Another Good Article

[KvHagedorn]

http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/S&V/matroxparhelia512.shtml

Mostly the same info, but some good pictures.

[xortam]

I hadn't seen this Westwood Studios DM demo movie available before.

[TdB]

flashback...

AGP 8X is obviously the next generation AGP graphics interface, with 2.1GB/sec of bandwidth, more than double that of AGP 4X. However, the Parhelia 512 only supports up to AGP4X levels in terms of throughput. It will however, still function in an AGP8X slot, when those are available from motherboard vendors.

[Indiana]

Hmm, sounds a bit like those AGP 4x "capable" G400's that were delivered first.

[Rags]

The reason behind this is quite obvious. There are NO AGP 8X motheboards available to test with, as such it would be wrong to advertise AGP 8X ability without having first hand knowledge that it will in fact work. So, just make sure that they will work in an AGP 8X slot, run it at 4X (which can be verified), and worry about 8X when boards become available. Smart move IMHO.

Rags

[Indiana]

It would be nice if they clearly stated this, but their site is telling something like "up to AGP8x transfer rates" and AGP3.0 compliancy, which might lead people into believing, that the card will do AGP8x.

(Yes, I know that it won't make a difference, especially not with the 128/256MB cards - but I'm sure there will be people complaining and accusing Matrox of false claims if they put this on the final products box)

[Joel]

It would be nice if they clearly stated this, but their site is telling something like "up to AGP8x transfer rates" and AGP3.0 compliancy, which might lead people into believing, that the card will do AGP8x.

Please post the link.

Hmm, sounds a bit like those AGP 4x "capable" G400's that were delivered first.

That was only a problem to some because them did not take the time to look in the dictionary and see what "capable" of and "Compatible" with meant nor did they consider the context of their usage.

The G400 was "compatible" with AGP 4X, but the early boards were not "capable" of running AGP 4X transfers even though they were "capable" of running in a AGP 4X slot.

Same thing with 'P'. It is "capable" of running in an AGP 8X slot but we don't know yet if it is "capable" of running AGP 8X transfer even though it is "compatible" with AGP 8X.

Joel

[Indiana]

Originally posted by Joel
Please post the link.

Here


I still think that IF the cards don't use AGP8x transfers, they should not post this in their spec overview - not because it would make any difference in performance, but just because otherwise they WILL get complaintsafterwards, if the average idiot bought Parhelia and 3DMark2002NE (=NvidiaEdition) told him he's only running at 4x.

(As seen by the AGP4x complaints with the G400, hence my reference to that).

[Pace]

Indiana: The Parhelia-512 chip will allow up to AGP8x transfers. The first cards based on it might not though. They have only annouce the chip technology so far...

[Snake-Eyes]

This is exactly what happened with the G400 chips. The chips were capable of AGP4x, but the first cards were not (even though the specifications originally published stated that the chip was capable). Once AGP4x motherboards came out, there were some complaints, which mostly died down once people realized that even with AGP4x operation, performance wasn't really any different. Parhelia probably won't be any different, unless AGP8x shows up in motherboard real soon.

[Ali]

Doesnt SIS have a AGP8X motherboard? Im sure they demoed their Xaber or whatever graphics card in one.

Ali

[[GDI]Raptor]

Yes, thats correct, and VIA have P4X333, that is AGPx8, VIA KT400 will also be AGPx8, and all new Hammer chipsets to...