If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Matrox Parhelia benches! weee I saw it in person!!!
I had to sign an NDA so if you repeat this you didn't hear it from me.
Guess he doesn't care about that NDA much...
say anything on the web and in a few hours everyone knows what and who said it...
in 2 hours, what ever you said has been either multiplied by 2 or cut in half
Lets also note that 55fps at 3072x768 on medium is fine. 160 on single is lovely, and medium is ok.
The drivers that go with this card are shiny new, as is the architecture. This is VERY different to the slew of NVid cards which are a well tested architecture, with progressive improvments in drivers, and with incremental hardware improvements.
Of course, Nvid cards have terrible display quailty, and will never have 3 monitors
ugh, like i said earlier, this card will not be good for UT 2003 it looks like
I guess I'll skip matrox and go for the R300 or NV30...
My god this guy is a ****ing moron...they only demoed UT2k3 on it
Oh some more thoughts....even though the guy who posted this signed an NDA and then promitly broke it...you have to wonder how good his info is
The Performance sounds pretty good..but like everything thats being said...its not gonna win the bench mark numbers race...but it will still run the games pently fine. Who can tell the difference between 100fps to 150 fps? I know I can't and you shouldnt be able either since your monitor is usally set at 75-85hz. As long as the avg frames per second is around 60...that will work for me
They eye has a built-in latency of between 1/30th and 1/60th of a second, which is why most people perceive the 29.97fps / 59.94 fields/sec of NTSC TV as smooth.
As for myself I have excellent vision and have very fast reaction times...but still I find it very difficult to tell the difference between 60 fps and 200 fps.
IMHO arguing over boards with rates >100fps is just a bunch of people in a "mine's bigger!" contest. Pointless.
Dr. Mordrid
Dr. Mordrid ---------------------------- An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.
I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps
Originally posted by Dr Mordrid They eye has a built-in latency of between 1/30th and 1/60th of a second, which is why most people perceive the 29.97fps / 59.94 fields/sec of NTSC TV as smooth.
As for myself I have excellent vision and have very fast reaction times...but still I find it very difficult to tell the difference between 60 fps and 200 fps.
IMHO arguing over boards with rates >100fps is just a bunch of people in a "mine's bigger!" contest. Pointless.
Dr. Mordrid
What about if you are playing a game - such as a first-person shooter, and you are rotating on a fixed spot? Let's say that in a game you can rotate 360 degrees in 1/2 second. At 60 fps, this means that there will only be 30 frames for the entire rotation, with each frame offset 12 degrees from the previous frame. In this situation, the picture will look rather jagged while rotating. This is the only case that I know of that a high frame rate (100+ fps) really pays off.
Originally posted by Sasq And if you sit back from your computer and in your swivel chair do a 360deg spin in half a second exactly how jagged is your experience?
FPS 60+ is all about the penis size. i said this before. end of discussion.
i am a bit dissapointed though with these "benachmarks" . with a card that does probably cost 20% more than a GF44600 i expected at least GF44600 Performance. I dont need 200FPS now, but i want 60FPS at 1280x1024x32 in a year or two.
Comment