Please, guys, stop bashing each other's skulls. And stop making assumptions about each other, I have no reason to doubt the sincerity and professionality of any of the beta testers.
The card that CT tested in Issue 14/2002 is the STANDARD version of the card, and they further specify it as having : 128 mb memory, 3.3 ns DDR-Ram, 220 MHz chip clock, 275 MHz memory clock, bundled with DV-i to VGA plus DV-i to 2x VGA adapter, VGA to composite & S-video adapter. Software bundled was a Photoshop plug-in, Gigacolor Viewer, Color calibration. Priced at 480 Euro.
I don't wish to add fuel to the fire, but I have yet to find a more professional and in-depth magazine than Ct. I myself, being a software engineer, have bought every single issue since 1990 and not regretted a single one of them. They are the standard against which I measure all other magazines, including the ones from the other side of the pond. And I do buy a terrible lot of reading stuff each month (being a pentalingual technology freak).
If the Ct guys test a piece of hardware, they really test it to the smoking bone, rely on that. In the same issue a well-known motherboard manufacturer took a beating because his mobo produced a single-bit error in a 16-hours stability test.
I'd like to remark that PAL has a higher-frequency color burst (4.3 Mhz) than NTSC. So there's no reason at all to cutoff composite luminance at 2.3 Mhz (sorry for the mis-quote of 2.4). Unless the card is multi-standard, and the low-pass filtering is done to accomodate NTSC users?
I quote about the VGA signal quality:
"Up to 1280-er resolutions, the Parhelia achieved very good results indeed in the VGA test. At the 1600x1200 resolution at 85 Hz however, which is the relevant one for its rating in this test, it does not do any better than most competing products. At least the Matrox delivers identical quality on the first and second output"
The card that CT tested in Issue 14/2002 is the STANDARD version of the card, and they further specify it as having : 128 mb memory, 3.3 ns DDR-Ram, 220 MHz chip clock, 275 MHz memory clock, bundled with DV-i to VGA plus DV-i to 2x VGA adapter, VGA to composite & S-video adapter. Software bundled was a Photoshop plug-in, Gigacolor Viewer, Color calibration. Priced at 480 Euro.
I don't wish to add fuel to the fire, but I have yet to find a more professional and in-depth magazine than Ct. I myself, being a software engineer, have bought every single issue since 1990 and not regretted a single one of them. They are the standard against which I measure all other magazines, including the ones from the other side of the pond. And I do buy a terrible lot of reading stuff each month (being a pentalingual technology freak).
If the Ct guys test a piece of hardware, they really test it to the smoking bone, rely on that. In the same issue a well-known motherboard manufacturer took a beating because his mobo produced a single-bit error in a 16-hours stability test.
I'd like to remark that PAL has a higher-frequency color burst (4.3 Mhz) than NTSC. So there's no reason at all to cutoff composite luminance at 2.3 Mhz (sorry for the mis-quote of 2.4). Unless the card is multi-standard, and the low-pass filtering is done to accomodate NTSC users?
I quote about the VGA signal quality:
"Up to 1280-er resolutions, the Parhelia achieved very good results indeed in the VGA test. At the 1600x1200 resolution at 85 Hz however, which is the relevant one for its rating in this test, it does not do any better than most competing products. At least the Matrox delivers identical quality on the first and second output"
Comment