Parhelia overtaken by ati9000?

[aarbee]

I do lots of flightsimming with FS2002/FS2004.
However how I turn it, the maximum frametrate is 5-10.
I have an asus p4te mainboard 512mb rdram parhelia 128mb and a 40 gig maxtor hdd.
Filesystem is xp pro.

I must admit I did put all to maximum. I like it nice.
Most people told me to set settings so I get 20 frames.

A month ago I bought a laptop with ATI® Radeon® 9000, dedicated 64MB DDR video memory.
With all on I get 20 frames.
Is the Parhelia that far behind, or is this/could there be a different issue?

Rob

[gt40]

sounds about right.
Honestly the parhelia is no match for the ATI, the only thing it has going for it is the suround gaming - which is awsome with a flight sim.

[Nowhere]

but didn't somebody (Gurm perhaps, or just in discussion with him, dunno) stated that Parhelia is the speed of ~Radeon8500? And 9000 is noticeably slower...

[aarbee]

I never expected that. Dam...
However with GhostRecon the performance is better with the Parhelia then the ati on the laptop.

I bought the parhelia because of the sharp fonts in windows and lesser in 3d gaming. That it did compete on a certain level is a win.

Do you know if the clearness I am used to with matrox can be found in ATI too? I am not needing the 3 monitors.

Rob

[Admiral]

Nothing compares with Matrox but ATI is a very good substitute.

[Drizzt]

I suppose you have some problems with your PC.

On my old G400 with a Duron 800@800 I had no problems playing FS2000 with everything to the max. FS2002 was even more fast and was quite often over 20 FPS.
FS2004 is a total different animal, as 3D clouds are really slow.


And, finally, you should consider that there are lot of people who use FS2002 on a parhelia in Surround gaming, so it's a bit suspect that you can't get more than 15 FPS...

[aarbee]

The Parhelia gave about 2-5 frames more then the G400 MAX in FS2002.
However in Ghostrecon the Parhelia doubles the speed.

Rob

[a_h]

I don't think that the P is that slow - look at the matrox-forum, there's already a thread about FS2004 and the optimum settings:

http://forum.matrox.com/mga/viewtopic.php?t=3472

You can try the matrox apptimizer, it can optimize for single head config too:

http://www.matrox.com/mga/3d_gaming/apptmzr.cfm

[bsdgeek]

Could be a driver issue, or some other problem. Parhelia actually edges out the 8500, and should crush the 9000, especially a mobile.

[gt40]

Disregard my post, I confused the 9000 for a 9500. D'oh

[Belwarrior]

can somebody verify this for me?
I remember reading somewhere that the latest Ati mobile radeons (9000 included? ) adjust the settings in hardware automatically to give better performance.. so even if u set as everything high u may not be actually running it that high.. and this depends on which hardware is required eg shaders..

that may be the reason why on certain games the mobile Ati was better than the P.. anyone can vouch this for me?

[Che Guevara]

The holy P slower than a castrated R. 8500?!?!?

Sorry everyone, but I have to defend Parhelias honour :

There are definitly a few games the Parhelia doesn't like, for example comanche 4, perhaps FS2004 is one of these games.

But normally the Parhelia is also definitly faster than a 9000 Pro, with latest driver it performs in UT 2003 Flyby as fast as R. 9600 & FX 5600, not bad in my opinion.

Further, some guys on the aquamark forum (and of course the murc benchmark forum ) said the Parhelia scores almost as high as a Ti 4600 in Auquamark 3...

In most new games I would expect the performance somewhere between Ti 4200 and 4600.

@Belwarrior: Yup, I think you're right, I remember something like that about the mobile chips (radeons?) too, but I'm not sure, not very interested in laptops...

[Chrono_Wanderer]

R9600?

P can't even compete with Ti4600 last time I checked! And i'd assume a 9600 is faster than a 4600

well, good to see here are some who still love P. (I personally think its a failure for matrox.)

[Admiral]

well, good to see here are some who still love P. (I personally think its a failure for matrox.)

I'll always say that it's more of a price failure, if they would price it accordantly everything would be fine but they stubborned on keeping those arrogant price tags.

[Indiana]

Originally posted by Admiral
I'll always say that it's more of a price failure, if they would price it accordantly everything would be fine but they stubborned on keeping those arrogant price tags.

I would've liked it better to see them maybe even upping their "arrogant price tags" and do the damn thing right and NOT release a halfbaked card again (as the G550 and the P both are...).