Found this today interesting read even if it is a year old.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8480/matrox-to- … -graphics-cards
Interesting. I didn't see that coming.
Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.
Hopefully Matrox fixes AMD's multimonitor support, for whatever reason AMD sucks down an ungodly amount of watts when using more than one monitor.
wrote:Hopefully Matrox fixes AMD's multimonitor support, for whatever reason AMD sucks down an ungodly amount of watts when using more than one monitor.
I doubt that's going to happen. It seems like the reason this happens is because the VRAM is on full performance all the time while using multi-monitor. I don't know why that is the case though.
"Matrox--powered by AMD" just sounds weird. Maybe they'll use WRAM FTW?
The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.
OPL3 FM vs. Roland MT-32 vs. General MIDI DOS Game Comparison
Let's benchmark our systems with cache disabled
DOS PCI Graphics Card Benchmarks
wrote:It seems like the reason this happens is because the VRAM is on full performance all the time while using multi-monitor.
Which is highly wasteful and unnecessary, everyone else manages to not shit the power bed doing multi-monitor, or video playback for that matter. I can't see Matrox putting out a power hog so I bet they do fix whatever the issue is. Hopefully the deal includes AMD being able to use the fix themselves.
I've read something like this a long time ago. I thought it was going to be a line based on the FirePro.
The news broke on Sep 2014 (that's nearly two years old btw)
http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/press/relea … hics_cards/amd/
Latest release is C-900 supporting 9x 1920x1200 @60Hz (... that's nothing special since today's DP1.4 card supports 8K@60Hz) targeting digital signage, niche market.
No more "G" series I see. 🙁
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."—Arthur C. Clarke
"No way. Installing the drivers on these things always gives me a headache."—Guybrush Threepwood (on cutting-edge voodoo technology)
wrote:"Matrox--powered by AMD" just sounds weird. Maybe they'll use WRAM FTW?
WTF RAM even 😁
Yea and I have seen a few of their newer AMD based cards pop up on eBay, the only difference is that they are gimped performance wise (cheaper gddr3) and that there could be some improvements on image quality.
On a far away planet reading your posts in the year 10,191.
Is this the beginning of the end for Matrox?
Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.
wrote:Is this the beginning of the end for Matrox?
why? once again they might get acceptable performance, hasnt been the case for a long time now i think
wrote:Yea and I have seen a few of their newer AMD based cards pop up on eBay, the only difference is that they are gimped performance wise (cheaper gddr3) and that there could be some improvements on image quality.
How could there be improvements on image quality on a purely digital interface? It is either perfect, or it isn't shown at all.
wrote:How could there be improvements on image quality on a purely digital interface? It is either perfect, or it isn't shown at all.
I second this. It's like the guys over on evga and headfi they say a dedicated sound card will always sound better than on board when comparing digital outputs . 🤣
wrote:wrote:How could there be improvements on image quality on a purely digital interface? It is either perfect, or it isn't shown at all.
I second this. It's like the guys over on evga and headfi they say a dedicated sound card will always sound better than on board when comparing digital outputs . 🤣
Yep, reminds me of an old forum thread elsewhere, where people got into a fight over which has the better image quality: DVI or HDMI 🤣. (The "answer" was DVI, without an HDMI adapter 😵 )
Obviously, because 0s sent via DVI are more 0 than HDMI, and 1s sent via DVI are more 1 than HDMI.
(Seriously though, even with digital interfaces, you can obviously still have differences in image quality. But then it's about whether a certain mode is supported or not. Eg, there are bandwidth differences between different standards (or different versions of the same standard), so some may support higher resolutions, higher refresh rates, more colour depth etc). Same goes for digital audio).
wrote:Obviously, because 0s sent via DVI are more 0 than HDMI, and 1s sent via DVI are more 1 than HDMI.
(Seriously though, even with digital interfaces, you can obviously still have differences in image quality. But then it's about whether a certain mode is supported or not. Eg, there are bandwidth differences between different standards (or different versions of the same standard), so some may support higher resolutions, higher refresh rates, more colour depth etc). Same goes for digital audio).
True that, but as long as the resolution/refresh rate combo is supported by the interface you plug it in, there is no difference whatsoever between for example DVI,HDMI or Display Port. Eg. 1920x1080 60Hz looks the same on all of the above connections. (I'm sure you know that, but just in case this is news to anyone here 🤣 )
wrote:wrote:How could there be improvements on image quality on a purely digital interface? It is either perfect, or it isn't shown at all.
I second this. It's like the guys over on evga and headfi they say a dedicated sound card will always sound better than on board when comparing digital outputs . 🤣
This is really only the case with forced resampling.
All hail the Great Capacitor Brand Finder
