tomshardware review online!

[MadScot]

Kosh: What if Parhelia looked and played as well in 640x480 with FAA and Ansio on as gf4 did at 1024x768?

MadScot

[MadScot]

Originally posted by Electric Amish


That's not really a fair statement. That's comparing Matrox 16x FAA to Nvidia 4x FSAA.

Matrox 16x FAA vs. Nvidia Quincunx, Nvidia comes out ahead, slightly.

amish

True. I have not compared the IQ, nor even seen a Pahrelia in action, so I was going on the assumption that FAA and 4xFSAA from Nvidia are comparible. But the bbz all seem to run FAA all the time. I dont know anyone who runs 4x or quincunx on their gf4 all the time, or even rarely.

MadScot

[BoD.Led]

Oh well, let's hope that the 256 RAM coming later will be better!

[Electric Amish]

Using Anisotropic, it shows a comparison with the Geforce 4 (LV2) (LV8). I assume 2-tap & 8-tap. What is the Parhelia capable of? Is it always 8-tap or something different?

amish

[Jazzz]

If you look at Aquanox and parhelia get 24.6 fps at 1600x1200 and that seems very low to me

[[Ch]amsalot]

It's way too early to make any comparisons between the GF4 Ti 4600 and the Parhelia, other than 16XFAA appears to be substantially higher quality than GF4 4xFSAA. Quincunx FSAA is, IMNSHO, a joke. I've yet to see anything look decent with Quincunx FSAA, and furthermore, it screws up text in many games (e.g., Everquest).


-[Ch]ams

[Zed_L]

What a disappointment. In raw power "P" doesn't come even near Gf4Ti4600....

And even when FAA and Anisotropic filtering is used the results are not at all what I was expecting.

Well I guess we've gotta wait for other reviews too, but it doesn't look too good I've gotta admit.

Seems like it's all about the same'ol "But Matrox has better image quality..."

I thought that with all the eye candy GF4 would not have a chance....

[Indiana]

Come on you can't really compare NVidias Quincunx against Matrox AA. IMHO Quincunx FSAA looks WORSE than no FSAA at all, cause all it seems to do is blur the whole image...

Still those results do not look so nice, IMO. The card is much slower than I expected (even considering FAA and aniso performance). The only really strong point of the Parhelia seems to be the fragment antialiasing.
And the quality of Matrox' anisotropic filtering is way too low. Since I'm putting MUCH more emphasis on anisotropic filtering than on AA, this is a major drawback to me. Hopefully there will be registry settings to enable a higher anisotropic filtering.

[Electric Amish]

Originally posted by Zed_L
What a disappointment. In raw power "P" doesn't come even near Gf4Ti4600....

And even when FAA and Anisotropic filtering is used the results are not at all what I was expecting.

Well I guess we've gotta wait for other reviews too, but it doesn't look too good I've gotta admit.

Seems like it's all about the same'ol "But Matrox has better image quality..."

I thought that with all the eye candy GF4 would not have a chance....

I'm sure drivers have a lot to do with it. What generation are the Geforce drivers on? Versus Beta Matrox drivers.

amish

[Wombat]

Oh well, let's hope that the 256 RAM coming later will be better!

Why would that make any difference at all?

[[Ch]amsalot]

You also can't rely at all on the Vertex Shader scores. Matrox Parhelia is geared up for DX9 Vertex Shader operations, which cannot be done by either Ti 4600 or Radeon 8500. One wonders why Tom even bothered to make the comparison.

Clearly, for the FSAA and Aniso tests Quake3 is not utilizing anywhere near the potential memory bandwidth of Parhelia. As I've said in prior posts, by the time games are released that would take advantage of Parhelia's prowress, we'll be comparing NV30 and R300 to ParheliaII.

It is interesting to note that you'll get practically identical framrates between GF4 Ti 4600 and Parhelia at all resolutions for Quake III with best image quality (16xFAA & Aniso filtering enabled).

-[Ch]ams

[Alfie]

If we are to judge the Parhelia by benchmarks and the fps,we may as well pack it in and go home.
The questions that should be asked,is the game playable(I mean do you get fragged before you can get a shot off,or can you win?)
Is the image quality very high standard and with all the eye candy turned on is the game playable?
When we judge a video card based soley upon fps,we've already succumbed to the wisdom of the unwashed.
Will the card improve with new drivers?
They usually do.
Are the added features built into the card something that will serve us further down the road?
They probably will,as new games are written to take advantage of them.
Hence,the card has some future built into it,as opposed to changing video cards every 6 monthes.
I always find it SO sad when a decent product is judged soley by it's speed,whether it be fps,mhz,fpu.
Bigger questions should be asked and hopefully answered.

[Mikko]

Surround Gaming with GF4 Ti4600: 0 FPS

[Indiana]

Originally posted by Electric Amish


I'm sure drivers have a lot to do with it. What generation are the Geforce drivers on? Versus Beta Matrox drivers.

amish

Let's hope so. And since the FSAA (not the FAA) performance of the Parhelia should be way better with it's high bandwidth, there is definitely a possibility that other things are not yet really optimized as well.

[[Ch]amsalot]

Wombat asked, with respect to 256MB vs. 128MB

Why would that make any difference at all?

256MB will probably be the card du jour for surround gaming. There's probably only so much 128MB will do when you're powering three monitors.

-[Ch]ams