true. I am starting to think that those who brought the Parhelia is a hardcore Matrox fanboy. Sorry if I offened anyone here, but IMO Matrox is getting further and further apart from nVIDIA/ATI day by day in terms of "general 3D grahpics power". I mean, even in pro 3D area the ATI/nV consumer cards are more suitable than a Parhelia in terms of raw "triangle setup" power. And then we are talking about high level shaders programming like Cg... if the industry start adopting it, Matrox is very screwed.
About 2D... ATI/nV are pulling closer and closer to Matrox too. Keep in mind, for that small 2D difference, you are sacrificing a lot of 3D power. Besides, Radeon 9700 PRO probably costs less than a Parhelia in your local hardware store.
Sad thing is, even S3 (even THE S3 damn it!) is rolling out their DX9 cards. Matrox's 3D technologies are similar to that of the "value" ATI cards, i.e. R9000. Even nV's "DirectX 9 for 79" card is more advanced than a Parhelia that costs ~400.
About 2D... ATI/nV are pulling closer and closer to Matrox too. Keep in mind, for that small 2D difference, you are sacrificing a lot of 3D power. Besides, Radeon 9700 PRO probably costs less than a Parhelia in your local hardware store.
Sad thing is, even S3 (even THE S3 damn it!) is rolling out their DX9 cards. Matrox's 3D technologies are similar to that of the "value" ATI cards, i.e. R9000. Even nV's "DirectX 9 for 79" card is more advanced than a Parhelia that costs ~400.
Comment