Balls larger than pumpkins!!

[Elie]

Now that's what I want to hear for a change, and how true!!!

Crank up those effects to max AND PARHELIA IS ON TOP!

Cheers,
Elie

[Stringy]

This was interesting to say the least...
very well put and I do agree on where some sites my have felt slighted...
but there are still some issues I'd like investigated alittle...
like the poor shader performance measured so far - compatibility problems?
and the Ansio isn't as good a quality as a GF4 or ATi, or atleast the ansio that was represented on the reveiw sites...

nice to see someone has their head screwed on right, and coming from NVNews just throws some more weight into the arguement...



Craig

[DGhost]

although the party may be a little premature on that one... it seems someone has noticed the post and edited it...

Chalnoth: I just have to say that Matrox' FAA would be superior if it worked properly. Hopefully Matrox will be able to fix the issues in drivers. Another thing to pay attention to is the G400. It had terrible performance for a fair bit that was later remedied with better drivers. So, I think Parhelia just isn't a good buy for the enthusiast gamer right now. It might be in the future, however, if ATI and nVidia didn't have the R300 and NV30 on the way.

oh well, it is nice to see the site posting a good opinion to it.

[zandor]

I do find it interesting that the Parhelia almost kept up with the GF4Ti4600 on NVidia's own benchmark, while the 8500 got pounded.
I've been thinking about it a bit & think I'll probably still buy a Parhelia. There really just isn't *anything* else out there, unless perhaps a FireGL or Quadro based card might be able to cough up decent gaming performance. But those are umm... expensive.
For $900, I think I'd rather buy a $400 card now and another one next year. lol.
I've been checking over the specs on various GF4Ti4600s, and they can't manage better than 60Hz at 2048x1536x32. My G400 (Vanilla model!) can do better than that. So that's out. Matrox may me 6 months behind on 3D, but NV is 3+ years back on screen resolution.
Then ATI doesn't write Linux drivers, so they're always way behind. Not to mention they don't support independant resolutions in win2k w/ 2 screens, so I'm still looking at a 2 board solution. 8500's price isn't all that much better once you tack on the price of a decent (G450?) PCI card.
So basically everything out there is "not even close to optimal".
I wonder how hard it'd be to talk NVidia into making a VoodooII style 3D-only card based on a GF4Ti or NV30? Such a beast + a G450MMS seems like the optimal setup. &#^*&! expensive though.
So I'm getting a Parhelia. Matrox card #3 (4 if you count the G450 in my box @ work). This is going to drive me to overclock though. Yeah, that's right. I'm gonna OC a brand new $400 card as soon as the proper utilities are available. I'm already shopping for fans. I'm thinking a low-profile copper CPU fan is a good place to start (case is kinda tight). I'll probably have to drill some holes in it & maybe have a little fun with a dremmel. I'll also need some emory paper, an optical flat, a tube of arctic silver, some thermal glue, a set of ram sinks, and maybe a spare chest freezer. I wonder if I can find some watercooling gear that'll tolerate being filled with alchohol. Can't use water in a freezer...
I guess I'd better go register over on [H].

(ok, I confess, I'm really just going to replace the fan & add some ram sinks)

[DGhost]

Originally posted by zandor

I guess I'd better go register over on [H].

Don't do that... you will soon be sucked into the hype and start to believe that NVidia is god and the NV30 is the holy grail...

[Rimfaxe]

oh my...

I think I might even start reading nVnews...

[APEXNETHOR]

Originally posted by zandor
There really just isn't *anything* else out there, unless perhaps a FireGL or Quadro based card might be able to cough up decent gaming performance.

Why would you waste money on those cards for gaming when they dont hold up all that well in 3d architecture compared to its own 2D?

Originally posted by zandor
I've been checking over the specs on various GF4Ti4600s, and they can't manage better than 60Hz at 2048x1536x32. My G400 (Vanilla model!) can do better than that. So that's out. Matrox may me 6 months behind on 3D, but NV is 3+ years back on screen resolution.

Perhaps but who honestly would be PC gaming in a res of 2048x1536x32 today? Surely not many I can tell you that right now. Plus looking at your comparison sure mabye your G400 does fair in higher res in 2D but common when it comes down to comparing 2d workstaion graphics to 3D accelerated gaming between a Ti4600 and a G400?

Originally posted by zandor I guess I'd better go register over on [H]. [/B]

Do your self a favor and stay clear of the video card section in [H]ard|OCP's forums because with your personal views on Matrox's graphical supremecy you'll get torn apart in there by the ATI and Nvidia fanatics bub.

[typedef enum]

I know it has been said before, but the one thing that Matrox should take away from the Parhelia reviews is the following: If they could, in any possible way, get that price closer to $300 within 2-3 months, they would get a lot more slack.

$400 is a lot of money for most people, and it's a difficult pill to swallow on a board that has very raw/unoptimal drivers. I realize that nVidia's partners have sold board for $399, but let's face the facts: they are nVidia, and have a massive following, both by consumer, as well as developer(s). They also have drivers that have been tweaked beyond belief...

Anyhow, whatever it takes....Matrox, do yourself a favor, and get that price lower...you will sell a whole lot more units. R300 might rip Parhelia a new one, but @ $299, it would very likely cost less than R300, and would have that Matrox trademark (IE quality).

[Sinistral]

- You also have to keep in mind that Nvidia creates 1 Architecture and rehashes from there. A Geforce 4 is essentially the same as a Geforce 1. With the new cards from both ATI and Nvidia (NV30 and R300) being new Architectures, wont that mean theyll also have to build drivers from the ground up? -

[Cobos]

Sinistral, very good point!
I've been thinking of this for a long time... Anyone remember the drivers at the 8500 launch ? How come everyone is so sure the NV30 and R300 drivers which as you said are brand new designs (especially in the NV30 case) should have super-ultra-optimized and stable drivers at launch. After all my impression of the Parhelia launch has been that Matrox has erred on the side of caution when it comes to optimizing the drivers just to be sure the thing is stable and without any serious IQ problems...
And another thing, teh R300 is said to be around 20-30% faster than the GF4600, from the rumoured specs...Hmmm let me recount all the people reading the Parhelia specs thought it would be around 20-30% faster, and then they complained when it wasn't...hmmm does anyone see the likeness here ?
Anyway I'm really looking forward to see what oc can do to the Parhelia

Cobos

[Ryu Connor]

Because the drivers are unified, the base configuration of the driver can power new NVIDIA hardware. From that point they will start making NV30 specific optimizations. That's why when there is a new driver release you tend to see some performance improvements for the GeForce 4 series, but the GeForce 3 and 2 series remainly largely unaffected. Their codebase receives the same general fixes, but none of the specific optimizations.

I hope that all tends to make sense.

[GT98]

Well over on hardocp theres futher rumors going around that the NV30 is starting to fall behind its Fall 2002 release. This should be interesting with the R300 coming out supposity this fall and from what I read about that card its alot like the P and that means its going to have the same problems with heat etc esp if the rumors are true about the 300mhz core on it. Then add ATI history of having shitty drivers at the get go...though the icing on the cake would be if it performed like the P

[piaxVirus]

Perhaps but who honestly would be PC gaming in a res of 2048x1536x32 today?

Actually I remember someone trying out UT at that resolution using a G400 and a Viewsonic P817 monitor. They were getting around 12 FPS. I think it was Ant, but my memory is fuzzy.

What he was refering to, was using that resolution for his desktop. You know that thing you see before and after you run your games.

[TdB]

well, I think alot of older games could run in 2048*1536*32 on a parhelia, the BBz say that UT is playable in 3840*1024*32, so I don´t think it sounds that impossible.

[Elie]

Nvidia is not in the 6 month cycle plan anymore, they cannot efford it anymore.