E3 Impressions of Parhelia SurroundGaming

[Joel]

You know I just though about it and with the way you are using FPS I'm not sure if you mean Frames Per Second or First Person Shooter. Please clarify.

Joel

[TdB]

Originally posted by Joel
You know I just though about it and with the way you are using FPS I'm not sure if you mean Frames Per Second or First Person Shooter. Please clarify.

Joel

i meant both

[wazoo]

Originally posted by Joel
You know I just though about it and with the way you are using FPS I'm not sure if you mean Frames Per Second or First Person Shooter. Please clarify.

Joel

Wait... you talkin' to me??

[Tempest]

<i>Originally posted by Zed_L:</i>
And Tempest, what did you mean by: "I do not think we should worry too much about UT2003 looking bad on the Parhelia..."???

What I meant is that I don't think we should be worried about Parhelia's rendering quality, color vibrance and such compared to the Geforce 4. But if wazoo's "picture quality" and "richness" means the level of detail the game was running at, then I can understand his concerns, and it can be directly linked to this FPS dilemma.

Parhelia undoubtedly is one mean beast in 3D, but is it mean enough to render 3 times as much information as the other cards? Sure in Quake 3 you get 250 FPS, and even if it WAS exactly 3 times the workload, Parhelia would still be able to do 83 frames per second in Surround Gaming.
But new games take the display adapter to its limits... If we take that Parhelia is as fast as the GF4 TI4600 (and continue with our crude generalization that 3 displays = FPS/3) then a new game that can run for example 80 FPS on a single screen on a TI4600 with all detail maxed, would run at 27 FPS in Surround Gaming, which some find unacceptably low. The result: Game detail has to be dropped.

Don't get me wrong, I think that Surround Gaming is a nice idea, especially for those games that we are currently playing. But for the soon-to-be-introduced games, you might have to sacrifice some detail and/or resolution to keep the experience enjoyable.

Okay, enough of this self-evident crap from me

[piaxVirus]

I don't think we will see the full potential of the Parhelia until faster CPUs come out. I expect a new 3600+ Clawhammer to give the Parhelia a major increase.

I just put my G400 32Mb card back into my gaming rig. I tosted the card in my OCing days. So the card will only run at AGPx1 now. I was still able play UT at 1800x1440x16bpp without any chop. I now have an Athlon XP 1600+ and 512Mb of ram. Before with my Duron 800 and 256Mb ram. I was only able to get 1024x768x16bpp with the same detail settings and playability.

It came very close to the speed of my Kyro II and it was about even with a Geforce 4MX 440 that I tried out a week ago (only tested UT, cuz thats all I play). This kind of speed from a card that came out in the TNT2 days. It floored me.

[wazoo]

Originally posted by Tempest
What I meant is that I don't think we should be worried about Parhelia's rendering quality, color vibrance and such compared to the Geforce 4. But if wazoo's "picture quality" and "richness" means the level of detail the game was running at, then I can understand his concerns, and it can be directly linked to this FPS dilemma.

Parhelia undoubtedly is one mean beast in 3D, but is it mean enough to render 3 times as much information as the other cards? Sure in Quake 3 you get 250 FPS, and even if it WAS exactly 3 times the workload, Parhelia would still be able to do 83 frames per second in Surround Gaming.
But new games take the display adapter to its limits... If we take that Parhelia is as fast as the GF4 TI4600 (and continue with our crude generalization that 3 displays = FPS/3) then a new game that can run for example 80 FPS on a single screen on a TI4600 with all detail maxed, would run at 27 FPS in Surround Gaming, which some find unacceptably low. The result: Game detail has to be dropped.

Don't get me wrong, I think that Surround Gaming is a nice idea, especially for those games that we are currently playing. But for the soon-to-be-introduced games, you might have to sacrifice some detail and/or resolution to keep the experience enjoyable.

Okay, enough of this self-evident crap from me

Well said. And I hope everyone understands the spirit in which my original post was made: I am in no way, shape or form married to *any* graphics card or card company (I mean come on people! It is only a piece of silicon! ) And I am absolutely rooting for the Parhelia *because* of the SurroundGaming. I mean, who wouldn't?!!? I *saw* what the potential is and it is the greatest thing since 3D acceleration IMHO.

However.... I just need to make sure it does the job. $400 for a 128meg card.... it better!

Wazoo

[Joel]

However.... I just need to make sure it does the job. $400 for a 128meg card.... it better!

Time will tell.

Joel

BTW wazoo, I'm just picking at you.

[wazoo]

Originally posted by Joel


Time will tell.

Joel

BTW wazoo, I'm just picking at you.

No worries. I'm a former prosecutor and have a *VERY* thick skin.

Wazoo

[thop]

hey wazoo, i think 60FPS average (including >30FPS even in the worst possible scenario) is enough for everyone, even for the hardcore gamer.

i am curious, can you see the difference between 60FPS and 100FPS, not in average but as a constant framerate? i believe people just feel better (this is a cousin of penis size ) knowing they have 100FPS instead of just 60FPS.

[TdB]

well, my sweet-spot is around 75fps, so I usually cap my framerates at 75fps, because i don´t like high peaks.

however when v-sync is enabled, i want the framerate to be equal to the refreshrate, because when it drops below my refreshrate, then it drops to the half of the refreshrate, which is anoying.

anything higher then the refreshrate(lowpeaks included), is IMO just bragging rights.

[ChronosZero]

Personally, I don't care about the average frame rates. I only care that the minimum stays above 30. It's all about avoiding visible slowdown when the scene gets complex.

I think people in the know want average frame rates of 60+ (especially on games that only report the average fps) to increase their chances of keeping the minimum above 30.

[TdB]

personally, i think lowpeaks at 50fps is anoying, but then again i play a lot of first person shooters at lan parties. there are some games where framerate doesn´t matter so much.

[jackzod]

Originally posted by thop
i am curious, can you see the difference between 60FPS and 100FPS, not in average but as a constant framerate? i believe people just feel better (this is a cousin of penis size ) knowing they have 100FPS instead of just 60FPS.

being an online gamers for years, in my opinion over 60 fps you wont notice difference.
I start to see a difference in the lower 50 and definitly in the 40, its still playable, but fine aiming (like sniping) is tougher since you loose some fluidity.

[Ali]

Thanks for your views Wazoo, not what I wanted to hear, but its good to keep an open mind.

Im only going to buy one more video card in the near future, because Im leaving the country in 1.5 years, and probably wont be in any one place for long enough to get a home PC again for at least 3 years. It is important to me to get a card that can do anything I throw at it for 1.5 years, and then be still usable for 2D work when I get back.

Thats the main reason Im waiting for the Parhelia, but if it wont play UT2003 and Doom3, which Im assuming will be the most stressfull games released in that timeframe, then its not for me.

I would love to get another Matrox card, because Ive always been disapointed in any other card, (except voodoo2) that Ive owned.

It does bring me back down to earth about the card though. Ive been expecting to be able to play at 1600X1200X32 at 60 Hz for all games available today, and have playable framerates at 1024X768 for all new games up to 1.5 years from now.

From what you say, that might not be the case with the Parhelia. Then again, we just wont know until its been benchmarked.

Edit: im having a bad typing day.

Ali

[typedef enum]

I would love to get another Matrox card, because Ive always been disapointed in any other card, (except voodoo2) that Ive owned

Honestly, I would love to know what cards you have owned since the Voodoo2 in which you were dissipointed in...

Just the last year alone, I've had a GF3 and a GF4, and I cannot say really anything bad about them at all...Certainly, there's no possible way one could even begin to draw any comparisons between a Voodoo2 and either of these 2 cards...Nor any of the previous generation boards (IE. GTS/GF256, TNT/TNT2, 5500, 8500, Radeon1, etc.)