The speed of the graphic cards??

[Mikko]

Hello!

I have never used any other graphic cards to play games but Matrox G400 (and Productiva G100 and Mystique 4 Mb). I would like to ask something about the speed of the currently fastest cards (unfortunately ATI and NVidia).

1. Can you play every single game available in the moment with absolutely playable framerate with 1024x768 32-bit color with max details enabled?

2. If not, what are the games that would require even more performance for the card?

3. Do you expect the Matrox Parhelia give that kind of performance, so you can play with the settings mentioned above?

Thanks to everyone who answers!

[Reverend Maynard]

I dunno about all games, but I can speak on behalf of the games i play currently. I have an Athlonxp@1.6 and a Geforce 3 Ti200 clocked somewhere between a geforce 3 and a Ti500. The two main games I play now are Jedi Knight 2 and GTA 3(fantastic game). I can play both at 1024x768 with everything but AA maxed. My friend has a similiar rig and he seems to have a hard time maxing Morrowind even at 1024x768, overall its fine, but any big battles or cities bring the fps down quite a bit as I understand it.

As for the Parhelia, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that it will be able to easily run any current game maxxed at 1024x768, but future games for a good while too. Add the seemingly awesome 16x wierd AA method and the future looks damn good.

[Indiana]

1. Yes, most times even with 2x FSAA enabled. AthlonXP1700+ here, with an ATIRadeon8500 OEM/LE running at 300/300. (for those lawyers out there: this OF COURSE includes only the games I have. Yes, I have heard there seems to be some problem with ATIs drivers and Comanche4, but I couldn't care less....)

2. N/A

3. Well, I surely expect the Parhelia to beat this performance - but not for the 1024 scores, but for the 1600x1200x32 ones with full aniso and AA on. If not, I guess I won't buy the Parhelia, even more so if it can't match ATIs DVD / desktop video performance, but I expect (and according to the availale info) the Matrox will beat the ATI even in this field by some margin.

As most others I'll have to wait for the final boards to be tested (but not by Tom's "IntelVidia" hardware, as I know beforehand what result they will get...: rolleyes: )

[icemaker]

Dont' know about you all, but playing any game at 1024x768 is like the absolute max for me. Anything higher then 1024x768 is totally insane and too small to enjoy, unless you have a bigger monitor like 21 inch ?? Thats my opinion.

[High_Jumbllama]

Currently using . . .

CUrrently using a 32MB Geforce2 DDR. It can run Unreal Tournament at 1600 by 1200by32 with everything on. THis card is a low end card for the new games so theoretically a next Gen Nvidia, nextgen ATI, or a Parhelia would be more than powerful enough to handle the new games at 1024x768x32bit.

[Colin Morey]

I'd like to be able to play games above my current 640x480 (G400 that's slightly unstable), seeing as i have a monitor that will do 2048x15xx I'd like to think that single player would be playable at that.

[DuRaNgO]

Get real

[Colin Morey]

why not

[Pace]

<--- Appropriate icon

Originally posted by icemaker
Dont' know about you all, but playing any game at 1024x768 is like the absolute max for me. Anything higher then 1024x768 is totally insane and too small to enjoy, unless you have a bigger monitor like 21 inch ?? Thats my opinion.

[Mikko]

Originally posted by BuddMan
Mikko, Parhelia will be more than enough for current and future games. Even a GF4 or an 8500 will do fine. I would be more concerned with your CPU, esp. if you upgrade cause it's gonna be your bottleneck for whatever new video card you get.

I know my CPU is little bit too slow and I have already started saving some money to get new AthlonXP of some kind shortly.


Edit: and new motherboard

[Indiana]

Better get a new monitor, too.

(P.S.: I have a 22" one so this is why I DO care about 1600x1200 WITH antialiasing)