-
Athlon Thunderbird 1.1Ghz@1.2~1.3+GHz Socket A 256Kb,Asus A7V dipswitches,GlobalWin FOP32-1 heatsink,GlobalWin 802 Advance ATX Case, 17" Sony Multiscan 200PST,384MB Crucial PC133 CAS=2,ATI Radeon 32Mb DDR,(Matrox Millenium G400 MAX 32MB 5ns SGRAM),IBM Deskstar 75GXP 15Gb UltraATA/100, Quantum Firebal EL 10.2Gb,Hewlett Packard DeskJet 970Cxi,Epson Perfection 1240U Scanner,Sound blaster Live!,Cambridge Soundworks 5.1,Creative PC-DVD 5X,CDR-RW Ricoh MP7040S@MP7060S(Tweaked from 4x--->6x with no problem),Adaptec SCSI 2920C,Diamond SupraExpress 56e PRO,Iomega Zip Drive. -
Learning from 3dfx's mistakes...
is Matrox next? -
Matrox already sold chips to Gigabyte, but the Gigabyte cards would only work on Gigabyte motherboards as they didn't have their own bios chips on them - they shared the motherboard's. Don't know why on earth they did that.
That was at least 12 months ago I heard about that. Never heard any more of it since.
One downside to having several board manufacturers is that if they use low-quality parts to keep the overall cost down (I read on these fori somewhere someone mentioned one of the Kyro I boards being really really poor 2d image quality, and everyone blamed the Kyro chip)<i>Shampoo is better! I go on first and clean the hair!</i>
Athlon 700, K7V, 192Mb RAM, 32Mb G400 DH (v5.52), SBLive!, 26.4GB HDD, Win2k Pro, Actima 8xDVD, LG 32x4x4x CD-RW, CTX VL950T 19"Comment
-
Excellent news for ATI and for the industry at large.
If ATI can remain competitive and stop making losses, then they can probably also compete with nVidia on some levels.
That should leave enough breathing room for Matrox and others to also maneuver beyond their normal areas (i.e. business and desktop video graphics).
Very good news, IMHO.
cheers,
halcyon
Comment
-
ATI's chips have always been better than Nvidias. The big trouble with ATI is their drivers.
They make excellent hardware and couples it with some really lousy drivers.
If they could make better drivers then they would be better than Nvidia in just about everything, maybe even speed.Comment
-
Yea, I was about to say that. Nvidia's 2D image quality problem is greatly attributed to their lack of control over the quality of components on the board.
Nvidia's supposedly trying to fix this, but their cards are not on par with ATi and a ways off Matrox (from what I gather, I don't have a GF3).Primary system specs:
Asus A7V266-E | AthlonXP 1700+ | Alpha Pal8045T | Radeon 8500 | 256mb Crucial DDR | Maxtor D740X 40gb | Ricoh 8/8/32 | Toshiba 16X DVD | 3Com 905C TX NIC | Hercules Fortissimo II | Antec SX635 | Win2k ProComment
-
EvilDonnyBoy: it seems that nVidia's reference design doesn't help the quality that much eitherComment
-
Yes, that's what NVidia wants you to believe...<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by EvilDonnyboy:
Yea, I was about to say that. Nvidia's 2D image quality problem is greatly attributed to their lack of control over the quality of components on the board.</font>
In fact with that much companies out there selling nearly the same cards and looking hard for some possibilities to differ from the competition (by adding extra features, TV-in/out and the like), I find it very hard to believe there's not one single product that emphasizes display quality.
That leaves the other possibility: the bad quality is inherent to NVidias chips (integrated RamDAC?) or to the reference design.
P.S.: While you can blame cheap filters for blurriness, the "washed-out" look ("stonewashed colours"(tm) for all you marketing people
) is caused by the gfx-chips rendering engine(s).
[This message has been edited by Indiana (edited 30 May 2001).]Comment
-
I guess that they'd spend more attention to that if they were selling cards, not just chips
AZComment
-
Oh goody, now we're going to see ATI based cards with lousy 2D quality
"That's right fool! Now I'm a flying talking donkey!"
P4 2.66, 512 mb PC2700, ATI Radeon 9000, Seagate Barracude IV 80 gb, Acer Al 732 17" TFTComment
-
I bought the Xpert2000pro 32meg card for my other computer, and it's crap!! when clocked @ 142/160, it managed to just about push above my clocked G400 @ 149/198 even though clock speeds are far from G400. However, 3D quality sucks as it has some kind of blurry static noise, and the image therefore isn't quite as sharp... The worse part is the 2D side. On all the highly refresing (windows moving, progress bars) the ATI can't draw them whole, and the lower part disappears!!! this happens in a flickering manner and is pretty anoyng... I would expect that Radeon isn't any better, since my ATI was designed in the year 2000 and propably the same tech as in the Radeon. The ramdac was suprisingly sharp. Almost Matrox quality
Comment
-
"The Radeon IS a very big improvement to earlier chips. The 2d IS very acceptable."
I think you have heard that phrase many times and it is true.Comment
-
Only time will tellIf there's artificial intelligence, there's bound to be some artificial stupidity.
Jeremy Clarkson "806 brake horsepower..and that on that limp wrist faerie liquid the Americans call petrol, if you run it on the more explosive jungle juice we have in Europe you'd be getting 850 brake horsepower..."Comment
-
The Radeon kicks ass. Best all around video card I EVER owned. It would be cool if Elsa or Hercules wrote drivers for ATI-based cards though. At least ATI owners would have another option (although ATI's drivers are better now than they've ever been).
BartBartComment
-
ELSA and Hercules haven't written drivers in, literally, years. They simply stamp the chip vendors' reference drivers with their own bitmaps and text, and provide the occasional independent utility.
You sure you'd want to use a driver from someone with zero experience, with the chip itself in particular and with writing drivers in general?
Comment
Tweet
ATI to start selling chips to other manufacturers!!!!!!
)
Comment