Got Apex Parhelia review

[Ant]

I'd hazard a guess that it means the latest drivers are version 1.03 (released in December 2002) that fix a multitude of problems with early releases like 1.01.

Originally posted by KillerG
What the heck does that mean?

Peace

KillerG

[Ant]

Re: Re: Got Apex Parhelia review

Actually what you might sense here is that many people have other priorities when buying a graphics card than gaming. Many people simply want the best IQ as they sit all day working in 2D with big fat monitors running in high resolutions. Many people want the best multi-monitor support. Yes there are big problems with the Parhelia in certain areas but then it does excel in others and if those areas are what you want then buying a Parhelia is not a mistake or a poor decision. This is not a kiddie fanboy site, people here do not live the brand and splash out big money on the next product just because it is from Matrox, far from it.

Don't judge everyone else by your own wants and needs. If you are going to run a site and publish articles for the whole world to see then you have to live with the criticism along with the praise.

Originally posted by KillerG
What I sense here is that some folks who have made either poor purchasing decisions or are merely fans of Matrox "just because" are a wee bit ticked that I actually told the truth about the card where so many have not. It is not my fault that you might feel bad. Nor is it of any concern to me. If folks who are trying to pick the review apart can only say that there are some mispellings and one nearly meaningless spec error then I think I must have done a good job when all is said and done.

Peace

KillerG

[Hazmat2k]

Re: Re: Re: Got Apex Parhelia review

Originally posted by Ant
Actually what you might sense here is that many people have other priorities when buying a graphics card than gaming. Many people simply want the best IQ as they sit all day working in 2D with big fat monitors running in high resolutions. Many people want the best multi-monitor support. Yes there are big problems with the Parhelia in certain areas but then it does excel in others and if those areas are what you want then buying a Parhelia is not a mistake or a poor decision. This is not a kiddie fanboy site, people here do not live the brand and splash out big money on the next product just because it is from Matrox, far from it.

Don't judge everyone else by your own wants and needs. If you are going to run a site and publish articles for the whole world to see then you have to live with the criticism along with the praise.

*applauds*

[KillerG]

"Why did you not use the 1.03 drivers"

All of the testing for the review (save the tests in the AGP addendum) was completed before the 1.03 drivers were made available. The review was delayed for a long peroid while Matrox attempted to varify my test reults on their tests systems and so on. The discussion between myself and Matrox PR went of for a very long time as I wished to give them every opportunity to show me that the performance was something other than what I had found.

They also tried to convince me to alter my testing methodology after the results were in. I pasued for some to consider that as well. Even though I had supplied them with very detailed documentation as to my methods before they ever agreed to send me a review sample. They also wished that I switch from the OpenGL mode for Nascar2k2 to the Direct3D mode when the did not like they results from the testing of the former. As it was at their request that I originally tested in the unsupported (by Papyrus that is) OpenGL mode I eventually refused to do so. What I did do was to offer tests in both D3D and OpenGL in the addendum.

I put more time, effort and money (yep, my own cash, about 2 bills, for the purchase of two games and a steering wheel and such in order to "do it right") into this review than an other I have ever written. In the end, I had the card in my test rig for well over three months. They never were satisfied with my results. That is neither here not there in the end however. Satisfying a manufacturer has nothing to do with reviewing a product as far as I am concerned. Of course I will always allow them to voice their concerns and such but, the bottom line is that I do this to serve the consumer rather than the manufacturer. I know this is a bit of an oddity in the world of online reviews. But, if I were like so many other reviewers out there who simply wish to pay manufacturers back for the free hardware with what amounts to nothing more than very cost effective product promotion under the guise of being product "reviews", regardless if the reality of a product's actual worth, I could not sleep at night.

[KillerG]

OK, just in case some of you missed it, here is a bit from the conclusion...


Excellent 2D Display Quality

Matrox has been a leader in this area for a long, long time and that tradition has carried itself to new heights with Parhelia. The addition of GigaColor and Glyph Antialiasing only add to the Parhelia's preparedness to carry the professional user forward. If there is a feature or capability missing here I cannot figure out what it might be.

I think that pretty much takes care of the whole 2D issue.

The reason that I even bothered to review this card was that it is being marketed a solution with a very gaming oriented feature set. It does indeed have several features that are geared directly at gamers but it is NOT a gamers solution as those features are either broken or too demanding to be used by any serious gamer. Sure, on paper it looks good for gaming but looks have nothing to do with reality. I had a rather large bit in the review about how it was this marketing angle that made me slap the card about as I did but, at the request of Matrox PR I removed it.

Matrox should, IMHO, stick to what they are good at and leave gaming out of their feature set. Imagine how much cheaper the card could be and how much more attention their driver peeps could have spent on those features that matter to Matrox users if they had done that. Just because they tried to follow NVIDIA's marketing motto of "go after the gamers and the rest will follow" they left themselves wide open for some serious slaps. Which obviously, I handed out as need be.

[GinoCyber]

"As it was at their request that I originally tested in the unsupported (by Papyrus that is) OpenGL mode I eventually refused to do so."

They wanted you to test Nascar in an unsupported API instead of D3D?

Ciao

[ElDonAntonio]

Come on guys, take it easy on him, you have to admit it's true he did this review without being paid anything and simply to help out other people. It's true though that using older drivers than other reviews that are already out since a while is not very helpful. But still, like the original poster said, that review is probably the most thorough I've seen.

One thing that bugged me a little though, is that you (KillerG) gave out zeroes for the Parhelia at 1600x1200. This is clearly misleading because you were in triple head. Other people in DH or SH would have no problem playing at 16x12 (other than maybe performance). I understand you can't switch your setup everytime you want to play, but the Parhelia is capable of doing triple head OR of doing 16x12, while the competition is only capable of doing 16x12. Yet it is punished for that. Not really fair is it?

[Eon]

Re: Re: Re: Got Apex Parhelia review

Originally posted by Ant
Actually what you might sense here is that many people have other priorities when buying a graphics card than gaming. Many people simply want the best IQ as they sit all day working in 2D with big fat monitors running in high resolutions. Many people want the best multi-monitor support. Yes there are big problems with the Parhelia in certain areas but then it does excel in others and if those areas are what you want then buying a Parhelia is not a mistake or a poor decision. This is not a kiddie fanboy site, people here do not live the brand and splash out big money on the next product just because it is from Matrox, far from it.

Apparently Matrox is somewhat failing to find those “many people” aren’t they?

They again your arguments actually underplay other things like much cheaper products in Matrox own line-up (G450/G550) that do give “best IQ” and multi-monitor features for much less.

Beside the problem with “extreme” type of products is that they usually have too many compromises built into them and/or are way too expensive for what they give in return to the vast majority of consumers.

As far as mainstream high-performance products goes (ie. not 3D Labs for example), the Parhelia has hardware bugs and average 3D performance, current GF4-based products have sub-Matrox multi-monitor handling and lack some features (mind you I doubt that “many people” are buying Parhelia cards because of features such as GigaColor, but so be it) and BBA 9500/9700 products have really excellent 2D quality image – this is often downplayed here, but it is as good and even better in some aspects than the IQ of my G450 Millennium cards I have here – but sub everybody else multi-monitor features.

While I can see why people with really extensive DH or multiple flat panel needs, that aren’t covered by nVidia or ATi based products, or that need something like GigaColor, might get a Parhelia; I really don’t think there are “many” of them. All the indications – even if imperfect – that we have on Parhelia-based products sales numbers seem to confirm that.

Personally I have a 22” Mitsubishi CRT and a 20” flat panel and my dev workstation, DVD, home DV editing and gamming needs are pretty much covered by an ATi 9700 Pro – which incidentally cost me more than a Parhelia.

For what I gather from all Matrox PR/marketing trumpeting, I was Parhelia’s prime target profile, but I never buy bugged products or with heavy compromises.

[bag_it]

Originally posted by ElDonAntonio

One thing that bugged me a little though, is that you (KillerG) gave out zeroes for the Parhelia at 1600x1200. This is clearly misleading because you were in triple head. Other people in DH or SH would have no problem playing at 16x12 (other than maybe performance). I understand you can't switch your setup everytime you want to play, but the Parhelia is capable of doing triple head OR of doing 16x12, while the competition is only capable of doing 16x12. Yet it is punished for that. Not really fair is it?

I found that rather odd as well.

"Oh, just in case you missed it, the 0 (zero) result at 1600x1200 is due to the fact that the Parhelia will not play games at this resolution when it is setup for use in TripleHead mode. As some of the games being tested here do actually play well at 16x12 and the competitive cards are able to use this resolution it had to be included."

Ok, so set it in 16x12, single head, as the other cards are. I would love to see the figures. As I know from experience that this is where the P makes up some ground (not much, but it may surprise you).

About your comments on DX9 partial compliance, the Excellent white papers on the Matrox site say why some of the DX9 features have been left out, mainly because other features included in the card sort of replace it or are not seen as useful (am I remembering right here, about the last point).

Other than that one small point, your review is very fair.

Robert.

[KillerG]

It was not tested in that fashion because that is not how the card is meant to be used. Not using the card's best feature (triplehead, I mean) would be kinda silly, would it not?

Besides, where the card fell off the performance table was not when playing on one display but rather in SG mode which obviously requires that it be set up in TH.

At standard resolutions when not in SG mode (but still being set up for TH) the card did not have major problems with current titles for the most part as far as rendering speed is concerned. In the area of non SG mode performance my biggest concern was the card's apparent lack of performance headroom to carry it forward through titles that will be released over the next year or so. As it is a pretty expensive card, it would not seem feasable to me that one might replace it within that time frame.

Does this help clarify my approach for you?

As for the DX9 compliance issue, I cannot respond to that just yet. I can say that the explanation I was given some time ago was something altogether different from the white paper. I am awaiting a reponse from my latest communiction with Matrox PR before I delve into that one. Not to worry though, I will not forget to come back to this.

Peace KG

[funky-d-munky]

"It was not tested in that fashion because that is not how the card is meant to be used. Not using the card's best feature (triplehead, I mean) would be kinda silly, would it not?"

Hey KillerG,
Your statement make little sense. I mean you were benching all the cards in Single-head. But you left out the Parhelia's 1600x1200 score because why? It can't use it in thriple-head. What the hell does that have to do with it? Come on. That is just stupid.

If that is not how the card is ment to be used, why did you include any single head benchmarks at all?
funky

[dZeus]

I find this whole triple head results vs. single head use rediculous.

For comparisons sake you should include the single head numbers, and if you really think that triple head is the 'intended' way to play games, then you should add those in an extra table, not for comparison with other cards, but just for reviewing wether triplehead is useable regarding framerates achieved.

The 1.01 driver issue is silly as well. If you released the review when those were the latest drivers available, fine, no problem. But releasing a review when there have been better drivers for some time now, it will only give a distorted impression of the real performance and possible game bugs encountered while testing.

All in all, I don't consider the quality of this review much different from reviews done by 'big commercial site' reviews.

[funky-d-munky]

I disagree. Except for my issue stated in my previous post (and a few spelling mistakes ;>) I found the review very thorough and well done. And considering KillerG earned minus -$200. Its very good.
funky

[KillerG]

Originally posted by funky-d-munky
"It was not tested in that fashion because that is not how the card is meant to be used. Not using the card's best feature (triplehead, I mean) would be kinda silly, would it not?"

Hey KillerG,
Your statement make little sense. I mean you were benching all the cards in Single-head. But you left out the Parhelia's 1600x1200 score because why? It can't use it in thriple-head. What the hell does that have to do with it? Come on. That is just stupid.

If that is not how the card is ment to be used, why did you include any single head benchmarks at all?
funky

I did not test the card while it had only one monitor connected (singlehead) for the reason I noted earlier...

"...where the card fell off the performance table was not when playing on one display but rather in SG mode which obviously requires that it be set up in TH."

The way I see it, not playing at 16x12 is just fine. That was a not major detractor for the card's worth in my estimation. The only reason I had any problem at all with 16x12 not being available in TH is for the desktop. This is the very reason that I do not currently use the card in my own everyday system. Well, that and the fact that FAA does not work properly in most of the games I play on a regular basis.

That said, I did include the benchmarks for the other cards at 16x12 because some folks do use that resolution for games and they may wish to do so when set up for TH. I think it is important for people to know that they cannot have both at the same time.

Besides, just how much time would one like to have a reviewer spend running benchmarks? And, how many benchmarks to folks really need to read. Or, even more importantly, how many WILL they read? I think there are enough benchmark results included in this review to allow people to make a fair determination as to the card's worth to them even if they have to extrapolate from what is there in order to get a feeling for how a product would perform the exact way they might intend to use it.

One might want to think about keeping things like insinuations of stupidity out of the conversation though. That doesn't help anything or make anyone feel like continuing on with what is so far a fairly meaningful dialogue. Talk about stupid things to do!

[funky-d-munky]

You couldn't have just switched it to single-head and done the bench. I mean how hard to do is that. Giving it a no score at 1600x1200 just because you couldn't take the time to switch to single head from thriple head. You took months to do a review but ya couln't once slip it in single head?

To anyone not knowing the tech of the Parhelia they are going to think it can't be used at 1600x1200.
It just seems a little half-assed and a little misleading.

But to be fair other than this debate, I again thought the review was solid.
funky