Matrox Parhelia benches! weee I saw it in person!!!

[maharajah]

Very well said.
3DFX (sp) knew this, thus their motion blur feature.
Supposedly this feature will be in the next nVidia board.
I'm willing to bet that as soon as nVidia boards have motion blur, the nVidia fans will expound to the ATI fans that image quality is more important than FPS.
And of course, claim that they are the pioneers and innovators of 3D image quality

[Mill PowerDoc]

Originally posted by Dr Mordrid

Beyond about 60 Hz the CFF (critical flicker frequency) a flickering light (or sequence of video frames) appears to be steadily on.

Then why does glancing at a monitor running at 60Hz cause my eyes to water Mr. SmartyPants?

[Kruzin]

Because when you glance at your monitor and breathe out, it bounces off your monitor, back in your face.

[DukeP]

loool...
ROFL.

Well Kruzin, sometimes You are just straight out mean.


The biological reason for dizzyness and eyestrain when watching refreshrates in the low 40 -100Hz is VSYNC error. Your eyes are trying to focus on the scandlines and your head is trying to interpolate to a still image. there propably is a "correct" frequence for each person, at each given time, that would sync with that persons perception, at that given time.

In reality its much easyer to just go for as high a refreshrate as possible.
Personally I would never go below 85Hz ~which coincidently (or not) is my preferred minimum framerate in games - since i dont like tearing and always play with vsync ON.

~~DukeP~~

[Ali]

Originally posted by Reckless

As far as I've read the nVidia 4600 can muster up around 180FPH in 1024*768 in HQ mode (Q3 Demo001). OK, so the Parhelia doesn't hit it at that height but it's not far off - 160 at medium (assuming it was timedemo score?) therefore drop again for HQ.

Well, according to here:

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1583&p=9

The 4600 can do 218 fps at 1024*768*32 High Quality, and supprisingly gets 160fps at 1600*1200 high quality.

now I know fps isnt everything, but it is something.

I think what everybody wants is a card that can do the refresh rate of their monitor at all resolutions with all eye candy on. Why would you want anything else?

Ali

[Michel Carleer]

Doc,
Are you sure about the decay times for cones and rods? I was under the impression that luminance cells were faster than the chrominance. Your numbers seem to imply the reverse.
Also, do these numbers (rise and decay times of the cells response) depend in anyway on the on/off ratio of the flashing light source? I am asking because there is a very big difference between a movie at a theater, where the on time of a picture far exceeds the off picture switching time, and the formation of an image on a TV tube, where a single pixel is most of the time in the off state, being on only when the electron beam scans it (OK, that's not entirely true due to the phosphor remanence but this one is usually rather short for TV tubes).

[Reckless]

Originally posted by Ali


Well, according to here:

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1583&p=9

The 4600 can do 218 fps at 1024*768*32 High Quality, and supprisingly gets 160fps at 1600*1200 high quality.

Ali

That'll be the speed in Demo004 whereas I just happen to choose Demo001. It's all about complexity of the scene I guess.

FPS is just a simplistic way to measure the value of something. Cars do the same with BHP, Hi-Fi's with watts and I'm pretty damn sure we all dont drive Ferraris and have 60000W of metal pumping out of our noise boxes.

[Pace]

But buying the world's fastest car is somewhere around the cost 500 graphics cards I'm only buying 1 graphics card.

The reason I want Parhelia to cope *easily* with UT2 is so that it will cope easily with DooM III, and will cope well with most games 3 years from now. Sounds like SurroundGaming will only be viable with the upcoming generation of games, without cutting back on the visuals.

P.

[Jon P. Inghram]

Florescent and incandescent lighting flickers at 120 Hz, double the line frequency.

[Joel]

You know what I haven't seen? What were the system specs of the machine that it was run on? That can make alot of difference.

Joel

[agallag]

Isn't the point of DVI and LCD panels to get rid of scanning completely? If it's not, it should be. What we need is individually addressed pixels, each one only changing when it has to. That way, there would be no such thing as scanning frequency or flicker.

[Buback]

I feel the same as pace. I bought the g400 because i wanted the best card at the time, which i assumed would last me the longest. I feel I got my money's worth.

yet many nvidia fans replace their cards with every new generation, just to get higher frame rates. obviously they like pissing contests and have money to burn.

I've come to appreciate the quality of my g400 much more than my frame rate, so i'll be buying another matrox card.

regarding performance: Even with the parhelia's large pipe, it could benifit from hiden surface removal.

Does anyone think that this might be implemented in software, and they are saving it to spring on us at a later date? or maybe it will be included when the die shrinks?

Does anyone think that we will have to wait for a whole 'nother generation befor matrox includes this feature?

[Rags]

Nah, Kruzin is just an ass

[frankymail]

It was run on the "fastest Athlon XP processor available and Via KT333", so they said…

[Indiana]

I was not speaking of framerates in excess of 100fps, I think 50-60 fps minimum is enough.

But an average of 55fps with a quite old engine at only medium detail-level (and this on a highest-end system) still doesn't look too good for surround-gaming in future titles...

I don't really care, though as I'll never have thew space for three monitors and the perfomance in single-mode should be sufficient for some time (But it has to be higher than my R8500 at max. quality settings, otherwise there's not enough reason to upgrade).