I'm just wondering what the advantage of this product would be VS. on board integrated graphics chips?.

Considering how far behind Matrox is (too bad, they have always made goods products) - The on-board graphics from Nvidia and ATI are quite powerful and come with optionally with DVI, HDMI and soon Display-Port connectors.

Unless I see benchmarks - these ATI/Nvidia IGPs are just as fast.

What is Matrox's target market? Is it people that want integrated graphic but unfortunately their motherboard doesn’t have one?

Matrox is still a leader in multi port display tech and fast, quality 2d rendering. They aren't meant to be uber 3d powerhouses.

SO the advantage over integrated? Stuffing 4 or 8 monitors on one PC with zero conflicts. While doing it with a low power offering.

Integrated graphics can take put a performance hit on the cpu and other system resources (ram). This is actually a very wise product that will solidify Matrox as being the business graphics leader. Also without having to worry about being fast, quality is key and they have always had it in spades.

Matrox was the leader in fast, quality 2d rendering, but it was in past. The low end chips by ATI or NVIDIA can produce 2d image quality as good as Matrox's product nowadays, provided that the card was made with good parts and components.

FireMV by ATI and Quadro NVS by NVIDIA do provide multiple output display solution which are as good as Matrox's solution. The only advantage which Matrox offers is power comsumption - ~9-11W per card for Matrox's P690 series versus 12W-31W for NVIDIA Quadro NVS series. The thing is your have to have 2 P690 Plus to do 4 DVI output, but only 1 Quadro NVS 440 or FireMV 240 to do so. And does 22W versus 31W really a matter to business market? I guess once the card can be plugged into the PCIe slot of the existing mainboard and works, who cares?

... is people who need customized display solutions: video cards to drive custom-resolution and color-depth LCDs and LCD arrays used in specialty wall displays, medical imaging, etc., the sort of devices that may have production volumes in the area of 1000 units/month and nearly none of the other graphics chip manufacturers wish to support even if the customer is willing to pay for the design services on top of the $3000/card ASP.

Another key market is mission-critical systems and systems with long service life. For these systems, you want cards that will stand up to abuse and because mission-critical systems (think air traffic controller, MRI, digital X-rays, etc.) have to go through exhaustive hardware and software qualifications, manufacturers cannot switch video cards and drivers whenever they please... they need some extremely good reasons and saving $500 is NOT one of them. Matrox's products intended for these markets are guaranteed to be in stock for at least five years beyond the last regular order while nVidia/ATI cards are totally discontinued less than three years from introduction.

The expensive entry-level video cards they sell is to amortize the GPU's engineering costs and keep the inventory rolling.

Matrox bailed out of the 3D race after Parhelia and is unlikely to stage a comeback. At best, they might/should have DX10 parts available some point next year... and I predict more of the same entry-level "performance" at mid-range prices.

We'll see in due time.

I dont know what you guys are talking about. The graphics quality of matrox is far superior to that of any nVidia or ATI graphics card.

I have had many Matrox cards in the past, and not one of them ever gave me problems. From my 2mb Matrox Millenium, (which does run Windows Aero, and scores a 1.3 in Vista Ultimate) to my 256mb Paraphelia, ther is no supplier who makes a higher quality card. Matrox makes all of their graphics card in the United States, hence their extreme prices. I dont know ifyou have ever used a Matrox, but its an experience, they dont have dual ramdacs like other cards, they have sometimes 10-12 ramdacs, and a ram bank for each gpu processor.

Matrox kicks ass, and I would rather have one than any 8800. Their is no comparison, Matrox is the winner for me. You dont see any 8 series card pumping 3dimensional imaging through left and right eye video outputs do you. Matrox has done this for nearly half a decade. I love being able to see what an image is supposed to look like, which you cant get out of a standard graphics card. Left and right side vision, the best graphics idea ever.

By no means are Matrox designed for gaming, they are mainly designed for gene decoding, Cad and heavy workstation processes, which Quadro's and FireGl's cant do.

K-TRON the proud owner of about 18 Matrox cards.

There is no need anymore of "good 2D". With DVI/HDMI/DisplayPort, the output on screen will be good, period.
I'd prefer a 780G over this new Matrox all the way...

Plus matrox makes some great video card addons such as the dualhead2go and triplehead2go. You can achieve 3840x1024 resolution across 3 1280x1024 monitors. It is great for gaming if you have a card that can handle it.

K-TRON, I don't know what you've been smoking, but you really need to share it.

You're right, Matrox is NOT for gaming, by any stretch of the imagination. Matrox has good technology, but you can't say that the 8800 is an inferior product. Pit the two against each other in games and the Matrox will lose pitifully. Other applications may favor the Matrox, but you can't base your argument on your own applications and project them across the board.

or what?

Can you say WORKSTATION graphics for the business professional? These aren't video cards designed for gaming. Some of you are video card newbies trying to sound like you know what you're talking about.

Here's a link to the Matrox Product list.
http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/finent/products/