Matrox Xenia : up to 1GiB, OpenGL 2.0, WDDM

[AnarchX]

Enjoy the view.
Matrox Xenia™ Series display controller boards are designed for use in computed radiography (CR), digital radiography (DR), and PACS workstations and support a wide range of display formats, resolutions and configurations. The native PCIe x16 single slot boards feature up to 1 GB of on-board RAM for fast image loading capacity and manipulation and each board can drive up to three high resolution digital displays, minimizing time required to install, configure and deploy imaging workstations. Each display output from Xenia and Xenia Pro supports 8-, 10- and 13-bit independent GAMMA LUTs for precise DICOM calibration of grayscale and color displays, providing more accurate image display for viewing and diagnoses.[...]

http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/med/products/xenia/home.php

It seems that Matrox made in silence a new GPU-architecture with modern feature-set or?
Maybe a base for consumer-products? :smile:

 

[Blazkowicz]

• Enhanced features available through Matrox imaging Library (MIL) to enable hardware-accelerated operations such as image cached window/levelling, zoom, and the ability to view 1024 simultaneous shades of gray from 16-bit source images.

it looks like all that ram is used to buffer all those big medical bitmaps, and the emphasis is on precision and fast, smooth handling of those images.

 

[Davros]

it will cost a fortune, suck at games and if you really need 1gb gfx ram buy a firegl or quadro

 

[Blazkowicz]

or 3850, 9600GT, 8800GT 1GB, which are cheap.

 

[RejZoR]

Matrox has focused on corporate/medical solutions. They've left the consumer market long ago...

 

[AnarchX]

Matrox M series:
http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/press/releases/2008/corpo/mseries/

Since it seems affordable, hopefully someone will run some benchmarks or analyze the architecture throug some tests. :smile:

 

[Scali]

I can't even find info on what version of Direct3D it supports, let alone the shader model.
All it seems to say is OpenGL 2.0, which could still mean anything as far as shaders are concerned.

 

[AlphaWolf]

doesn't it have to support directx 10 to support aero?

 

[no-X]

dx9 is sufficient for aero

 

[AlphaWolf]

dx9 is sufficient for aero

at least it confirms dx9 then, because they do mention aero.

 

[Color me Dan]

Is it the same core that they've abused since the Parhelia or is it a new one? I'd imagine that if it has full Dx9 support it's new since the Parhelia never supported DX9 in full, lacking SM 2.0.

 

[Kaotik]

Is it the same core that they've abused since the Parhelia or is it a new one? I'd imagine that if it has full Dx9 support it's new since the Parhelia never supported DX9 in full, lacking SM 2.0.

PS 2.0 you mean? The hardware had capabilities needed for VS2.0 even if it was never exposed in public drivers

 

[AnarchX]

Windows VISTA, WDDM-Treiber


Fillrate Tester
--------------------------
Display adapter: Matrox M9120 PCIe x16
Driver version: 7.14.1.84
Display mode: 1280x1024 A8R8G8B8 60Hz
Z-Buffer format: D16_LOCKABLE
--------------------------
FFP - Pure fillrate - 592.178772M pixels/sec
FFP - Z pixel rate - 563.812195M pixels/sec
FFP - Single texture - 1890.933838M pixels/sec
FFP - Dual texture - 970.697144M pixels/sec
FFP - Triple texture - 647.008728M pixels/sec
FFP - Quad texture - 476.300140M pixels/sec
PS 1.1 - Simple - 1225.333374M pixels/sec
PS 1.4 - Simple - 902.321106M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Simple - 1225.328369M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 PP - Simple - 1225.294922M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Longer - 902.230042M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 PP - Longer - 902.185303M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Longer 4 Registers - 902.300354M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 PP - Longer 4 Registers - 902.234497M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Per Pixel Lighting - 107.735771M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 PP - Per Pixel Lighting - 107.735023M pixels/sec

http://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=6663499#post6663499

 

[Neeyik]

Well, at least that's better than the P650 I used to have:

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8696029

    Fill Rate (Single-Texturing)  	287.89 MTexels/s
    Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) 	800.34 MTexels/s
    High Polygon Count (1 light) 	13.3 MTriangels/s
    High Polygon Count (8 lights) 	4.61 MTriangels/s

 

[Color me Dan]

PS 2.0 you mean? The hardware had capabilities needed for VS2.0 even if it was never exposed in public drivers

No I read that there were some significant hardware problems that hindered VS 2.0 performance in the Parhelia core to the point it was not possible to work around in software. I think I read it in either hothardware or tomshardware. A review site non the less. Which is why it was puzzling me whether it was based on that core if it indeed supported VS 2.0, aka fully dx9 compatible.

Here is a quote from Wiki:

Later in Parhelia's life, when DirectX 9 applications were becoming quite prevalent, Matrox acknowledged that the vertex shaders were not Shader Model 2.0 capable, and as such not DirectX 9-compliant, as was initially advertised. Presumably there were several bugs within the Parhelia core that could not be worked around in the drivers.

Sorry if it seems I'm dragging it up a lot hehe, I just want to know if it's a new architecture.

 

[AnarchX]

SM/VS 3.0

VertexShaderVersion: 3.0
MaxVertexShaderConst: 256
PixelShaderVersion: 3.0
PixelShader1xMaxValue: 3.40282E+038
MaxVShaderInstructionsExecuted: 65.535
MaxPShaderInstructionsExecuted: 65.535
MaxVertexShader30InstructionSlots: 512
MaxPixelShader30InstructionSlots: 512

http://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=6666052#post6666052

 

[Davros]

AnarchX how does that compare to an ati/nv card (any?)
i mean the fillrate tester

 

[Neeyik]

On the pure fill rate figures alone, something like a GeForce 6200 TurboCache.

 

[Color me Dan]

Haha, excuse my laziness, it has all been answered I see. Thanks for putting up with it though.