Look Who's Here: Matrox With Two Graphics Cards

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
TOPICS
Niels Broekhuijsen
Contributing Writer

Niels Broekhuijsen is a Contributing Writer for Tom's Hardware US. He reviews cases, water cooling and pc builds.

  • Gazabi
    It says "if you've only got three displays attacked." I'm pretty sure its supposed to be attached.
    Reply
  • PandaButtonFTW
    It says "if you've only got three displays attacked." I'm pretty sure its supposed to be attached.


    well, maybe it is attacked, who knows what kind of diabolical things that amd based card is doing to those poor monitors!
    Reply
  • builder4
    They should make a 4k Sextuple Head 2 Go
    Reply
  • beetlejuicegr
    Now if only 3dfx appeared and bought her self back from nvidia .,,,,
    Reply
  • Alec Mowat
    14156936 said:
    Now if only 3dfx appeared and bought her self back from nvidia .,,,,

    I miss Glide too....
    Reply
  • IInuyasha74
    Given that they are using AMD graphics chips, and AMDs cards with those graphics chips are probably cheaper. I don't see what they are hoping to gain. If they wanted to limit themselves to being used for things like this also, why didn't they just continue there own line? It doesn't need to be competitive with high end GPUs, but if they still wanted in this low end stuff why not at least have there own product.
    Reply
  • CaedenV
    Man I miss Matrox! My first real GPU setup was a G550 paired with an RT2500; that thing was a 2D beast back in 2001, and I remember having issues getting HDDs fast enough to feed those cards for video editing. To think that now my phone has more video editing capability than that costly and power hungry setup.

    *sigh* remember when Matrox tried to get into gaming... that was fun times!
    Reply
  • Marcus52
    If Matrox can get these things to drive that many displays @ 60Hz, and in one case do it with a passive cooler, why can't AMD and Nvidia? You can't drive 3 4K displays at 60 Hz with their top end consumer grade dual-GPU solutions, and those require beastly coolers.

    My guess is that these cards aren't worth a flip at gaming, that's the biggest difference. On the other hand it shows to me that both the major desktop graphics card companies are either holding back or thinking inside a box that prevents them from truly innovating. We are told by the hardware press that we are going to have to be satisfied with a slower GPU development cycle because of the difficulties involved in continued die shrinks, but, frankly, I think they just got lazy and depended on the die shrinks so they could have a smaller R&D budget.

    I don't buy it for a second.

    And we can certainly make use of serious performance boosts. 2560x1440 @ 144Hz. 4K @ 60Hz. Now is not the time for Nvidia and AMD to drag their proverbial feet.
    Reply
  • sykozis
    These cards aren't aimed at gamers. Most of what Matrox does, is 2D, which is quite easy to render at 4K. Even my R7 240 can handle 2D at 4K..... the "depth of field" is what kills a graphics card trying to render a 3D scene at 4K.
    Reply
  • Innocent_Bystander
    $$$$Thousands. And they will be lapped up by the target audience simply because Matrox's professional line of products is awesome.

    I only used their framegrabbers but I never had a complaint about their performance or the company's service when I needed it.
    Reply