Hmm if Parhelia can easily run Unreal 2003 at E3 on 3 screens, than i see now reason why it can't run any other game at comfortbale frame rates, that review seems very fishy :/
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
tomshardware review online!
Collapse
X
-
Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe (nForce2)>>AMD 2500+@ 3200+ (Barton)>>1.5 GB Ram (PC400)>>Leadtek GF 6800 12x6(385/850)>>Western Digital 120GB (WD1200JB) & Fujitsu 20Gb(MPF3204AT)>>Cambridge Audio azur 540A>>Razer Viper(Mouse)>>V7 V7S20PD 20.1 TFT Monitor>>NEC 3510A>>Lite-ON (40x10)>>Cherry CyMotion>>CanoScan N670U>>Epson Stylus Color 760>>Windows XP (SP2)
-
posted by kruzin in http://forums.murc.ws/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33757
-No benchmarks from us period untill reviews are posted.This sig is a shameless atempt to make my post look bigger.
Comment
-
Originally posted by BuddMan
Well, here's something I pulled from my cache. I wouldn't hold it in high regard though. I never trusted Tom's reviews....Specs:
MSI 745 Ultra :: AMD Athlon XP 2000+ :: 1024 MB PC-266 DDR-RAM :: HIS Radeon 9700 (Catalyst 3.1) :: Creative Soundblaster Live! 1024 :: Pioneer DVD-106S :: Western Digital WD800BB :: IBM IC35L040AVVN07
Comment
-
We already knew that Parhelia won't beat GF4 highest framerates (Matrox has said that before, atleast for lower res). But I certainly want to know if Parhelia fails to give smooth and playable FPS. After this first review, I am still very confident that Parhelia would give me that smoothness. I believe that Kruzin and others with their own experiences with Parhelia are telling the truth about the performance of Parhelia.
Comment
-
It has NOT been posted. I was just residing somewhere on the server to be there when the review should go online but without any link to it.
Someone (likely by insider knowledge) found the pages. Now they're withdrawn as they were not meant for the public yet. Maybe this was even only a version for further editing and the final review will look different (not that I really believe that though).
Comment
-
- I admit, these results are pretty dissapointing. But i say take it as shadows and dust. Remember when the Radeon 8500 was first released? It could barely compete with a regular Geforce3. And now its easily comparable to a Geforce 4Ti4400.
The Parhelia obviously has the power, its just the immature drivers that could use work on IMO. Still, im waiting and watching. -- ? -
Comment
-
Let's wait a bit more for some serious reviews...
Honestly: I DON'T CARE if the Parhelia does Q3 at 100FPS "only".
What I really care is about the playabillity with 16xAA and aniso enabled. Be it on Q3, RTCW, Comanche, Unreal 2k3, whatever...
Playabillity with good performance is what I seek. Oh, and of course, 2D when I'm working... :-)<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="1">"Dadinho o C@r@$, meu nome agora � Z� Pequeno" - City Of God</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="1">A64 @ 2,25 + 1GB + GT6600</font> </p>
Comment
-
And seriously people I'm a bit doubtful that the owner of Rivastation did the review and he used Aquanox in his review package.....hey why not use any game in triplehead mode, and see how they compare. It's the same thing....
CobosMy Specs
AMD XP 1800+, MSI KT3 Ultra1, Matrox G400 32MB DH, IBM 9ES UW SCSI, Plextor 32X SCSI, Plextor 8x/2x CDRW SCSI, Toshiba 4.8X DVD ROM IDE, IBM 30GB 75GXP, IBM 60GB 60GXP, 120GB Maxtor 540X, Tekram DC390F UW, Santa Cruz Soundcard, Eizo 17'' F56 and Eizo 21'' T965' Selfmodded case with 2 PSU's.
Comment
-
According to the latest official figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless...
Comment
-
Originally posted by YngwieM
What I really care is about the playabillity with 16xAA and aniso enabled. Be it on Q3, RTCW, Comanche, Unreal 2k3, whatever...
Or does your username mean something else?KT7 Turbo Ltd. Ed. ; Athlon XP 1600+ @ 1470 MHz (140*10.5); 512MB Apacer SDRAM ; G400 MAX ; Iiyama VM Pro410
Comment
-
Nothing to do with M but I found this on his german site! http://www.de.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q2/020624/According to the latest official figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cobos
And seriously people I'm a bit doubtful that the owner of Rivastation did the review and he used Aquanox in his review package.....hey why not use any game in triplehead mode, and see how they compare. It's the same thing....
Cobos
So that the total cost would be 399$ + a monitor ?
Sorround gaming .... hmmmmFear, Makes Wise Men Foolish !
incentivize transparent paradigms
Comment
-
i just read the review and from the sites that Guru uploaded i think the review from Lars Weinand was very fair.
he also says that they had not much time to benchmark the parhelia and that they only concentrated on 3D in this review and will talk about 2D and other qualities of the parhelia in another review.
and the parhelia seems to be slower than the 4600 by ~25% and a tad faster than the 8500 in almost every benchmark. iirc the only bechmark where the P is a bit faster than the 4600 is max payne 1600x1200x32 ani on.
furthermore he says that the parhelia only takes a performance hit of 10% with ani and other stuff turned on while the 4600 framerate drops by ~30%. however the higher base framerate of the 4600 is still enough to compensate the 30%. however one can clearly see that with all quality stuff turned out the Parhelia will probably be faster than the 4600 with maybe better drivers.no matrox, no matroxusers.
Comment
-
Originally posted by IcedEarth
...and maybe watch a Malmsteen DVD once in a while?
Or does your username mean something else?
That's correct!
I'm a big Malmsteen fan, but maybe not the biggest... It'd be honest to say that the best guitar player for me is Mr. Vai...
But this nick follows me since 95, 96... and I STILL enjoy Yngwie's songs, so....<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="1">"Dadinho o C@r@$, meu nome agora � Z� Pequeno" - City Of God</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="1">A64 @ 2,25 + 1GB + GT6600</font> </p>
Comment
Comment