Matrox Parhelia Display Quality

[TheBug]

Performance aside, is there a visible difference in display quality between the Parhelia, Radeon 8500, and GeForce4? If yes, do these differences exist when using the DVI connector instead of analog connector?

I don't really play any 3D games, but I do spend considerable amount of time in front of my computer, and I want the highest video quality possible.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Rand]

If your referencing pure 2D visual quality, then there is little doubt Matrox is king. They've long been acclaimed for their extremely high emphasis on quality over performance.
Even the old G200 matches up surprisingly well against the best nVidia/ATi can offer today.
The Parhelia looks to have improved a decent amount beyond the already stellar quality offered from the G400/450/550, and GigaColor should push the border even further.


How big the difference is tends to be debateable, and also depends considerably on monitor, cabling and individual eyesight/preference.

Personally, I am MUCH more comfortable with a G400/450/550 over anything else available, and the longer one works on the system the more important 2D quality will become as your eyes get strained and tired from looking at the monitor.

On the flip side of things, I've seen people on this board proclaim how they can't see even the slightest difference between MSI/PNY boards and Matrox.. despite the fact that MSI/PNY are widely considered to have among the worst 2D visual quality even among nVidia boards which are generally regarded as having quite sub-par 2D quality.

If yes, do these differences exist when using the DVI connector instead of analog connector?

DVI out should remove near all quality differences in outout between the different boards, though of course the Parhelia will still posess GigaColor which should ensure it will retain better image quality even with DVI-Out.

 

[TheBug]

Personally, I am MUCH more comfortable with a G400/450/550 over anything else available, and the longer one works on the system the more important 2D quality will become as your eyes get strained and tired from looking at the monitor.

I switched from G400Max to ATi Radeon 8500 for performance, but I felt a noticeable degradation in display quality on my Sony MultiScan G200 (with the included cable) over analog output.

DVI out should remove near all quality differences in outout between the different boards, though of course the Parhelia will still posess GigaColor which should ensure it will retain better image quality even with DVI-Out.

Since obviously I do not have a DVI connector with my Sony, I'm thinking about switching to an LCD panel. However, since most (if not all) LCD panels are only capable of 16 bit color, would the giga color make any difference?

Thanks, Rand.

 

[Rand]

I switched from G400Max to ATi Radeon 8500 for performance, but I felt a noticeable degradation in display quality on my Sony MultiScan G200 (with the included cable) over analog output.

If you noticed a distinct degredation in quality going to an R8500 then it's probably safe to say your likely relatively sensitive to 2D quality, as ATi is generally considered to have pretty good 2D quality.
Indeed, IMHO I tend to consider the R8500 to be only mildly worse then the 3dfx V3/4/5's 2D output which is inturn second only to Matrox.

Since obviously I do not have a DVI connector with my Sony, I'm thinking about switching to an LCD panel. However, since most (if not all) LCD panels are only capable of 16 bit color, would the giga color make any difference?

[/quote]

I don't see how it would have any impact as with 16bpp color output your limited to 5/6/5 RGB, rather then 8/8/8 supported by 24/32bit color, or 10/10/10 output handled by 'Gigacolor'.
So long as the output in rendered in 16bit color, then 'GigaColor' wouldnt be able to be utilized.

 

[Snakebitten]

2D and 3D Parhelia has better image quality than the Ti4600 and Radeon 8500 I had. When you enable 16x FAA with the games still being playable is also a plus. Speed wise, its decent. It may be faster than the Radeon8500 once the drivers are fully mature. They are atleast trying, they've released three driver sets in the last two weeks.

 

[TheBug]

Rand,

I did a simple test using identical hardware (except the video card, but including the monitor), setting the resolution to the highest (e.g. 1600x1200) and comparing text clarity. The test was done on my ATi Radeon 8500 and Matrox G400Max, and the margin of difference was huge. ATi produced text that had to be half-guessed, while the the text on Matrox was tiny, but still readable.

My question is, is this a valid test? Or am I getting into some other hardware limitation?

Thanks again.

 

[Rand]

Originally posted by: TheBug
Rand,

I did a simple test using identical hardware (except the video card, but including the monitor), setting the resolution to the highest (e.g. 1600x1200) and comparing text clarity. The test was done on my ATi Radeon 8500 and Matrox G400Max, and the margin of difference was huge. ATi produced text that had to be half-guessed, while the the text on Matrox was tiny, but still readable.

My question is, is this a valid test? Or am I getting into some other hardware limitation?

Thanks again.

As long as all other factors were identical, and the tested graphics cards were viewing similar scenes then it should be a perfectly valid test.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Just to pop a quick note in here ... the Radeon9700 is just released, and is priced at the same price point as the Parhelia512 but offers more than double the perf. I know you said perf aside, but that is a huge diff! The Rad9700 also does 10/10/10 RGB which is precisely all the Matrox marketing blurb of 'Gigacolor' is. However the Rad9700 is also fully DX9 compliant and as such uses FP precision throughout AND is also capable of 128bit colour, both of which should enhance IQ considerably. 128bit colour is certainly FAR superior to 10bit RGB/Gigacolor and is applicable to games as well as just apps, unlike 10bit RGB/Gigacolor. Of course the Rad9700 has yet to undergo rigorous independent testing and is about a month away, still worth noting though. In any case I wouldn't expect the IQ to be right up there with Matrox Parhelia, but certainly very close behind.

So is the Parhelia worth the extra cash? IMHO it depends upon what resolutions you run in, if you want better than GF3 3D perf, can utilise 3 monitors and the quality of your monitor, LCD would seem pretty pointless, as IQ optimisation is really key in all of the DAC of CRT technology, but esp for 10bit RGB. You'd certainly get a lot more for your $400 with the Rad9700. But in a few months there should be a budget Rad9700, the Rad9500, if not a budget Parhelia512 (256?), and all cards should fall in price anyway with the increased competition esp from the up-coming nVidia newby due November.