New driver performance Impact?

[Indiana]

I know the BB can't comment on performance or other things related to Beta drivers they are testing.
What I can't understand is why they shouldn't be able to speak about performance of released drivers?

[[GDI]Raptor]

Hey Ant! Do you have the "removed" chip on your board?

[typedef enum]

Yeah, I don't get it...The NDA's are up on Parhelia...We all know what the thing is/isn't capable of...

Does their NDA prevent them from discussing performance of boards that are now selling in retail? If this is the case, I must admit that this is pretty darn ludicrous.

I'm not even talking about leaked drivers, but those found on Matrox's own site.

[TdB]

the problem is that the betatesters doesn´t use the puplic drivers(they are several builds ahead of the puplic drivers), so if they start to benchmark, they will break their beta-driver NDA.

[xortam]

typedef enum ... The BBs have mentioned many times before that they are on a long-term NDA (multi-year) which forbids them from discussing non-released drivers. They are, as Indiana pointed out, apparently able to discuss released drivers, including their performance. These are different NDAs from what the Parhelia reviewers were asked to sign.

[typedef enum]

Yeah...I'm not talking about unreleased, Beta drivers here...I'm strictly talking about released ones.

Can any of the guys w/ boards say anything on these new drivers?

[KvHagedorn]

Originally posted by Ant
I'd have to kill you

It was probably a signed nude photo of Haig.

[az]

I guess they can't, because by now, they probably have new beta drivers

AZ

[xortam]

Sorry typedef enum ... somehow I missed the last line in your post. Shirley , the BBs save off some performance figures from driver versions that later become released. Maybe they're too busy swatting bugs to do any performance testing.

[mikeul]

Come on, the drivers are OFFICIAL drivers released by matrox on their own site, these are not BETA, so I don't see why no one wants to write about the new drivers.
I'm sure that if performance got better with this new driver version, everyone here would be happy, no?
I don't see why matrox would and could force anyone not to talk of official drivers, unless these are even worse than the betas.

[Ant]

As I said before when people get hold of Parhelia they will. If people don't have one how can you expect them to do this? Stop dragging the beta testers into this. Matrox is not forcing anyone not to talk about official releases will you give it a rest? If you are so keen to find out go buy a Parhelia and you do some testing to report back to us all.

[Edward]

Well I don't understand it either, no comments on official drivers, that's no use cause verebody can get the results whereas the card is more or less beginnen to retail, but I don't push this further

But go to annand, he took some UT2003 benches with 226, compare them with the first review.

With a little bit of luck I can get a hand on the card as well, pray for me

[Hati]

Just saw the new UT2003 GPU shootout at anandtech

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1647&p=2

I liked this :

Surprisingly enough, Matrox's latest Parhelia drivers actually worked better than ATI's CATALYST drivers under UT2003. The problem with ATI's publicly available CATALYST drivers is that Detailed Textures aren't properly supported, meaning they won't be rendered and anywhere that they are used you'll run into annoying flashing textures. ATI has fixed the issue internally and it looks like that latest 7.73 drivers that have been leaked contain the fix as well. We're hoping that they'll make this fix into an official CATALYST release before the official release of the UT2003 demo.

Cheers!
Hati

[mikeul]

Ok, I won't drag this furhter, I just wanted to help out the matrox community. After all, if things went better with new drivers, those who lost interest with the reviews might regain interest

[TdB]

comparing anands results: dm antalus high quality

driver:........................225................ ..226

1024*768*32............53.2 fps...........54.4 fps

1280*1024*32..........34.1 fps...........35.1 fps

1600*1200*32..........23.5 fps...........24.6 fps