Go S3!!!

So they have decent drivers..something new from S3. Game performance is horrible..which is expected for entry level cards. It would be intresting to see what kind of multimedia-performance this card has..much more important.

Last time they did try discrete graphics card they had Chrome S27 and they released also multichrome and you could use two cards..like SLI or Crossfire :D. Chrome S27 was BADLY late due to all those delays and it's drivers were horrible; when it came to market GF6 was hot stuff.. it's performance without AA was on par with Geforce 6600 (non GT), with AA it was below Geforce 6200
 
Neat-o.

To save someone a click:
S3 430GT specs: 650MHz core, 900MHz shader clocks, 32 SPs, 1GHz (500MHz DDR) 64-bit GDDR3 memory, 65nm

It's mostly faster than the HD 3450, but none of the cards tested are playable in DX10 games.

If I wanted to spend ~$60 on a video card, I'd just get an 8600GT.
 
newls1 said:
Why the ":rolleyes:". The more competition the better
Click to expand...

yeah that is true, but i really don´t see S3 as one of the top contenders here. Even ATI is having a hard time trying to catch up with nVidia
the "little" guys should merger, S3 (even though S3 bought Diamond Multimedia), Matrox and the others (if any :p)
 
leSLIe said:
no, what i am saying is that if the little guys want to play in the big league, they should unite ;)
Click to expand...

I agree. I wish Matrox would start pumping out cards again, to stimulate competition a bit more.
 
Why would a company like Matrox, which seems to be doing rather well in its little niche market, want to risk losing money by trying to compete in a market which it has not been a part of for 8 years? I think its more likely we'll see Intel become a serious competitor. (Though I doubt it will happen, it is probably more likely than S3 or Matrox.)
 
Matrox used to put out some great cards in the late 90's (G200/400). Around the time of the Parhelia 512 they just started falling to the wayside. :(
 
Mr. Bluntman said:
Matrox used to put out some great cards in the late 90's (G200/400). Around the time of the Parhelia 512 they just started falling to the wayside. :(
Click to expand...

The problem I had with the G400 was the really poor OpenGL performance. The drivers were terrible for that. And yeah Parhelia was a huge flop. Of course thats what happens when you release a $400 card that performs like the competitions $150 card.
 
NKDietrich said:
I think its more likely we'll see Intel become a serious competitor. (Though I doubt it will happen, it is probably more likely than S3 or Matrox.)
Click to expand...

Intel has already a big chunk in the graphic card market, discrete, integrated and crappy cards though, but a big chunk nonetheless.
 
NKDietrich said:
The problem I had with the G400 was the really poor OpenGL performance. The drivers were terrible for that. And yeah Parhelia was a huge flop. Of course thats what happens when you release a $400 card that performs like the competitions $150 card.
Click to expand...

Actually, the G400 performance problem was solved by the TurboGL, which was a performance-tuned MiniGL that ran all the game you actually care about (Quake I/II/III engine games, Half-Life). The driver would scan your drive for games compatible with the TurboGL, and automatically use it.

Yeah, it was a bit of a hack considering all other big players had high-performance OpenGL ICDs, but by that time it had become clear the Quake was going to be the one and only bastion for OpenGL gaming on Windows...so there was no point creating a speedy ICD. Since the driver did the optimization seamlessly, it wasn't a bad solution (unlike say, futzing around with MiniGLs for my old Rendition v2200, where you had to manually overwrite opengl32.dll).

And, just to add: the major reason I've always hated S3 has been the lack of good drivers. This review changes things. Now, all they need is a midrange card with a 128-bit bus, and they might get some enthusiasts to bite.
 
I'm surprised this card performed as well as it does, as its obvious with its 64bit bus and cheapo ram S3 was going for strictly HTPC/bottom barrel performance. Kinda sad there is not a 128bit faster GDDR3 version to see how it could fair against the 8600GT.
 
If they are really pushing this at the HTPC market, the lack of HDMI-over-DVI is an important (but not necessarily critical) omission.
 
NKDietrich said:
Why would a company like Matrox, which seems to be doing rather well in its little niche market, want to risk losing money by trying to compete in a market which it has not been a part of for 8 years? I think its more likely we'll see Intel become a serious competitor. (Though I doubt it will happen, it is probably more likely than S3 or Matrox.)
Click to expand...

Actually I am thinking that it is likely for at least the mid range market. Intel is fully aware that a lot people are spending a lot more on their GPUs then their CPU. In some cases 3 to 4 times as much as the CPU. I doubt that Intel like Nvidia at all. Not to mention that their chipsets are increasingly popular as people forget about the 680i problem. And they may well have a chance to compete. A lot of people have talked about moving the GPU into the CPU. I am not sure how much advantage that would bring but I am wondering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top