PRO-3dcard shootout, including the parhelia

[TdB]

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/profcards/profcards-09-2002-svp.html

the parhelia doesn´t seem to perform very well in this review.

[Xplora]

That's an understatement, man. They took the Sun Dog out the back and shot it because it couldn't keep up with Anything.

[K6-III]

In my testing, my Parhelia has been much faster than they say in the review.

Their results/my results:

3dmax-01: 3.63/6.54
drv-08: 5.25/14.10
dx-07: 27.33/35.22
light-05: 2.81/6.71
proe-01: 1.54/2.17

Didnt test UGS on my system yet...

Although the Parhelia is still well behind some of the cards in the review, in some cases my results are more than 2.5x faster than the results they have in their review.

[K6-III]

Oh, yeah.....Matrox still needs faster drivers, especially for Pro-E , but I really don't like the way that review painted the picture...

[Greebe]

and those be old drivers...

[TdB]

ehh?
the drivers are the most recent puplic drivers, AFAIK.

The Parhelia was used with the drivers 1.1.0.80.

[K6-III]

Originally posted by Greebe
and those be old drivers...

Not fair to jest at us that way....

[ElDonAntonio]

Ouch, it hurts to see that

I really don't understand how come the Parhelia is so slow compared to the other cards. Ok, the clock speed is a little lower, but it can't explain scoring that low, espescially with all its other impressive specs.
Something is definitely wrong. I sure hope Matrox will find it and fix it VERY SOON!!

[ElDonAntonio]

Hey I don't get it, after thinking about it, the results from this review seem awfully wrong.

Just compare them to this review:

http://news.hwupgrade.it/7101.html

(I think this comes originally from darkcrow.kr)

If you look at the first graph, you get the impression digit-life used old drivers. Then when you look at the second graph, the digit-life benchmarks seem completly wrong. Of course it could be the darkcrow review that's false, but something sure is fishy.

[DPGX]

lol very odd. It's out of hand how some of these articles provide information thats so far off of what reality is and its finally becoming irritating. Granted I don't know much when it comes to the benchmarks they ran, but is it possible they didnt use the special driver matrox posted for CAD? Could be wrong but this would make alot of sense regarding those results.

Mike

[K6-III]

The results I posted above are with the Non-CAD driver...

[DPGX]

Thanks K6-III, any idea which driver the article used? Also, do the CAD Drivers improve performance any? Just curious how much these factors would change the outlook of these benchmarks.

Thanks again,

Mike

[K6-III]

The article claims to use 1.1.0.80, the same driver I'm using...

[chr_79]

Sames results here :
i get really better score with a lower cpu speed (2.26Ghz) and DDR-SDRAM :

3d-max01: 7.87
drv-08: 17.97
dx-07: 42.75
light-05: 8.59
proe-01: 2.29


i send my result to:
mailto:kondalex@ixbt.com?Subject=Prof 3d cards

[mutz]

...yano, there's a marketing war out there, and it's not at all fair and aboveboard. There are many people and sites paid, sponsored or given goodies to shade or down-right falsify tests and reviews, or even drop in at MURC and dump shit. I view it all with suspect.

I know what I have and it is better than anything I've had before, so basta!