Intel beefing up their onboard gfx = doom for Ma... slow add-in cards?

[Whirl-Secret]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060816-7520.html

This link is a news article that speculates about Intel trying hard to improve their onboard graphics horsepower.

If onboard gfx dudes (ATI/AMD will surely do this as well) raise their game, then surely Matrox will have to as well. No more excuses for high quality 2d (Matrox) and 3d (3dLabs) that are weak in other areas now, because a core duo + onboard gfx will still be a beast for even semi-professional 2d / 3d / video work.

[Gurm]

Well, Matrox ALREADY doesn't actually sell any add-on cards. So I'm confused why you think Intel is a threat to any of their business.

Besides, what was Intel's LAST foray into performance 3D? Oh yes, the i740. *chuckle*

[DGhost]

i740 wasn't too horrid for the time... problem is it was overshadowed by the NV/ATI fight that was on going.

Personally, Intel's integrated graphics have been the worst thing to happen to the PC Gaming industry. Performance integrated graphics would be a huge improvement.

[Gurm]

i740 wasn't too horrid for the time... problem is it was overshadowed by the NV/ATI fight that was on going.

Personally, Intel's integrated graphics have been the worst thing to happen to the PC Gaming industry. Performance integrated graphics would be a huge improvement.

Ironically, Intel adopting this stance would do far more damage to nVidia and ATI/AMD than it would to Matrox.

[Nowhere]

Personally...Intel integrated graphics are enough for most users for some time already...

[Whirl-Secret]

I think it would hurt Matrox. Matrox currently have the very small offering of an expensive card that is about as fast as integrated gfx but has some niche features that can be appreciated.

But better 3d from integrated gfx will mean that Matrox will have an expensive card with some niche features that is *slower* than your integrated motherboard. Since integrated gfx have the reputation of being the lowest common denominator, then Matrox will be asking a lot of their sales teams if there is no DX10 card

[Mikko]

I'm sure that Matrox is well aware of the importance of being Windows Vista compliant. They have also had plenty of time to prepare themselves for the DX9/DX10 after releasing Parhelia-512 chip in 2002. So, I'm quite confident that Matrox has something new for us before the official release of Windows Vista OS.

[DGhost]

I'm sure that Matrox is well aware of the importance of being Windows Vista compliant. They have also had plenty of time to prepare themselves for the DX9/DX10 after releasing Parhelia-512 chip in 2002. So, I'm quite confident that Matrox has something new for us before the official release of Windows Vista OS.

Parhelia was originally spec'ed out as being Vista compliant. That got dropped along with PS2.0 though. If they had left Pixel Shader 2.0 support in it, it would have been fine.

[Gurm]

I'm sure that Matrox is well aware of the importance of being Windows Vista compliant. They have also had plenty of time to prepare themselves for the DX9/DX10 after releasing Parhelia-512 chip in 2002. So, I'm quite confident that Matrox has something new for us before the official release of Windows Vista OS.

Really? I'm pretty sure most of us have made peace with the fact that Matrox isn't ever going to make another even remotely competitive consumer-level card, for Vista or any other OS.

[Taz]

So, I'm quite confident that Matrox has something new for us before the official release of Windows Vista OS.

Your in a small group of people who think that way Even it they wanted to I'm not sure they've got the staff left to pull it off.