ANISOTROPIC TEXTURE FILTERING of Parhelia

[Che Guevara]

Hi,

I think the hardware of Parhelia-512 has the ability to force a high level of anisotropic texture filtering (up to 16X?). Currently the driver uses only 2 samples.
Does anybody know why?
Why they handicapp the cards features?
Do you think that they increase the number of samples and/or add the ability to adjust the number of samples with later drivers?

Parhelias real Power is the image-qualitiy, therefore a better anisotropic filtering would be very nice , and games like ut2003 would run still fast with 4x anisotrophy I think, older games (like AvP2) even with higher levels.

another little question:
Some of my friends need new graphic-cards, but Parhelia seems them to be to expensive (I don't suggest them to buy a cheating nVidia-card!).
What about the performance of the millenium-P Cards (650 and 750) in games like ut2003?


Any new rumors about a new Parhelia/Pitou (agp-8x,pixel-shader 2.0,higher clock,or something like that )?


Thanks for any opinion

[Umfriend]

Gaming? Unless you're going for surround, I think the msg is to stay clear from Matrox.

[Topha]

For gaming I would go with ATI at the moment, I think the 9500/9600 should be quite a bit faster than parhelia in games, and also quite a bit cheaper.

[TdB]

the 2 tap anisotropic filtering on the parhelia is a hardware limitation, no driver can change that.

when I say "2 tap" it doesn´t mean 2 samples, 2 tap aniso uses 16 samples.
each of the 4 pixel pipes on the parhelia can do 16 samples(2 tap) on 1 pixel per clock.
that means it can make 16 samples on 4 different pixel in parallel, hence the name "64 Super Sample Texture Filtering"

[Indiana]

Originally posted by TdB

when I say "2 tap" it doesn´t mean 2 samples, 2 tap aniso uses 16 samples.
each of the 4 pixel pipes on the parhelia can do 16 samples(2 tap) on 1 pixel per clock.
that means it can make 16 samples on 4 different pixel in parallel, hence the name "64 Super Sample Texture Filtering"

Which is not more than stupid marketing blubber to hide the fact that those cards still can only do 2x aniso...

[TdB]

I agree, the name is misleading.

Im just pointing out that it can´t be improved by drivers, they aren´t holding the card back or disabling that feature in the drivers, just to annoy us, it just can´t do it better than it already does.
Im just tired of seeing the drivers getting the blame.

[3dfx]

If you play a lot of games, ie you are a bit of a gamer Then avoid the Parhelia at all costs, unless you are desperate for the triple head. Unreal 2003 performs pretty poorly with the Parhelia so imagine how bad it would be on a millenium, which only has a fraction of the 3d power that the original Parhelia has.

I know this is a Matrox forum, but in this instance we are talking about 3D and gaming, and tbh ATI is just a good in terms of quality standards in 3d but is also ten times faster and the best bit is that Radeon 9500 Pro is faster but cheaper

[Novdid]

Re: ANISOTROPIC TEXTURE FILTERING of Parhelia

Originally posted by Che Guevara
another little question:
Some of my friends need new graphic-cards, but Parhelia seems them to be to expensive (I don't suggest them to buy a cheating nVidia-card!).
What about the performance of the millenium-P Cards (650 and 750) in games like ut2003?

As it has been said before, if you're going to do any kind of gaming, Matrox is not for you.

[bsdgeek]

To say that Parhelia sucks at gaming, and UT2003 runs poorly on it is a bold overstatement. With 2400x600 surround gaming and FAA Parhelia scores around 35-40fps on Antalus, while 9500Pro at 1280x1024 (Closest equivalent) with 4x AA runs around 45fps on Antalus. Hmm, a huge difference...

[bsdgeek]

P-Series won't be great but still OK for occasional UT2003, according to Sasq

[Indiana]

Originally posted by bsdgeek
Twhile 9500Pro at 1280x1024 (Closest equivalent)

Ermm, I can get a 9500Pro for less than HALF the Parhelias price. Hell, even the 9700Pro is quite a bit cheaper than the Parhelia and the 9800Pro at roughly the same price....

[3dfx]

Maybe I did decimate the Parhelia a little, but with my 9700 I can run ut 2003 with all textures on ultra-high instead of high, plus I can keep filtering to 16 and anti-aliasing to 4 and still maintain a much higher fps than the Parhelia with lower setting's, looks better but still performs better.

From Che Guevara's post it does appear that his friends will use the card for gaming, and that the Parhelia was to expensive so millenium seemed like a good option. Well I think the original Parhelia performs badly in ut 2003, and I can assure you that ut2003 will be almost unplayable with the millenium parhelia if it is only a fraction of the speed. Imo the 2d quality of the Radeon is very comparable to the Parhelia anyway, so why pay more for less.

[bsdgeek]

I compared it to the 9500Pro because you mentioned it was faster. (yes I understand it is much much cheaper)

[Belwarrior]

Just get the friend the 9500pro before it clears away as ATi has stopped its production as they already have 9600series now. A 9600pro would do as well for the friends' usage.

Matrox cards while very good, are not made for pure gaming.

[Kurt]

Originally posted by bsdgeek
I compared it to the 9500Pro because you mentioned it was faster. (yes I understand it is much much cheaper)

Yet the P650 is cheaper than the Radeon 9500Pro. Depending on the brand, the P750 is at the same price or slightly more expensive than the Radeon 9500Pro.