pharhelia picture and number

[notagain]

memory chips are 128 Mo Infineon 3.3ns ,

therefor I m a bit puzzle :
why does matrox advertise one web page 275Mhz for the memory (giving 16.6 Go/s banwith)
and advertise 20 Go/s on other web page ?

more over since the chips can handle 300 Mhz why under clock them to 275.

something doesnt makes sense.



It actualy makes sences: why dont let people talk about Frequency since Matrox published number on there web site..


also Matrox Keeps saying, shouting and telling reviewer that the Parhelia IS NOT A GAMER CARD, (neither a hardcore gamer card) but a card for PROFESSIONAL who required multiple display and best quality for image editing software. without closing the door to causual playing.

You all knew that of course, but to we really understand what it means or are we under the charms.

anyway parhelia is best quality Graphic card with 3D and not the other way around (A 3D card with best quality )

[knirfie]

so? it still delivers kick-ass speed in games, WITH THE BEST QUALITY

[[GDI]Raptor]

Ahhh! Just what i'm looking for!
That's why I didn't by that GeForce4 Ti4600

[notagain]

my point was

it has its target with is not IHMO the majotity of the audiance of the websites that will review the card next week.

and that the card better be reviewed by www.computerarts.co.uk
than [H] or gamersonline.com

I dont think I 'm 'that much' exagerating by saying the above

the comment about 3.3ns chip being use a 275 Mhz still stand open

[Ant]

Wasn't the 20GB figure the theoretical maximum from the chip spec though not the figure quoted for an actual board?

[frankymail]

Anyway, the ramsinks are ready and I'll be CNCing the heatexchanger tomorrow morning (fluorinert + peltier + parhelia = one F**kingly fast card ) so I guess I should be able to reach at least 275 core / 325 mem... I believe that the way to boost parhelia's performance, contrary to Radeon 8550/ GeForce 3/4 will be to boost core speed rather than mem speeds... Now, if only Matrox would issue a press release saying that they are shipping preordered cards in advance, my life would be fulfilled Maybe I should start considering phase-change liquid CO2 cooling . . .

[TdB]

about the ram speeds, I guess it is a good idea to have a good safety-margin, for stability reasons.
pushing the card to its maximum + some, is not the best way to make a quality-card.
overclockers might like this gesture though.

[Jazzz]

it says 20GB/s i don't remember anything about the max being 20 GB/s you need about 315MHz to get 20GB/s as well

[Kenshin]

I believe that the way to boost parhelia's performance, contrary to Radeon 8550/ GeForce 3/4 will be to boost core speed rather than mem speeds...
>> yes, the memory isn't a llimitation at all with 16.6 Go/s bandwich
boosting core will boost a lot performance

[Ant]

All manufacturers quote their theoretical maximum but do we ever see it in real life?

[TdB]

Originally posted by Ant
All manufacturers quote their theoretical maximum but do we ever see it in real life?

well, the kyro2 was pretty close.

[notagain]

quote from matrox
"GPU with a true 256-bit DDR memory interface providing over 20 gigabytes per second (GB/s) of raw memory bandwidth"


Sir Ant: I agree that the above could have been be marketing:
ie:
"providing over 20 gigabytes per second (GB/s) of raw memory bandwidth" IF you use adequate memory chips ...


BUT the pharhelia Precisely use memory chips capable of delivering that bandwith: infineon 3.3 ns

therefor Why o why are those 300Mhz chips are use at 275 ?

I dont buy the "for stability reasons": there are already marging taken when you rate a chip.

I could come up with a wacky explanation: gpu core and memory must be cloked at a certain ratio in order to work properly.
300mhz memory =>240 Mhz Gpu core
and 240Mhz => alphabord cooling ?? pretty wacky init ? I dont dont buy this explanation either , but that's the only i could come to

[TdB]

perhaps they hope the 256mb parhelia will sell better, if the 128mb parhelia is clocked low.

[notagain]

yes that is a good explanation ... if matrox had a low opinion of its customer

[frankymail]

Well, I was saying that we'd gain more by boosting core speed than boosting mem speed because parhelia is a relatively low-speed GPU with lot's of texture units (16, just like the NV30 and R300, though those will have 8 pipes with 2 tex. units each) and most game cannot take advantage of all those texturing units per pipeline. That's why a G4 TI 4600 outperforms a Parhelia, because even though the Parhelia has a Theorical fillrate of 3.5 GTexels/s and the G4 TI 4600 only 2.4 GTexels/s, the G4 has a fillrate of 1.2 GPixels/s while Parhelia's only got 880 MPixels/s... (that and very optimized drivers. after all, nVIDIA's got one heck of a software engineering team)