New Issue of Max. PC has Parhelia Article

[ben2207]

Hrm if you're under NDA with Matrox , you shouldn't post you're under NDA . Teasing you just teasing...

[Jazzz]

wats up ben, have you got your hands on the parhelia yet

[{PainCresT}DAn]

Originally posted by Jon P. Inghram


Lets taunt him, perhaps he'll become so cross he'll make a mistake (I.E. spill the beans!)

Wow, those benchmarks SUCK! I bet the Parhelia is gonna be a pile of rancid whale turds! My Geforce 256 is better than that Matrox junk! Hahahah! You sux0rz!

LOL!!! My TNT2 32MB overclocked to a geforce 3 64MB better than that damnit stupid parhelia crap card!!!

Just kidding, comon tell us tell us look I'm smiling big for ya!

[Liquid Snake]

Maybe Matrox clocked the beta boards really low and used half-assed drivers just so nVidia and ATI could remain relatively calm for now. When the benches for the final boards come out their damage control crews will have to work overtime

[Le_Bob]

Mike

As a subscriber to Maximum PC, I should make clear that 3dMark scores in Maximum PC are performed at 1280x1024. It says so in the magazine when they refer you to maximumpc.com

If they don''t clearly specify in the review that benchmarks were performed at 1024x768 then they were performed at 1028x1024 which is the standard resolution for there tests.

Even though I have not received July's Issue, there is a benchmark for de PNY Verto Geforce Ti 4600 in the June Issue at 1280x1024 with the followin results:

No Antialiasing:

Quake 3: 105.1 fps
3DMark Game 2 HQ: 87.1
3DMark Game 4 : 31.8
3DMark Overall score: 9830

2x Antialiasing:
Quake 3: 96.4 fps
3DMark Game 2 HQ: 62.1
3DMark Game 4 : 22.4
3DMark Overall score: 8340


So suggesting that Parhelias results were also at 1280x1024 as stated here http://www.maximumpc.com/reprints/re...001-08-16.html

Then the result are awesome.

I want my Parhelia now.


ps. I am not saying that the tests weren't run at 1024x768, I am just saying tha you should double check.

[DPGX]

"All benchmarks were run on our 2Ghz P4 test bed with 512 megs of RAM. All tests were run at 1280x1024 in 32 bit color except for the default 3dmark 2001SE tests which were run at the default 1024x768." direct quote from the article, I didnt pick up on it first time through the article either so I can understand the confusion

[The_King]

Originally posted by Liquid Snake
Maybe Matrox clocked the beta boards really low and used half-assed drivers just so nVidia and ATI could remain relatively calm for now. When the benches for the final boards come out their damage control crews will have to work overtime

That would be sweet if that was the case

[Reckless]

Originally posted by Le_Bob
So suggesting that Parhelias results were also at 1280x1024 as stated here http://www.maximumpc.com/reprints/re...001-08-16.html

Then the result are awesome.

I want my Parhelia now.

I didn't think that they looked that good As I'm only a semi serious gamer and having survived with my G400Max since release it's fair to assume the Parhelia will do all that I need. I do not think that these scores are particulary hot even taking into account an early board/driver combination. As long as the price and availability isn't to bad then I expect to grab one on release. However, if either of those things are bad then I suppose a GF4/4200 is a possibility

[thop]

i will probably go for a 8500 LE but i want parhelia

[BuddMan]

Well, I really want to see Parhelia's muscle in action. Morrowind. Test the card with Morrowind for crying out loud...

[Fogel]

Originally posted by TDB
so the gf4ti performance is pratically cut in half, with 8tap-aniso + 4fsaa.
that makes the parhelia look pretty good in comparison.

Yes, I can't agree more on this. I am really surpriced how much performance Geforce card lose on anisotropic filtering. These benchmarks is in 1024*768 so the performance loss is more in higher resolutions and more demanding games. I really prefer using higher resolutions than using FSAA (I never use FSAA on my GF3 ti 200), but it looks like FAA*16 is also usable in high resolutions without much performace hit and no image quality loss. If it would be possible to use the Parhelia in 1600*1200 with anisotropic filtering and FAA*16 on, with decent frame rate I think I found my "dream card".

As I play alot of racing sims the FAA*16 is my favorite feature of the Parhelia.

[DukeP]

My sweet spot would be 1280x1024x32bit. Give me ~85fps on a thin spread average and Im game.

~~DukeP~~

[borat]

hmm those scores look quite nice and will more than do for single monitor gaming for the products life very nicely especially with better drivers. however triple monitor gaming will not be great with this card, maybe next year when they release the .13 micron version (p.s. that was not the queue for the .13 micron argument again!)

[TdB]

well, I don´t think you should judge parhelia by these scores, I but more faith in the rumors of 11k+ 3dmarks, however the low performance loss with aniso+16xfaa, is probably realistic enough.

[Reckless]

Originally posted by ralf
I still don´t understand why the moronic 1280x1024 resolution is used, and even referred to as standard.

Err, explain why you think it's moronic? Too big or too small?

I personally run 1024*768 on a 19" Sony flat CRT. This gives me good speed and good quality. Depends on the software title for higher/lower res but this generally works for me.