flame, but there you go :-)

Arrivederci, Paolo.

Kruzin
30th April 2001, 13:44
There does need to be a mark in that little "comparison" under "Pro" for the Matrox cards.
Pros of all sorts use Matrox cards. My G450 rules for the AutoCAD work I use it for. Banks and financial institutions love the MMS and DualHead features of Matrox cards. Web designers, graphics artists, etc. etc. etc.
The only "Pro" that doesn't want to use Matrox cards are "Pro" gamers.



-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Market | ATI | Nvidia | Matrox |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Home | R128 | TNT2 | G4X0 |
| Gamers | Radeon | Geforce3 | - |
| Pro | - | Quadro3 | GXX0 |
| Video |Allinwonder| - | Marvel,RRG,RT2X00,DigiSuiteXX |
| Business | Radeon VE | Geforce2MX| G2X0, G4X0 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------


[This message has been edited by Kruzin (edited 30 April 2001).]

franklar
30th April 2001, 13:49
I'd just like to know why G800 project was wasted away....

dZeus
30th April 2001, 16:32
hey I game a lot, but I use a G400 http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

if I want 85 - 90fps sustained (which I want for q3a online), I just turn down all the settings untill I reach that speed. That means that I can run at 800x600x16 with low visual quality set... not too ugly when using, but it certainly doesn't show the power of the q3a engine at these settings.

Though ironically most people with a GeFarce card or faster also use these low settings, as you can see better when using them (vertex lighting gives higher contrast and no dark spots on a map).

Indiana
1st May 2001, 02:04
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by ckj:
My opininion is that Matrox will release a good card for everyone (picture quality, speed in games, video) for christmas 2001.
It will not be the best for games but enough to change my old marvel G400 which is suffering with actual games.

What do you think of that ?</font>

Would seem quite likely.
But people were saying the exact same thing about xmas 2000 and look what we've got now http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/frown.gif

PowerBytes
1st May 2001, 02:51
In my profession (mechanical engineering)I've never encountered anybody using a NVidia based video-card. This does not surprise me because I also have to encounter a Nvidia based videocard giving a decent output at 1600x1200@80Hz. The only cards so far I know of doing this are the Appian Graphics, Elsa and Matrox cards. Considering their respective prices I would say the Matrox cards are extreme value for money....

Rob M.
1st May 2001, 07:33
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by Kruzin:
There does need to be a mark in that little "comparison" under "Pro" for the Matrox cards.
Pros of all sorts use Matrox cards. My G450 rules for the AutoCAD work I use it for. Banks and financial institutions love the MMS and DualHead features of Matrox cards. Web designers, graphics artists, etc. etc. etc.
The only "Pro" that doesn't want to use Matrox cards are "Pro" gamers.
</font>

If it's as good as the other professional cards, Matrox is severly underpricing the card. It was a shock when the $800 Quadro began to compete with the high-end ($5000+) CAD cards.

Regardless, the gamer market is the market to be shooting for. This is the high end consumer market, if you can't compete in the high end this year, you won't be able to compete in the low end next year.

Joel
1st May 2001, 07:47
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Regardless, the gamer market is the market to be shooting for. This is the high end consumer market, if you can't compete in the high end this year, you won't be able to compete in the low end next year.</font>

Based on that statement I can tell that you know nothing about the PC industry. OEMs have busines customers that buy PCs by the thousands where a hardcore gamer only buys one video card.


<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">According to a Jon Peddie Associates (JPA) study for year 2000, the Hardcore Gamers market represents a volume of 1.5 million PCs against 55 million business PCs sold during the same period.</font>

Now you do the math and decide which market represents the greatest source of income from sells.

Joel http://members.home.net/gilchrist.joel/smilies/Matroxeffects.gif

WaR-ped
1st May 2001, 08:01
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by PowerBytes:
In my profession (mechanical engineering)I've never encountered anybody using a NVidia based video-card. This does not surprise me because I also have to encounter a Nvidia based videocard giving a decent output at 1600x1200@80Hz. The only cards so far I know of doing this are the Appian Graphics, Elsa and Matrox cards. Considering their respective prices I would say the Matrox cards are extreme value for money....</font>

ya know another reason why? its because you are working with lines.. (assuming you are using AutoCAD).. you dont need the performance of a GeForce. No wonder the Matrox is fine. Less money, less performance. clarity is a bonus.

My card chokes and dies when I do heavy rendering in Pro Engineer.

The moment that Nvidia decides to get their image quality up to Matrox standards, Matrox will go out of business. I guaruntee it. Matrox just wont be able to compete with the price wars and volume generated by Nvidia.



------------------
.:880Mhz Deathtrap:.
Lite-On FS020 enclosure w/4 120mm Panaflos and soon a 172mm Nidec
MSI 694D Pro w/ BIOS 1.6
2x800E cC0 Pentium 3 w/ 2xVolcanoII
SyncMAX(NEC) PC166 VCM SDRAM 4x128mb w/ CAS = 1
Matrox G400MAX 176/219
And other non-important stuff like hard drives and a dvd drive
Pineapples

Liquid Snake
1st May 2001, 13:07
Matrox go out of busines? I don't think so. They have a video, imaging and networking division too.

frankymail
1st May 2001, 16:06
Ben Franklar, ta traduction, elle schlingue en esti http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif

CU,
Francis

------------------
What was necessary was done yesterday;
We're currently working on the impossible;
For miracles, we ask for a 24 hours notice ...

WaR-ped
1st May 2001, 16:09
Ok, well, not entirely out of business, but I can definetly see them pulling out of the video card business for good in the near future. Its simple.

Hypothetical Situations

number One

If i was a business owner and i needed 50 PCs to do office work(thats what matrox cards are good at, right?), I might have a couple options. for $125 per PC I can have them equipped with the Geforce4MX that has a 370Mhz Ramdac and looks pretty sharp compared to their older Geforce3, or I can spend $250 on the G1000 that has a 385Mhz Ramdac. They look pretty close. the Matrox looks more sharp, barely. But considering I dont want to spend an extra $100 bucks per PC on that tiny tiny bit of clarity(the difference is negligible), I will just go with the Nvidia cards.

Second situation. I am a business owner of a small graphics developing company. We arent too big. We deal with making animations for TV commercials lets say. I need 25 PCs that will have the power to animate. We do use large screens and need something that wont go fuzzy at high resolutions or crap out when doing hi resolution animation. My two options are the G1500(that has dual chips, dual 390Mhz RAMDACS and dual Monitors and 32MB DDR SDRAM 128bit width), for $350, and Quadro3(that has a single output, single 380Mhz RAMDAC and 64mb DDR SDRAM and 128bit width) that costs about $500. I dont have to have dual monitor display, but it would be a bonus. Hmm... well, in all the reviews I have read, the Quadro performances 150% better in everything compared to the Matrox. And after getting a chance to really look at both cards 2D performance I can say with certainty that the Quadro3 looks to be G400MAX quality just like the card I used to have in my system a few years back. I think Ill go with that Quadro3 since I need that performance over the need for dual display.

Im not even going to touch the gaming scene since Matrox doesnt want to get close to it themselves.

I dont have issues with their technical people and R&D people. Im sure they are a fine bunch of innovative folks. its the morons in the upper management that are trying to make trends and decide what to sell that I wish would listen to people such as myself more. I think they forgot what a video card does. Its an accelerator. It speeds up the performance of images. simple as that.


just my $.35 and a rant... peace out.

Tempest
1st May 2001, 16:11
What about the Appian Hurricane (http://www.appian.com/products/hurricane.html)? Is that a serious contender, or just another Radeon based board? I'm just asking, 'cause it's suggested retail price is only $169 and they've even got a PCI version coming...

[This message has been edited by Tempest (edited 01 May 2001).]

TheDarkHorizon
1st May 2001, 18:23
Too bad you pulled those specs out of your rear. You can't predict what Matrox will have to offer in the future. Use facts, not information from your little imaginary world.

Rob M.
1st May 2001, 18:58
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by Joel:
Based on that statement I can tell that you know nothing about the PC industry. OEMs have busines customers that buy PCs by the thousands where a hardcore gamer only buys one video card.
</font>

Say it ten more times and maybe I'll believe you too.

Back in the real world, OEMs sell what customers want. If Matrox fell behind 3 years ago, and the G100 was currently their best offering, what do you think an OEM would pick, a G100, a rage128 or a TNT?

Think I'm no one who doesn't know anything? Fine. Let Dell answer that for you: Even with the G200 and G4x0 in the market, Dell's Optiplex business line relies on the integrated Intel video with the option to upgrade to TNT2. (their high end comes automatically with tnt2)

Don't like Dell? Gateway's office line differs in only one way, the higher end computers use ATI R128 and Radeon VE cards.

Compaq? Again, Integrated and TNT2.

In fact, in my search, only in the Dell workstation class could I find a Matrox product.
Here it is, as it's listed under video (http://www.dell.com/us/en/biz/products/model_precn_3_precn_330.htm):


<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Professional Graphics : 3DLabs® Wildcat™II 5110 (128MB SDRAM)
ATI® Fire GL2 (64MB DDR)

Performance Graphics : nVIDIA® Quadro2 Pro (64MB)

Mainstream Graphics : nVIDIA® GeForce2 GTS® (32MB DDR)

Value Graphics : nVIDIA® TNT2 Pro (16MB)

Multi-Monitor Graphics : Matrox® G450 (32MB) (dual monitor capable)
</font>

Now before you get excited about this huge marketshare Matrox must be getting being in this lineup, these are Dual-1ghz cpus or P4 systems that you're ordering with it. I can't believe businesses bought 55 million workstation pc's last year.

In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say that there's more gamers buying cards then there are business users looking to match these systems with a G450.

What it all boils down to is that Matrox is just trying to put a positive spin on a bad situation. They've messed up. Their card is late and its performance is underwhelming. What are they going to tell the press? It's certainly not "We missed the boat this year"...

WaR-ped
2nd May 2001, 00:03
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by Rob M.:
What it all boils down to is that Matrox is just trying to put a positive spin on a bad situation. They've messed up. Their card is late and its performance is underwhelming. What are they going to tell the press? It's certainly not "We missed the boat this year"...</font>

damn straight.


TheDarkHorizon, no shit I pulled those specs out of my ass. Basically I took what the situation that was about when the G400 came out and theorized what will happen. I suppose I was a bit too optimistic for Matrox though. Besides, dont tell me you honestly believe that Matrox is suddenly going to go ATI on us and pull a radeon out of their caboose.

Besides, the specs are a bit trivial dont you think? I was trying to put emphasis on the situation, not the specs. sheesh.

Also, as a Gateway employee, I know for a fact that we have no room for any matrox cards right now. Where would we put them? All the systems that are designed for business are equipped with onboard video and after dealing with tons of business clients for the past 8 months, I've noticed a trend. Cheapness sells. Business clients only want whats the most inexpensive. The few that want performance go all out, and at the present state, and what looks like the idealized performance level of the "g550" will not be something I will recommend to my clients simply because it will not get them the performance they crave. simple as that.

the only spot that could be filled might be for digital flat panel systems... oh wait, or 64mb Radeon VE recently took that spot. nevermind. and how much does that card cost? under 200 bucks huh? oh, and it gets pretty decent 2d quality? oh, it doesnt have good win2k drivers? thats alright I use windows 98 anyway. hmm... not bad...

chucky2
2nd May 2001, 00:55
LOL!

Not that I'm a huge fan of Tom's, but check out the news post today (5-2-2000) about the IDSA.

Here the link: http://www.tomshardware.com/technews/index.html

I guess the gaming market isn't that "lucrative."

It's almost sad to see it come to this...

------------------
"All your profits are belong to us!" -AMD upon learning of Intel's 82% profit decline.
Tyan S1598C2
AMD K6-3+ 450 at 5x100
Matrox G400 DH 32MB SGRAM
Quantum Fireball Plus LM 15GB
Intel Pro/100+ Management
KDS AV-195TF

Amiga Blitter
2nd May 2001, 03:49
Thanks to all who are contributing to create a comprensive comparative table to summarize the graphic cards market trying to foresee the trends. As far as my experience is concerned I wasted lot of money to buy various graphics cards (Mystique 220, M3d, G100, G200, G400 Max) now i would like to know where my sight should be directed. So the Matrox has the Power to continue innovating these segment market?

P.S.

In this year the gaming market will be greater than movies/cinematographics market. So building an Hardcore Gamers graphics card could be a very big affair.

Joel
2nd May 2001, 05:05
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">So building an Hardcore Gamers graphics card could be a very big affair.</font>

Who says they aren't working on one?

Joel

WaR-ped
2nd May 2001, 08:00
I do. hehe.

xortam
2nd May 2001, 08:06
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by chucky2:
... check out the news post today (5-2-2000) about the IDSA.

Here the link: http://www.tomshardware.com/technews/index.html ...</font>
Interesting ... it states that gaming is a strong, growing market; $10.5 billion last year, grew at 14.9 percent. Matrox must be aware of this. I tend to agree that Matrox PR is trying to spin their position and they really did have some setbacks this last year. I hope they're over the worst of it any getting ready to compete again.
I've been busy upgrading the rest of my system and soon the weak link will only be the 3D accelerator. It would be nice if another Matrox card made it in there.

Joel
2nd May 2001, 09:54
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">I do. hehe.</font>

And we all know that you are full of it.

Joel http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif

Alec
2nd May 2001, 11:12
The G400 was, 3D-wise, a very competitive product. It´s easier (and wiser) for Matrox to continue on manufacturing new 3D cards, considering the investment already made and the money and prestige that can still be achieved, than to just give up.

It´s taking longer than we would expect, but Matrox have different products to work on, not only 3D cards. Microsoft, for example, will delay the release of Windows XP final until 2002 because of the X-BOX.

jackzod
5th May 2001, 07:40
It's fun to see that "moderator" are actually putting oil on the fire...

Pace
5th May 2001, 11:38
Whilst Matrox are probably making a load of money from OEM deals, it was announced recently that NVIDIA now have the largest share of the market, with over 50% I believe, and ATi second. If that's right, then Matrox are selling at least half of what NVIDIA are to OEMs. Maybe M's profitability is higher, but it's surprising to see NVIDIA have such high share anyway.

Their business model is fed by the rejects of their retail though, so once the GF3 is cheap crap (instead of expensive crap http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif), they can get rid if their stocks to OEMs.

And, while the G400 didn't get good press when it first came out, it was still very popular - even with the dodgy benchmarking done by certain sites http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif While bringing out a GF3 killer might be nice, it'd better not cost as much as it. Hmm, while I think Matrox don't need to be told how to run their business off of me, it would appear that they will have hard times ahead if they don't stop this downward trend in OEM sales, and of course retail!

Paul.

PS: I don't know if their OEM sales have actually fallen, I'm just assuming this because NVIDIAs share has risen. In fact, the market might even be twice the size now, so their sales could've risen dramatically. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif I just thought I'd chuck in my worthless pennies above! http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif

DuRaNgO
5th May 2001, 17:55
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">The study found that products featuring NVIDIA graphics processing units (GPUs) held the largest market share in the workstation graphics segment with 34%.</font>

Actually, they "only" have 34% http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

WaR-ped
6th May 2001, 10:32
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by DuRaNgO:
Actually, they "only" have 34% http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif</font>


Well... compared to Matrox's 0% at many of the top OEM computer manufactures such as Gateway, id say Nvidia stands a good chance. Nvidia is pretty much the only card offered through Gateway right now. The ati RADEON VE 64mb is offered, but only because its the only card that has DVI options. If Nvidia's NV17 has DVI i can totally see Gateway dumping ATI for the NV17 if it costs less, which it probably will. I'm rooting for Matrox, but I know, at Gateway, we dont have any room for a rehashed G450, so their next card, hopefully will be something usefully unique.

Joel
6th May 2001, 11:38
At Gateway all they care about is what is cheapest. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

Joel http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

Kruzin
6th May 2001, 11:55
Gateway doesn't offer Matrox cards??
Then why did it take me less than 10 seconds on the Gateway site to find this page, which includes G400 on the list of available cards?

http://www.gatewayatwork.com/mes/specs/matrox%5Fg400%5F4x%5Fagp%5F32mb.html

az
6th May 2001, 22:15
When I bought my current system, ALL better Gateway systems came with a Matrox Millennium, and ALL better Dell systems came with a Matrox Millennium (After they dumped the #9 Imagine 128).

AZ