Tweet
last week I bought the game Halo. I thought well that it probably would run a 800x600 on my Parhelia. So after I installed it, I gave it a try. The game ran very smoothly, with every detail on max. So I thought lets pump up the resolution to 1024x768. And it still ran pretty good.
I was thinking to myself if there are already some benchmarks on the web. I started searching and I ended up with the review at extremetech. Which benchmarked halo with the NVidia FX 5600,5900 and the ATI 9600Pro and 9800pro.
I found how to benchmark the game and so it happend.
My result : Average frame rate=26.39fps
here you can find the results at techextreme: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1354067,00.asp
here are my systemspecs:
- Intel P4 1,8 -> 2.4 ghz (no hyperthreading) FSB 133
- 512MB pc3200 running at -+ 187 (378) mhz
- ABIT BD7-II with the 845 chipset (single channel)
- Philips Acoustic Edge (which isn't nearly as fast as the audigy 2, even when eax is disabled).
As you can see the Parhelia with my system is just as fast as an 9600pro and twice as fast as the FX5600 ULTRA! And my system is proberly a bit slower than their 2400 configuration.
This weekend I received Max Payne 2 too (which also uses alot of pixelshaders) and the game runs very good at a resolution of 1024x768.
nowadays the big review sites don't include the Parhelia anymore, because it wasn't fast enough in the games that were available back then. But remeber, those games didn't use pixelshaders yet. I am talking about games like Quake 3 based games, Half-life, etc. Games that are more dependant of the raw fill rate power of the card which the FX series and 9700 and newer had alot more.
But now more and more games are using pixelshaders in their game. Games like Halo, Max Payne 2 and future games like Half-life 2, stalker, farcry. And it seems that the Parhelia is catching up.
I think it was Haig that said back then that the Parhelia wouldn't have the same raw power for in those games. but when games will take advantage of pixelshaders the power requirement would shift from raw fill rate to pixelshader performance. And it looks like he is right!
How come that in 3dmark 03 the parhelia performs poorly, I think we should ask Mado... I mean futuremark. Proberly due to lack of optimization.
But all those big sites already bashed the Parhelia. And they don't include them anymore (even not Digit-life.com in their 3d digest). Why because it wasn't fast enough in old generation games.
I won't say that the parhelia has some negative points (like that the FAA-x16 doesn't work always) But they did bash it. They should be ashamed.
They said the Parhelia wasn't a gamer card, but in Halo it performs just like the 9600pro and twice as fast as the FX5600 PRO. Why don't they call those cards NON gamer cards. Agreed the Parhelia is more expensive. but thats not the point here (because you get alot of features and offcourse great support).
My request is anyone who read this (who works for a review site) to add the Parhelia back again to their reviews with the newer games!
thank you!
I was thinking to myself if there are already some benchmarks on the web. I started searching and I ended up with the review at extremetech. Which benchmarked halo with the NVidia FX 5600,5900 and the ATI 9600Pro and 9800pro.
I found how to benchmark the game and so it happend.
My result : Average frame rate=26.39fps
here you can find the results at techextreme: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1354067,00.asp
here are my systemspecs:
- Intel P4 1,8 -> 2.4 ghz (no hyperthreading) FSB 133
- 512MB pc3200 running at -+ 187 (378) mhz
- ABIT BD7-II with the 845 chipset (single channel)
- Philips Acoustic Edge (which isn't nearly as fast as the audigy 2, even when eax is disabled).
As you can see the Parhelia with my system is just as fast as an 9600pro and twice as fast as the FX5600 ULTRA! And my system is proberly a bit slower than their 2400 configuration.
This weekend I received Max Payne 2 too (which also uses alot of pixelshaders) and the game runs very good at a resolution of 1024x768.
nowadays the big review sites don't include the Parhelia anymore, because it wasn't fast enough in the games that were available back then. But remeber, those games didn't use pixelshaders yet. I am talking about games like Quake 3 based games, Half-life, etc. Games that are more dependant of the raw fill rate power of the card which the FX series and 9700 and newer had alot more.
But now more and more games are using pixelshaders in their game. Games like Halo, Max Payne 2 and future games like Half-life 2, stalker, farcry. And it seems that the Parhelia is catching up.
I think it was Haig that said back then that the Parhelia wouldn't have the same raw power for in those games. but when games will take advantage of pixelshaders the power requirement would shift from raw fill rate to pixelshader performance. And it looks like he is right!
How come that in 3dmark 03 the parhelia performs poorly, I think we should ask Mado... I mean futuremark. Proberly due to lack of optimization.
But all those big sites already bashed the Parhelia. And they don't include them anymore (even not Digit-life.com in their 3d digest). Why because it wasn't fast enough in old generation games.
I won't say that the parhelia has some negative points (like that the FAA-x16 doesn't work always) But they did bash it. They should be ashamed.
They said the Parhelia wasn't a gamer card, but in Halo it performs just like the 9600pro and twice as fast as the FX5600 PRO. Why don't they call those cards NON gamer cards. Agreed the Parhelia is more expensive. but thats not the point here (because you get alot of features and offcourse great support).
My request is anyone who read this (who works for a review site) to add the Parhelia back again to their reviews with the newer games!
thank you!
) high polygon scenes because of the low core clock, but the multitexturing fillrate performance of the Parhelia is awsome, better than any Ti4600, and the singletexturing just as good as a GF4 Ti...
)
)
Comment