Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Blitz_Lightning on June 24, 2002, 05:03:01 pm

Title: Parhelia review
Post by: Blitz_Lightning on June 24, 2002, 05:03:01 pm: Tom's hardware has one of the first reviews of the Matrox Parhelia card. (Although it is in German, the graphs should still tell you quite a bit).

From HardOCP

Quote
Aquanox - Parhelia was beaten by ATI's 128MB 8500 and the Ti4600 nearly doubled the score.
Comanche 4 - Parhelia not breaking the 30FPS barrier at 1024x768 while the Ti4600 broke 40.

Jedi Knight 2 - At 1024x768 the Parhelia was about 30% behind both the 8500 and the Ti4600.

3DMark2002 SE v330 - Just breaking into the 7000s while their test system was breaking 10K with the Ti4600. The 8500 dusted it again as well.

Quake 3 Arena - Parhelia lagging way behind both cards and not even giving deathmatch playable frame rates at 1600x1200 in my opinion.
Title: Parhelia review
Post by: Shrike on June 24, 2002, 05:44:08 pm: So.... don't get one in other words?
Title: Parhelia review
Post by: Fineus on June 25, 2002, 01:21:31 am: Going by what it says there, yeah - unless you don't mind low FPS...
Title: Parhelia review
Post by: Eternal One on June 25, 2002, 02:02:03 am: I think Matrox has publicly stated that Parhelia doesn't match with 8500 and Gf4's in games not using dx9 technology.
Title: Parhelia review
Post by: Nico on June 25, 2002, 02:08:33 am: Quote
Originally posted by Eternal One
I think Matrox has publicly stated that Parhelia doesn't match with 8500 and Gf4's in games not using dx9 technology.

translation: it doesn't match both cards in a single existing game so far. cool, talk about long time investisment :p
Is that a new markething thing, selling hardware for software that don't even exists yet?
Title: Parhelia review
Post by: wEvil on June 25, 2002, 03:09:33 am: Don't be so quick to slag off new technology.

Matrox have other things going for them except speed.

This benchmark is on a pre-release board with immature drivers, and beleive me on this technology where the graphics chip is more a huge array of programmable SIMD pipelines driver optimisation means a HUGE amount.

Wait for more and better reviews to appear - specially from places like CADENCE and other pro resources. Toms Hardware do good work (sometimes) but like all these toy review sites they just don't dig deep enough most of the time.

You cannot expect such a radically different architecture to perform top notch before its even available. Take Intels Itanic/Mkinley/ IA-64 chips. Their performance is dire compared to IA-32/x86 platforms, although it remains to be seen as to wether intel can pull a rabbit out of the hat on this front.
Title: Parhelia review
Post by: Nico on June 25, 2002, 03:34:14 am: well, as there's no link providen, as it's said it's a review ( and not a preview ), I assumed it was out already I blame cana... I blame blitz :p
Title: Parhelia review
Post by: Unknown Target on June 25, 2002, 09:52:51 am: The big thing about the Parhelia is that it supports 16x Fractal AA, at a barely perceptable performance hit, and it supports three monitors at once, for a 150 degree view of a given gameworld.
Title: Parhelia review
Post by: Fineus on June 25, 2002, 10:25:36 am: Wont that require 3 monitors or the desire for insanely AAs gameplay? I mean those are some nice points but are they really going to get used by your average gamer?
Title: Parhelia review
Post by: wEvil on June 25, 2002, 10:33:59 am: Matrox are having some fabrication problems with the silicon,, nothing more.

As soon as they quish the bugs and ramp the clockspeed up, everything should turn rosy ;)
Title: Parhelia review
Post by: Unknown Target on June 25, 2002, 10:34:38 am: Exactly. I think the chip is really only ment for the really rich Xtreme gamers.

BTW, you should see 16x AA, it looks absolutely stunning!
Title: Parhelia review
Post by: Blitz_Lightning on June 25, 2002, 04:59:42 pm: Whoops... forgot to post the link... well, here (http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q2/020625/index.html) it is anyway... sorry:D
Title: Parhelia review
Post by: CP5670 on June 25, 2002, 09:08:52 pm: The money is not too much of a problem for me as long as it is not really bad, but it needs to be fast, which from that review it does not appear to be. :p
Title: Parhelia review
Post by: Blitz_Lightning on June 26, 2002, 03:52:08 am: Quote
BTW, you should see 16x AA, it looks absolutely stunning!

The GF4 is almost as good at it as well, and a lot faster at it.
Title: Parhelia review
Post by: wEvil on June 26, 2002, 04:05:40 am: Quote
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning

The GF4 is almost as good at it as well, and a lot faster at it.

the Nvidia AA algortyhm is pretty awful to be honest.
Title: Parhelia review
Post by: Blitz_Lightning on June 26, 2002, 04:18:27 am: Quote
the Nvidia AA algortyhm is pretty awful to be honest.

hmm, really? Take a look at these (http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q2/020625/parhelia-22.html) pictures.

Also, the textures are much better on the GF4.
Title: Parhelia review
Post by: wEvil on June 26, 2002, 05:16:37 am: Quote
Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning

hmm, really? Take a look at these (http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q2/020625/parhelia-22.html) pictures.

Also, the textures are much better on the GF4.

Right - go into Mental Ray or Renderman.

plug in the Parhelia 16x FSAA algorythm.

then try plugging in quincunx.

No prizes for guessing which one comes out tops.

Remember benchmarks on directX 8 platforms are automatically biased the GF4's/Radeons' featureset.
Title: Parhelia review
Post by: Blitz_Lightning on June 26, 2002, 05:20:25 am: Well, prolly u r the graphics xpert...I ain't gonna argue :D