Why getting a Parhelia?

[IcedEarth]

I was planning on getting a Parhelia as soon as it became available here in Belgium. However, ever since ATI announced the R300 I'm really starting to doubt and maybe I'll get a Radeon 9700 instead.

Can anyone give me a good reason why I should still buy a Parhelia and not an ATI card? I only have one monitor so dual and triple monitor support isn't part of the discussion
I use my computer at home mainly for gaming, programming and webdesign. Occasionally I watch a DVD on it as well.

Thanks

[UberLord]

Its FAA is vastly superior to ATI's Smoothvision - ie you can actually use it in games Plus it doesn't blur fonts which is a major plus point imo. Did I mention that it looks damn good?

If speed is your bag then go with the R300, but the Parhelia FAA simply provides the best IQ

[dZeus]

I think it mostly depends on the image/render quality of the R300 compared to the Parhelia and how much you are prepared to pay for the difference (in case it favours the Parhelia).

Oh, and the state of the ATI drivers of course

[MetalCartman]

If you do more programming and webdesign than gaming, get the Parhelia. However, if you mainly use your computer for gaming, you might consider a pure gaming card (like the R300).

And don't forget quality (in terms of the product itself, drivers, image, etc.), that's why I would never ever buy any other graphics card than Matrox.

Tried to help you on your decision, hope I didn't get you more confused

[IcedEarth]

Thanks for the answers.
I think the ESP for both cards is the same, i.e. $399. So the price isn't an issue
Since I run my desktop at 1280x1024 I don't think I will notice any difference between 2D quality from ATI and Matrox - or am I wrong here?
FAA is indeed one of the main reasons I'm still doubting between the two. I think I'll wait for some site to compare SmoothVision II to FAA both quality and speed-wise.
Damn damn damn... I wish ATI had waited a while longer to release their card, then this wouldn't have been so difficult

[DGhost]

from everything that i have heard, there is a noticable difference even at 1280x1024... but... i don't have one so i won't know until i try it.

i have some problems with ATI... their driver quality is really, really poor... smoothvision looks like ass... if i wanted the screen to get *that* blurred, i would install an NVidia card in the system...

anyways...

[IcedEarth]

What?!? I've alway heard that if Matrox 2D was a 10/10 then ATI got 9/10 (and nVidia 5 or something :-) ). 9/10 will do just fine for me.

I have a G400MAX now, is the quality of the Parhelia noticable better than a MAX? If so, then I guess the R300 would probably at least be as good as my MAX.

Stupid videocard industry, why can't they just make a card that's perfect for everybody

[Ryu Connor]

http://forums.murc.ws/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34822

You might take a look there.

[IcedEarth]

Thanks!
So the Parhelia is better than the MAX in 2D. Now all I have to do is wait until someone actually has a 9700 and compares it to the 2D of a Parhelia :-)

[KvHagedorn]

I have both the Parhelia and the G400MAX. I regularly switch between the P computer and the MAX computer, and the difference in 2D image quality is not really that great. Noticeable, but just barely. I noticed a much bigger jump in 2D image quality going from my MillenniumI to the MAX. Now ask me about 3D image quality.. HUGE difference!

I honestly don't think the 9700 will be able to touch Parhelia's image quality. Like Greebe said.. I don't see how they could really MAKE it much better!

[UberLord]

Originally posted by KvHagedorn

I honestly don't think the 9700 will be able to touch Parhelia's image quality. Like Greebe said.. I don't see how they could really MAKE it much better!

My old 8500 had much better aniso filtering than the Parhelia I have. And thats the only thing I miss

[Helevitia]

Re: Why getting a Parhelia?

Originally posted by IcedEarth
I was planning on getting a Parhelia as soon as it became available here in Belgium. However, ever since ATI announced the R300 I'm really starting to doubt and maybe I'll get a Radeon 9700 instead.

Can anyone give me a good reason why I should still buy a Parhelia and not an ATI card? I only have one monitor so dual and triple monitor support isn't part of the discussion
I use my computer at home mainly for gaming, programming and webdesign. Occasionally I watch a DVD on it as well.

Thanks

The Parhelia is a really nice card. The p[roblem is, it is very expensive and for the same price you get mostly what the P offers except for quality components(this is an assumption that the 9700 will not have as good of components, no triple monitor support, Matrox offers FAA, Matrox's great Tech Support, and driver reliability(although this is an opinion that changes from person to person).
The 9700, however, offers much faster speeds(the fastest if we believe that the beta boards will be the same as the shipping boards), HDTV support(I can play my games on my HDTV @ 1920x1080 hopefully), Video In(man, I really feel matrox should have added this in), new Catalyst drivers(supposed better reliability), Future proof with DX9 support and the fastest card(same features as Matrox here plus more).

Since I own an HDTV already, play games more than work @ home, expected Matrox's card to offer "next gen" speeds and didn't, Really want video in, HDTV support, this is a no brainer for me. Everything I wanted in the P just wasn't there. Yeah, so FAA is superior of FSAA but is it worth it? Not for me. Also, I wonder what FSAA 6X looks like? Must look a little better at the very least, plus if you run games at 1600x1200 most jaggies go away anyway. Not to mention the fact that with FAA and Aniso enabled the games are barely playable. Which means future games will struggle and we wont see games taking advantage of the 'next gen' features of the P for a very long time. I am writing this using my current Radeon and although the image quality isn't as good as my G400, it is still really good. So if the 9700 is better, I will be happy. My 2 cents,

Dave