Hmm... Well I'm definitely looking forward to the upcomming Parhelia review @ [H]OCP

[hominid skull]

40.9% for R300
40.9% for Parhelia

[GT98]

Originally posted by BuddMan
Don't tell Kyle the MURCer's are voting, or he'll get all pissy and remove it like he did with the R300, NV30, etc. one.

hey payback is a bitch

[midnight]

Originally posted by vwdrivrco


Some MURCers have been debunking flawed theories about why it will suck already. Try explaining to the "[H]" that aside from just great gaming performance, you can actually see benefits in things *OTHER* than games as well - the rsponses are usually the written equivalent of

As a [H] forumer, I would have to disagree with you there. Not only do they have a thriving digital artist community but they also have a small but elite 3-D coding community.

[SteveC]

Who Cares R300 Cometh 40.5%
Gonna ROCK! 39.4%

[seether]

As a [H] forumer, I would have to disagree with you there. Not only do they have a thriving digital artist community but they also have a small but elite 3-D coding community.

I don't doubt it. With over 39,000 registered, I'm sure they have quite a few authoritative people, but I was referring to the vocal majority, and to posts regarding Parhelia in paricular. No offense was meant, really

[Zao]

From hardocp:

[H]ardNews - Parhelia Shows Up Early Monday June 24, 2002
Posted by Kyle 2:55 PM (CDT)

Earlier today a well-known German website disclosed their Matrox Parhelia numbers. The pages seem to have been removed at this time. While we cannot legally give you the content, as it is copyright material, we can certainly discuss what we have seen.

Aquanox - Parhelia was beaten by ATI's 128MB 8500 and the Ti4600 nearly doubled the score.

Comanche 4 - Parhelia not breaking the 30FPS barrier at 1024x768 while the Ti4600 broke 40.

Jedi Knight 2 - At 1024x768 the Parhelia was about 30% behind both the 8500 and the Ti4600.

3DMark2002 SE v330 - Just breaking into the 7000s while their test system was breaking 10K with the Ti4600. The 8500 dusted it again as well.

Quake 3 Arena - Parhelia lagging way behind both cards and not even giving deathmatch playable frame rates at 1600x1200 in my opinion.

At this point I am really wondering what Matrox was thinking. I know full well that they have explained that their Parhelia will be the card for tomorrow, but while it is currently not keeping pace with the current generation's GPUs, across the board, you have to wonder. Triple head gaming is not going to save Matrox this time round if what we saw is correct. I can certainly understand their reasons with not wanting to give the [H] a card at this point.

NO mentioning about AA or anything...

[MetalCartman]

Tom's review = blah blah blah

[Pace]

Yeah, [H] ain't all bad - just an overly active mod scene - oooh look - it's shiny and fancy

[Pace]

meant to post the above abotu 4 hours ago

Meanwhile, what's 1024x768 res?

Also, is Comanche4 *really* that slow? Wow...

[GNEP]

Also, is Comanche4 *really* that slow? Wow...

Yeah - I tried (foolishly) a demo of it with a 16Mb G450.

gnep

[MetalCartman]

I can play it at 1024*768*32 with medium detail on my G400MAX/P4@2.4GHz, although its not smooth in complex scenes...

[Ssin]

Who Cares R300 Cometh 40.0%
Gonna ROCK! 28.6%
...
I think he noticed that MURCers were voting.. but if he was to be totally objective he would have to remove ATI stockholders and other R300 enthousiasts... but why bother : "off with Parhelia's head!" since Kyle didn't receive what he wanted at the time he wanted it.. sheesh... so much like my sister...

[HyggeDK]

There's a review of the Parhelia available at a Danish hardware site called HardInfo. They've got some nice pictures of the driver installation and setup. Looks like Matrox really made it easy to set up the Parhelia!

The test also shows several benchmarks. They really disapoint me. Parhelia cannot match even a Geforce 3 Ti500 in most benchmarks. I know, fps scores are not considered to be a meassure of card quality in these forums (which I also totally agree with). The fps number are not what decides whether I will buy this card or not, but really, I had hoped for something better than this. On the other hand it could be a driver issue. Time will tell when more reviews show up.

Anyway, see for your self at:

http://www.hardinfo.dk/tests/Grafikkort/default.asp?ID=426

Unfortunately it's all in Danish, but I guess you can still get some info from the pictures and the benchmarks.

I'll just add, that I am not my self related to HardInfo in any way. I've followed this forum the last year, and I've got the impression that any hands-on reviews are welcomed by you MURC'ers


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My computer:

Pentium 4 2.266GHz@2,266GHz, 533 MHz FSB (4 days old)
Asus P4S533 Motherboard
Matrox Millenium G400Max
512MB DDR333 TwinMOS RAM
Hauppauge WinTV Go (replaced my Marvel G400 because of lack of driver support)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[mariner]

<The test also shows several benchmarks. They really disapoint <me. Parhelia cannot match even a Geforce 3 Ti500 in most <benchmarks.

I'm also disappointed :/
I waited so many years next gen. 3D card from Matrox
and finally when it arrived it's lame.

Mmm..
Could that 256MB version do any better ?

Despite everything I won't buy nvidia card,
G400 MAX will serve to the end of the days...

[Jake]

DAMN! That setup wizard in hardinfo.dk's review looks really easy and nice.