Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BAD parhelia image problems, reputation damaging!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    no answers yet?
    -----------------------------------
    WHATS A JAVA?
    -----------------------------------

    Comment


    • #47
      The last I read on this was a post from Haig on Oct. 18th in the original thread indicating that Matrox was still investigating this issue.

      Comment


      • #48
        I'm also curious as to what is taking so long time ? I was more or less set on buying a Parhelia, but when I saw this I decided I wanted this resolved before I do any purchase. And now I'm going to wait 2 weeks anyway to see what happens with the 256MB version (as well as the final 1.2 drivers which should be here by the end of oct)

        Cobos
        My 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


        • #49
          the 256 meg is the same clock as the 128 meg, the onl difference is more vram. slightly dissapointing, but seeing as i bought the 128, good for me :-p

          Comment


          • #50
            OT this bit, but in response to above:



            ...says 256MB unit clocked same as Bulk 128MB unit so it's clocked slower than the P128 Retail
            Cheers, Reckless

            Comment


            • #51
              We got a couple Parhelias at work, and I checked out the problem today that everyone is seeing.
              I was unable to reproduce the artifacts when using DVI digital to flat panels.
              However, it is there on analog output. I've seen this banding artifact before in some early rev products from work, which we had to fix before releasing (medical market wants perfect image quality, naturally).

              Its going to be an output stage problem, or possible relating to the signal routing from the graphics core itself. I'd be amazed if its fixable with any amount of software, since its really a low level hardware component related problem.

              Comment


              • #52
                wow, i'm glad i didn't wait around for the 256 now, specially at that price, that means for most uses the P128mb is gonna be faster, only in very few cases i would imagine t would be faster

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by rylan
                  We got a couple Parhelias at work, and I checked out the problem today that everyone is seeing.
                  I was unable to reproduce the artifacts when using DVI digital to flat panels.
                  However, it is there on analog output. I've seen this banding artifact before in some early rev products from work, which we had to fix before releasing (medical market wants perfect image quality, naturally).

                  Its going to be an output stage problem, or possible relating to the signal routing from the graphics core itself. I'd be amazed if its fixable with any amount of software, since its really a low level hardware component related problem.
                  Uh oh... sounds more like a circuitry problem now

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    been saying that for a month and a half now...
                    "And yet, after spending 20+ years trying to evolve the user interface into something better, what's the most powerful improvement Apple was able to make? They finally put a god damned shell back in." -jwz

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      No bandings on digital TFTs!

                      Thank you 'rylan',

                      you and me tried the same yesterday. I drew the same conclusion.

                      In a strange way, it's funny that after such a long discussing time, these were the first lines I read about the fact that this issue affects only the RAMDAC' signals but not the signals of the TMDS! So I don't believe either, that it's possible to fix this issue by any software or bios update without a RMA. On the other hand it's, as tragically this might sound here, an option for using Parhelias further, if these interferences, which I think these are, disturb you too much.

                      The testimonial:
                      I used a HP1520 TFT with DVI-D & HD15 and the analog Sony CRT F400T9.

                      I tried enough combinations to be sure, yesterday.

                      Anytime the TFT was connected by it's DVI-D (digitally) to Parhelia, the image quality stayed brilliant and clear but when I then connected it by it's (analog) HD15 it showed the bandings as well. The analog CRT was affected anytime.

                      It didn't seem to matter which of Parhelia's physical connectors you use. Both the first an the second one show the same banding intensitys with the same devices in the same situations.

                      The best way for me to see these bandings was the 'donut demo' of DX8.1 SDK in front of a complete white background. It's small window shows extremly fast flying donuts when using it on your as 'primary' selected windows head.

                      The interesting point was, that you could change the intensity, velocity, direction and frequency by repositioning the donut window on your monitor or display. This functions as well, if you change the window position on the digitally connected TFT. Although you couldn't see the bandings on this display when repositioning it, you saw the results in the same known way on the CRT.

                      The second interesting thing was, that the demo runs as well on the as 'expanded windows desktop' marked monitor or display (in independend mode) but when it's executed here you'll only get (as commonly known) a little part of Parhelia's performance. So the donuts are flying at drastically reduced speeds (& at low fps not more than 20 - 30 I expect).

                      Well, here weren't any noticable interferences! So it's, like often mentioned before, probably dependent on how big the differences are, between the real, displayed vertical display frequency in Hz and the displayed frames in these 3D application or video application windows or fullscreens.

                      The third thing to mention is, that possibly the quality of the monitor's or display's input filters are relevant as well. The bandings seemed to me generally more intensive on my (analog connected) TFT compared to those which appear on the Sony CRT.

                      A fouth and last thing is, that with increased vertical frequencies on my CRT, these interferences with donut demo seem to become less and less intensive. So if you allways use a mode with very high vertical refresh rates at about 120 Hz or more you'll possibly be able to minimize these bandings.
                      Last edited by JaG; 27 October 2002, 06:37.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Genlocking missing?

                        Originally posted by d_constructed
                        I'm not sure about the exact problem since no-one here owns a digital camera and can grab a shot of the problem, or grab a simple screenshot and FAKE the problem in Photoshop to explain what's going on.
                        I tried to photograph it on my displays (CRT & TFT) but, well, these interferences were, although I tried to construct the 'worest case', to slight to fix them on the photograph (at least with my Parhelia). It would be difficult to reconstruct them by a still image either, I think, because the most nerving thing on them is their movement, or flickering.

                        You should imaging their apperance as a kind of slight waves on a water surface after a falling drop. The difference is that here all waves go into one direction up or down. An other possibility to describe them is the symbolic compare to a not too good TV-screen with slight bandings. Cheap monitors may have a kind of these disturbance by standard. The velocity, direction, intensity and speed of these bandings differs. It may be a kind of flickering also.

                        In case of a game with independend dual heads, when playing only on one head in full screen mode, you also see them on the other display, especially on white surfaces (or with donut demo...).

                        You can't see them, as I mentioned before, on digital connected TFTs. They stay clear.

                        When playing it's a kind of flickring at vertical frequencies, where no flicker should appear. That disturbes, although these 'waves' or bandings are very slight and only good to see on light grey, light colored or white things.

                        Originally posted by d_constructed
                        I'm guessing it's a missing genlock between the outputs, expensive 3dlabs WILDCATS have this, when using multiscreen OpenGL you don't get weird banding on the second screen, ever.
                        Has anyone tried to switch output to the main one which might be better? I guess the secondary and tertiary are non-genlocked slaves that have this issue.
                        Genlock requires new hardware, so no BIOS-fix in the world help, but I'm probably wrong anyways since I base all this on hear-say.

                        Or it could be another non-fixable hardware issue, I got nvidia cards and they are full og them The DXTC1 problem in GF1 wasn't fized until the GF4 for example. Are there any gfx cards out there without any hw issue? Don't think so, but since you can buy a 2x faster card every year, we need to think that gfx cards are subscriptions, a service, that gets better every year.
                        I don't think, that's a missing piece of technology. It looks more like interferences based of an unfinished design in the analog parts of the Parhelia core.

                        Well on the other hand, I use Parhelia since mid of July now and the first time I read about this problem and replicate it on my own card was yesterday. So it's disturbing, that's true (especially if you know it now and realize it more though). It's one of those things which doesn't fit to the matrox image, that's clear, but I still would prefer playing games with light backgrounds like MS FS2002 with 16x FAA on Parhelia than on Geforce. The quality is better. Why should I change my mind. It's obvious that the failure was there all the time.

                        So, you're right, all chips contain hardware bugs and design defects. Statistically the number of them has to increase while these chips become more and more complicated and stay developed under increased pressure.

                        Well, nevertheless should a disturbing bug like this one, be fixed by Matrox related to the price we all payed for getting a 'High Fidelity Graphics'.
                        Last edited by JaG; 27 October 2002, 08:05.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          This Parhelia is just another Montreal Fraud

                          Here's the Set-up

                          Gigabyte GA-8IHXP
                          P4 2.5 533FSB
                          1GB RAMBUS Kingston RDARAM
                          2 Maxtor ATA133
                          Asus CDRW 40X
                          Asus CDROM
                          Matrox Parhelia (RETAIL)

                          This card have been giving me Problems
                          since the begining, certaily the truth must bet said
                          the Matrox M Max 32 is much better in Quality,
                          the card looks cheap and performance is also cheap!
                          I will not believe any of the bastard reviewers who
                          wrote about this card .. they made look Quality!
                          On top them is the biggest lair of all Tomshardware!
                          What sort of Quality!
                          Honestly speaking this card is not worth the money!
                          I regret the moment i bought it!

                          I recently replaced it for an ATI Fire GL 8000 and you
                          the difference is beyond belief!

                          Matrox is getting into its golden age like everything
                          in Montreal... OLD and VERY VERY OLD!

                          If the company didn't change blood they will die for sure.

                          Please, we don't want to hear just comments!

                          If anyone have a solution for the Parhelia I hope we can
                          hear it or else very soon it will be on E-Bay for $100.00

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            i would suggest starting a new thread and acctually identifying the problems that you are having, instead of just acting like a troll... personally my Parhelia performs quite well and outside of the Banding issues, and a few other minor problems, is worth a lot more than the amount i paid for it...
                            "And yet, after spending 20+ years trying to evolve the user interface into something better, what's the most powerful improvement Apple was able to make? They finally put a god damned shell back in." -jwz

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              First of all you are the troll, respect yourself before playing George Bush! or else you will ge what you deserve!
                              No one called you names or didn't respect you, surely
                              I lost my respect for Matrox as they don't care about
                              their customers No More!

                              Okay here's the problems:

                              First of all I forgot to mention that I used this card with
                              2 SONY Mulitscan G400 and later I tried on a Sony 18" LCD Panel
                              and 18" NEC LCD

                              First problem:

                              All the new motheboards like Asus Gigabyte and some few will display an image in DOS.. before booting into Windows XP PRO

                              This picture will appear broken colors Nothing clear whatsoever!
                              almost like a burned out card.

                              Second problem:

                              Distortion in a most games like UT 2003 and Horrible performance
                              in Soldier of Fortune II !!!

                              If you use a lot of 32bit color icons on your desktop and windows explorer the all the adobe icons will appear with blurred broken colors and distortion in Window XP Control Panel where some icond get appear in black sometimes (once every 4 times)

                              Third problem:

                              If you work with rendering in Adobe, 3D Max 5, and TrueSpace 6 the performance is very similar to the Matrox M Max G400 32mb!
                              No real difference whatsoever!!! Is this worth your money?

                              Fourth problem:

                              The 2d resolution is similar to the Matrox M. Max G400 too!
                              only in few.. if you try to work with high resolution images with
                              1600x1200 you will see distorted colors and pixels too!!! which
                              shows only in low quality cards like SiS and some TNT's!

                              This is a retail version!!!!

                              I don't think if you were in my shoe u will be happy at all!

                              No hard feeling and don't take it personal!

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                okie, about the first issue it has been identified as a problem with the way the motherboard bios passes timings to the video card for the initial boot mode. try disabling the boot logo that the motherboard has and it should go away.

                                about #2, i never had any problems inside UT2003 or SoF2 multiplayer - both play absolutely smoothly. SoF2 single player is horrendously slow for me, but the processors in my system are almost 2 years old now, so i don't expect the single player to be good. What settings are you using for both of them? with the distortion problems, do you have gigacolor enabled at all? make sure it is either enabled or disabled for both the desktop and in games... i have seen some issues when one is enabled and the other isn't...

                                about #3... 3d performance over here is a lot better than what my G400 MAX give, and that does include 3d studio max and autocad... have you tried mentioning these problems in the Matrox Tech Support forums?

                                about #4... i run my card w/ the primary monitor at 1600x1200 on the first head, and 1280x1024 on the second, and i have not seen any sort of distortion problems...

                                out of curiosity, what is your AGP Aperature set at in the bios? do you have Fast Writes enabled or disabled? have you tried installing the latest intel chipset drivers and the latest matrox beta drivers?
                                "And yet, after spending 20+ years trying to evolve the user interface into something better, what's the most powerful improvement Apple was able to make? They finally put a god damned shell back in." -jwz

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X