Pitou

[Ulukay]

Originally posted by candyman
Ulukay, you simply cant get a sharp picture on a TI with FSA enabled since you get your whole picture blured. I talk about Matrox Fragment-antialiasing, which is different and it does not make a big impact on card's performance

/ candyman

i do not use FSAA in 1600

you NEED AA in 1024 (where not all lines are AA

i saw it with ma own eyes, the Parhelia forgot many lines to blurr
that's simply not state of the art

i think you do not need FSAA in 1600 unless you have a 24" monitor

do you ever saw a ti4600 in action with 1600 with 8xaf ?

[Admiral]

I'd say that 1600x1200 has better geometric detail, something N-patches (trueform) was supposed to do for lower resolutions.

[candyman]

Originally posted by Ulukay
do you ever saw a ti4600 in action with 1600 with 8xaf ?

To be honest, no. But I have made a big research about Parhelia vs. TI4600 and there was noone who could state that running TI @1600 w/o AA is prettier than Parhelia @1024 with FAA on.

Most people state that you get a better picture AND speed on Parhelia@1024 FAA on than on any high-end GF4/Radeon @high-res

But then again, there sure are some issues with Matrox Fragment-antialiasing known, so I dont say it's bug-free either.

[Enak]

1. I have a 21" Monitor
2. I use 1024x768 @ 120Hz
3. 16xFAA is ON
4. I rarely see it miss a line e.g. I don't often see jaggy's
5. Gameplay is always smooth (except Battlefield - same as Ti4600)
6. Drivers are much much more stable than 4600
7. I can play Quake3 smoothly at 2048x1536 - I don't use 16xFAA 8)

[Ulukay]

look ... tested on 23.10.2002 (with new parhelia drivers)

http://www.tecchannel.de/hardware/907/images/0011200_PIC.gif

very fast card - really

and take a look @ the signal quality of the Parhelia

http://www.tecchannel.de/tecdaten/show.php3?catid=148&pageid=989&sort=wertung&sortorder=desc

even the Creative TI4600 got a better Signal Quality

and now tell me one positive aspect of the parhelia as a high performance gaming card?

i saw no, so i returned it

[Enak]

Urm, did you look at the signal?

[candyman]

On this benchmark-stats.
Isn't Hercules 3d 9700 Pro based on ATI 9700 PRO?
If so, why does 8500 make 6x of what 9700 pro does???
bullshit!

[Ulukay]

Originally posted by Enak

6. Drivers are much much more stable than 4600

HHAHAHAHAHHAA

i see you never used a TI4600?? i never ever had a game which graphic glitches, or freezes or any problems

and even no problems with 2d in windoze and linux

what is wrong with the nvidia drivers?????????

[Ulukay]

Originally posted by Enak
Urm, did you look at the signal?

did you look @ rise and fall time

[Ulukay]

Originally posted by candyman
On this benchmark-stats.
Isn't Hercules 3d 9700 Pro based on ATI 9700 PRO?
If so, why does 8500 make 6x of what 9700 pro does???
bullshit!

driver issue? (hey it's ATI)

[Enak]

My friend has the 4600... I've seen him have so many crashes it's unbelievable...

[Enak]

Rise and fall time is not the key to good signal, a smooth wave gives a good signal.

The Parhelia is the only card you can see with a smooth signal.

[candyman]

Originally posted by Ulukay


driver issue? (hey it's ATI)

Haha well... perhaps...
But it's still bullshit that a new chip would run so much slower than a what, a year old chip?

And again, is there really a big differance between ATI's and nVidias drivers?

[candyman]

I know one common thing about ATI and nVidia...
THEY SIMPLY DONT CARE!

[Enak]

Another friend I have has the 9700 Pro.

It truely is a very fast card... but the drivers are a bit weak... He's had quite a few crashes. However I've been told that he's found evidence that it's his motherboard causing the problems... he's upgrading soon so hopefully it will fix it.