Reasons for Parhelia's poor performance

[DGhost]

Re: Re: Re: Reasons for Parhelia's poor performance

Originally posted by joonie
If you know so well, then why don't you give us reasons for the under performance of Parhelia?
And those statements are not my idea. It's from a computer magazine that critisized Parhelia. I stated this before in the first page... please READ...

You know, i could write a huge rant explaining a lot of reasons for this. but you know what would happen? this thread would probably be closed because of the "whining and bitching" it would involve.

Like other people have said, do a search. there are a ton of reasons that have been stated by other people.

[joonie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Reasons for Parhelia's poor performance

Originally posted by DGhost
You know, i could write a huge rant explaining a lot of reasons for this. but you know what would happen? this thread would probably be closed because of the "whining and bitching" it would involve.

Then can you make one or two short lines of summary explaining th underperformance, so we all can see it in this forum

[Wombat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reasons for Parhelia's poor performance

Originally posted by joonie
Then can you make one or two short lines of summary explaining th underperformance, so we all can see it in this forum

Everyone else has seen it already. <B> We are not here to serve you.</B> Go do your own damn search.

[The PIT]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reasons for Parhelia's poor performance

Originally posted by Wombat
Everyone else has seen it already. <B> We are not here to serve you.</B> Go do your own damn search.

It's just a bit difficult yo move the mouse cursor to search button and then think of the correct thing to type in.

[Mikko]

Some of us actually still believe, that the performance of Parhelia
is quite enough for most of the situations...

After being able to play Surround Gaming couple of months now,
I believe that I won't be even thinking of buying another graphic card
just to have improved performance, if that card wouldn't do it in triplehead!

[VigilAnt]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reasons for Parhelia's poor performance

Originally posted by joonie
So VilgiAnt. You are saying this Parhelia is a GeForce4 killer eh?
It's not underperforming? With that FANTASTIC SPEC, I think P should beat even Radeon9700! And if 220MH of core clock is not low, is it higher than other cards and performs better?
Hey, if you DO KNOW why P underperforms, then don't just mumble my list is wrong and why don't YOU show us some of the reasons. Not showing your reasons just doesn't make your conjecture strong enough.

And don't give me that crap about Parhelia is a perfect graphic card in performing 3D applications

Well look here at Mr. High and mighty. If you have spent any length of time here, you would know that I happen to know quite a few particulars on the Parhelia, Matrox, and the rest of the video card industry in general. You would also know that I have posted up my findings (in great detail) in the forums and on the news page. Your conjecture is based on an imaginary article which was based on god knows what for resources.

I never said Parhelia was a geforce4 killer. You are puting words in my mouth, but Parhelia does have some performance strong points.

In short, please take your sniveling attitude and put it in your shirt pocket, because it has no place here and definitely is not welcome. Spend some time to get familiar with the people here before popping your cork, the champagne will flow prematurely otherwise.

[K6-III]

Thank you VigilAnt. Your vigilance is appreciated....

[DGhost]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reasons for Parhelia's poor performance

Originally posted by joonie
Then can you make one or two short lines of summary explaining th underperformance, so we all can see it in this forum

see, thats the problem. it is not just one problem, there are a number of them that all contribute in one way or another. each one individually wouldn't be too much of a problem (even the 220Mhz clock speed)... it couldn't be summarized in one or two lines cause there are too many different situations where different problems come into play in different ways.

Like everyone else has said, search the forums. you will turn up a lot of reasons and a lot of explanations and discussions of the shortcomings of the architecture.

[Faramir1966]

Maybe with Doom3 we will be able to see what can be done with the Parhelia.AFAIK Matrox is working together with ID to support Parhelia in Doom3.
Well thats what ROM said

[Wombat]

Originally posted by Faramir1966
Maybe with Doom3 we will be able to see what can be done with the Parhelia.AFAIK Matrox is working together with ID to support Parhelia in Doom3.
Well thats what ROM said

When did he say that? Last I read of Carmack's .plan, the NV30 and the ATI cards were getting optimized paths, and <I>maybe</I> the P10, but not Parhelia.

[bsdgeek]

There was a thread here in which R0M said they were working with id.

[borat]

that could just mean that they are getting the most basic suport for parhelia to actually work with it, asking very very nicely for the coders to spend their time pleasing a very small number of users or getting support for all of parhelias features. i think its somewhere between the first and second.

[Wombat]

Yeah, Matrox barely has any OpenGL talent left. They're probably just figuring out what the minimum they have to do to get the ARB calls rendered correctly.

[Faramir1966]

Who knows.
We will just have to wait and see i guess.
Maybe that time we will get a pleasent surprise.

[Nuno]

Anyway, here are some templemark results:

Temple Demo 1.0.2 -Benchmark-
Driver, nv4_disp.dll
Description, NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4400
Version, 6.13.10.4071
HAL, ON
T&L, ON
Trilinear, ON
Texture compression, ON
Max. Multitexture used, 4+2
Max. Texture used, 1024x1024
CPU Description, AMD K7 (Athlon)
CPU Speed, 1500 Mhz.
Screen Res, 1024,768,32
Average FPS, 112.699547

Temple Demo 1.0.2 -Benchmark-
Driver, pmxdisp.dll
Description, 3D Prophet 4500
Version, 1.00.09.0015
HAL, ON
T&L, OFF
Trilinear, ON
Texture compression, ON
Max. Multitexture used, 6
Max. Texture used, 1024x1024
CPU Description, AMD K7 (Athlon)
CPU Speed, 1550 Mhz.
Screen Res, 1024,768,32
Average FPS, 85.651337

Temple Demo 1.0.2 -Benchmark-
Driver, ati2dvag.dll
Description, RADEON 9700 SERIES
Version, 5.1.2600.0
HAL, ON
T&L, ON
Trilinear, ON
Texture compression, ON
Max. Multitexture used, 6
Max. Texture used, 1024x1024
CPU Description, AMD K7 (Athlon)
CPU Speed, 1500 Mhz.
Screen Res, 1024,768,32
Average FPS, 119.259689

Now see what I meant about the texturing units don´t being able to show up even on a very intense multitexturing situation?