Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Matrox PCIe Provides 8 DisplayPort Outputs

Last response: in News comments
Share
November 10, 2009 9:01:34 PM

Way to play off the least attractive "feature" of the new gen of cards to try to stay in the game with nvidia and ati. Why not try graphic horsepower and sub $1000 cards LOL.
Score
4
November 10, 2009 9:05:31 PM

"Consumers wanting a wall full of PC gaming goodness will need to fork out a whopping $1995 USD for one card."

I cant even begin to explain how exceedingly ignorant this sentence is.

No one in their right mind will buy any Matrox card for any sort of PC gaming.
Score
24
Related resources
November 10, 2009 9:10:30 PM

Considering that the ATI 5000 series cards can each support 6 display port monitors, through daisy chaining, and that a 5770 is likely more powerful than that matrox card, just about anyone would be better off with two 5770s.
Score
7
November 10, 2009 9:11:55 PM

Matrox has always been the # of monitors king. They have also been the performance lemming. They make Intel integrated graphics look like the cutting edge of performance.

Eight monitors, wouldn't that put the monitor seam right down the middle again? (uhg)
Score
4
November 10, 2009 9:17:12 PM

Quote:
"The M9188 is designed specifically for professional monitoring environments that require visualization of large amounts of data at once to enhance mission-critical decision making," said Ron Berty, Business Development Manager, Matrox Graphics.

As you can see, Matrox isn't even targeting gamers with their products. They're only in the professional sector since about a decade ago.

Quote:
Consumers wanting a wall full of PC gaming goodness will need to fork out a whopping $1995 USD for one card.

This sentence was written by Tom's Convenient.. I mean Tom's Hardware, so no need to bash Matrox.
Score
7
November 10, 2009 9:22:03 PM

Seriously, how can Matrox still be afloat?
Score
0
November 10, 2009 9:23:37 PM

$1299 for an 8 port card seems reasonable compared to buying 4 graphics cards and have no pcie slots left. This setup is for linux boxes and airport monitors as well as displaying stock charts or multiple security cameras or running your own digital tv station.
Score
5
November 10, 2009 9:32:24 PM

Spanky DeluxeSeriously, how can Matrox still be afloat?

They sell pro products for multi monitor single card solutions, don't think any other company could compete with them and still can't. You don't need to sell video cards for gaming to make money.
Score
7
November 10, 2009 9:33:35 PM

Spanky DeluxeSeriously, how can Matrox still be afloat?

Because they diliver products like this for a niche audience.
Score
6
November 10, 2009 9:52:25 PM

It's sad how 3DLabs died out but Matrox survived, since Matrox is Canadian, I believe, perhaps the Canadian Gov't kept them afloat with subsidies? I was a real 3DLabs workstation graphics fan back in the day. Time does moveth along.
Score
-4
November 10, 2009 10:46:01 PM

This is slightly off the subject but I used to build computers for a print shop years ago & I always put matrox graphics cards in them since they accelerated 2d or workstation type graphics better than the competition at the time & had cleaner visuals. Nowadays nobody tests 2d graphics anymore. I think the print shop wants me to build some more computers again but I don't have a clue which card would work best now. They use adobe programs & some corel. Do any you guys have a link for some 2d video card testing or have any ideas.
Score
0
November 10, 2009 10:50:47 PM

Got to love those big ass adapters hangin out the back, we don't need any more fucking clutter...
Score
2
November 10, 2009 11:05:30 PM

DAAAAAAAMMMMNNNNN!!! Now that is a lot even for that. Two or three 5870s 2gb can be had for less. Even quadros would be cheaper except Tesla cards.
Score
0
November 10, 2009 11:19:18 PM

But..... can it run Crysis? XD
Score
-2
November 10, 2009 11:23:02 PM

too bad it isnt 48 Ghz like the one they wrote about yesterday...
Score
4
November 11, 2009 12:01:08 AM

gto127This is slightly off the subject but I used to build computers for a print shop years ago & I always put matrox graphics cards in them since they accelerated 2d or workstation type graphics better than the competition at the time & had cleaner visuals. Nowadays nobody tests 2d graphics anymore. I think the print shop wants me to build some more computers again but I don't have a clue which card would work best now. They use adobe programs & some corel. Do any you guys have a link for some 2d video card testing or have any ideas.

Matrox is still a great card for 2d apps. And in many cases, cheaper for the performance when compared to AMD and Nvidia's workstation offerings. I've built a few Matrox workstations, and they've performed admirably. And for a printshop who wont be doing 3d rendering, they're still the logical choice.

2d performance has a ton more to do with Drivers than it does raw horsepower.
Score
1
November 11, 2009 12:44:57 AM

i haven't about matrox in a long time. its interesting to see there are more the just the main 3 left.
Score
1
November 11, 2009 1:01:56 AM

I had a Matrox GPU once. It was the year 1997 and in a Pentium 1 system. Good times.
Score
1
Anonymous
November 11, 2009 1:29:13 AM

we use matrox cards for our process control rooms. One dcs system, four monitors. It has been 7 years since install the quad monitor systems, i think we might actually go with an eight monitor setup per dcs. Monitoring trends on one set and alarm/pressure indication on the other set.
Score
0
November 11, 2009 2:10:25 AM

"and a lost of mouse work"

...who edits these things?
Score
2
November 11, 2009 3:13:52 AM

I used to be a Matrox fan, ahh, good old days of Millennium/Mystique, G200 Series ...

they messed up with Parhelia, big time, sure it has 512 bit and stuff, but with no optimzation/compression. it was a joke and it almost killed Matrox.

After that they start playing "better be safe than sorry" game and left the performance game.

oh well.
Score
1
November 11, 2009 3:15:11 AM

Keep in mind that Matrox has the best picture quality.

if you're in the graphics field. You will know right away.
Score
0
November 11, 2009 3:34:27 AM

sanchzBut..... can it run Crysis? XD


if you like slideshows , yes .
Score
3
November 11, 2009 4:46:53 AM

Nice card. Lots of RAM too, which actually surprises me.
I'm just imagining a X58 board with 4 of these cards in it, and a Matrox TH2G in each one, running (4 cards x 8 displays per card x 3 monitors per port) 96 168 0x1050 monitors... 169,344,000 pixels... (assuming all horizontally lined) 161,280x1050 resolution at a aspect ratio of 153.6:1. Not that would be wide screen gaming goodness.

Someone send me a screen shot of a pic like that. -_-
Score
0
November 11, 2009 5:17:03 AM

gto127This is slightly off the subject but I used to build computers for a print shop years ago & I always put matrox graphics cards in them since they accelerated 2d or workstation type graphics better than the competition at the time & had cleaner visuals. Nowadays nobody tests 2d graphics anymore. I think the print shop wants me to build some more computers again but I don't have a clue which card would work best now. They use adobe programs & some corel. Do any you guys have a link for some 2d video card testing or have any ideas.


I remember when Matrox was one of the big names in 2d video acceleration, I also remember Cirrus Logic and Trident were big 2d names amongst others. I don't know of any 2d testing of video cards lately, but programs from adobe may support GPU acceleration from Nvidia or ATI. It might be worth looking into, since that can greatly increase productivity and time savings.
Score
0
November 11, 2009 8:15:27 AM

ira176I remember when Matrox was one of the big names in 2d video acceleration, I also remember Cirrus Logic and Trident were big 2d names amongst others. I don't know of any 2d testing of video cards lately, but programs from adobe may support GPU acceleration from Nvidia or ATI. It might be worth looking into, since that can greatly increase productivity and time savings.

Ah, that is true. I hadn't thought of CS4's OpenCL acceleration. But it also depends on how large the print-shop is. I know of a smaller one that doesn't process so many images at a time that they'd prefer to have faster effect rendering over higher image quality. Photo Rendering is fast enough now days on standard quad-cores that it'd be a waste unless they processed hundreds or even thousands per day.
Score
0
November 11, 2009 9:36:36 AM

I suppose a simple x58 system with 3 of those cards could run video surveillience for a big hotel - or run advertisement screens for a big supermarked etc. Plenty of options. Obviously the length limitation for the cables would make the latter a bit complicated, but I'm sure there'll be a nice use for those cards.
Score
0
November 11, 2009 11:08:24 AM

This system is for the business professional.
It does not support DX11, and it does not have the ability to display DX or OGL content on more than one monitor.
Meaning you can hook up 8 displays but you'll be playing your games on one.
This is in contrast to the ATI card that will upgrade your resolution to fully utilize all six screen's resolution by splicing up a 3D image into each display port.
Score
0
November 11, 2009 2:34:00 PM

multiple cores and now multiple display ports. when will we get multiple salary pay? 8 security monitors would look great. but maybe one big monitor subdivided into 8 small video areas would be serve the same purpose. you can just zoom in to the video that requires more scrutiny.
Score
0
November 11, 2009 2:41:06 PM

I still have a G450 in one of my computers. It's a 10 year old card and it does 2D flawlessly (better than my current ATI). Not to mention the dual monitor feature.
I remember setting up networks in investment firms, and many computers would have multiple monitor setups to follow up multiple markets simultaneously. Professionals like these guys are the target for this product, not gamers. And for them, money invested in money made.
Score
0
November 11, 2009 2:42:03 PM

I will 2nd the others comments about Matrox video quality. They seem to pay more attention to sharpness and color accuracy than ATI and NV. However, they pay zero attention to performance. My company used to use Matrox G550 or G200 cards in all of our PCs and they worked well for a time. However, they were so expensive that we kept them longer than we should and they just couldn't keep up with any res over 1024x768. We switched to Nvidia Quadro and ATI Fire MV cards which cost less and are probably 4 times faster than Matrox's 2-port offerings.
Score
0
November 11, 2009 3:01:24 PM

LOL..take that AMD....
Score
0
November 11, 2009 6:35:52 PM

wait.. yesterday 6... um..today 8.. er.. tomorrow..10, 12 output? XP
Score
0
November 11, 2009 9:43:38 PM

Matrox never intended to get into the gaming business. The are focusing on professional applications for which their cards fit very well unlike common gaming brands.
It's like complaining that Planar monitors are too expensive for gaming while their targets are pro apps like medical imaging.
Score
0
November 13, 2009 6:29:24 AM

sebastienmMatrox never intended to get into the gaming business. The are focusing on professional applications for which their cards fit very well unlike common gaming brands.It's like complaining that Planar monitors are too expensive for gaming while their targets are pro apps like medical imaging.


Well I distinctly remember that Matrox was one of the best choices back when I ordered my Mystique 220. They decided not to dabble much in 3d gaming graphics, but before 3dfx matrox was a really good vendor for gaming cards. To prove my point : video accelleration was faster on my matrox card than it was on the voodoo card sporting twice as much memory and a higher energy usage.
Score
0
November 13, 2009 6:30:12 AM

I still have that Mystique card at home by the way - it's always handy to have a pci adapter around for troubleshooting - and the matrox cards never seem to break!
Score
0
!