Matrox Parhelia is still running $300+... at what price would you consider buying one?

[glenn1]

Jeeez.. you'd figure with the Radeon 9700 Pro costing around the same, and the GeForce FX right around the corner, Matrox would drop their prices somewhat on the Parhelia. I'm sure i'm like many and wouldn't mind having one, but there's no way i'm dropping 300 sticks on a video card which gets whaled on like the fat kid in a dodgeball game by pretty much every other video card in the market, even ones costing 1/3 the price.

So who out there would want to own a Parhelia, and at what price would you consider buying one?

 

[Chadder007]

$50.00

 

[Megatomic]

Hmm, I think it would have to be given to me. I can't imagine spending money on a card that performs worse than my current card. I don't even do dual monitors so I think the "gee whiz" factor of the Parhelia is lost on me.

 

[Spicedaddy]

~150$

 

[EdipisReks]

$.11

 

[Budman]

Originally posted by: Chadder007
$50.00

For me that's in Canadian funds too.

 

[nagger]

Do you accept Euros?

I would pay 150 Euros for one of those

 

[Czar]

right now about $175-225

 

[Bovinicus]

I would have to say around $120. It hardly outperforms a Radeon 8500 in general; in certain games it performs even slower. The main feature that appeals to me is the edge FSAA. I would use this all the time. Therefore, it would change the performance standings quite a bit. Triplehead is also a cool looking technology. The only problem is very few people can afford 3 monitors.

 

[BFG10K]

I'd take one for free, just for testing purposes.

 

[ProviaFan]

I would get one for $100, if I could get two more monitors to use with it. Otherwise, forget it.

 

[BD231]

$80 to $100 tops

 

[elwood03]

$100

 

[fr]

I'd pay about $120 for one. I already have three monitors and a G550. I would like a Parhelia, but I have to use one monitor with a certain card. Maybe I'll get a 4th monitor just so I can take full advantage of it

 

[Booster]

Matrox Parhelia is still running $300+... at what price would you consider buying one?

$0. I like my GF256 DDR with DVI.

 

[CrazySaint]

$100 tops

 

[dguy6789]

they would have to pay me to get it so i would have that to sell plus some cash to get that ever so wanted 9700.

 

[PCMarine]

I suppose Matrox has a rather large market with graphic designers and the like who use that high end color technoligy and triple head support. There is a large margin of profit when dealing with those people/businesses too Not to mention Matrox probably needs to earn a lot of cash quick with the (for lack of a better term) failure of the card. So my best guess is that if it even drops in price, it will be minimal.

 

[PlatinumGold]

ya,

i don't think you can compare the Matrox w/ the Nvidia or ATI's they don't compete in that market.

think about it, their only gonna sell so many cards no matter what the price is. even if they sold them for $100.00, do you think the volume of cards sold would triple?? i doubt it.

so they might as well ream the people willing to buy it on price and not on performance. there are people out there that believe that more expensive is better.

 

[merlocka]

I'd spend $150-$200 for one... if I knew that their drivers were as solid as some have claimed. At this point I'm playing fewer and fewer games these days and would love to have a triple TFT desktop.

 

[Rand]

$175-200 Retail or OEM, the slightly lower core/mem on the OEM is effectively a non-issue for me.

Best 2D visual quality money can by paired with the most fully functional and feature filled Multi-Monitor implementation + room for a third monitor in the future is EXTREMELY attrative.
It's 2D visual quality alone is worth decent $ to me, not to mention Matrox's GigaColor is the only 10/10/10 RGB implementation most 2D graphics development proggies seem to support. (Which is irritating as it would take precious little additional effort to add support for ATi's 9500/9700's)

Gaming performance would be an upgrade for me, and it's performance is more then adequate for my needs. FAA seems to work acceptably with most RPG's which is my primary interest and comes at a low performance hit so it's appealing.
Fantastic DVD quality (though DVD playback performance is lacking) is a minor but appreciated benefit.


Once you push above that price point I'd sooner buy an R9700, even in the $175-200 range the Parhelia would only barely get the nod over the 9500Pro.
As appealing as the Parhelia is from a 2D graphics design standpoint I can't justify $300 for it.

 

[bgeh]

$100

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

i'd probably only buy it if i had tons of extra money, and nothing to do with it. as far as 2d / multi monitor, get a g400 or g450, for 3d there are much cheaper cards that do better. from my point of view, 2d (matrox) cards and 3d (nvidia, ati) have totally different uses. the 2d's are good for desktop stuff on a unix machine, and the fact that matrox has awesome support for Xfree86, makes it pretty much perfect. For a 3d card to be as useful as possible, i.e. gaming, you'd probably just want it to run on windows, and in windows, i dont care much about 2d quality. a recycle bin is a recycle bin, fuzzy or not

 

[PliotronX]

$130 if they somehow magically squeezed GF4 64Meg speed out of it. Otherwise $80.

 

[bluemax]

I'd buy it for less than $150 for excellent multi-monitor support and decent gaming performance for the odd time I play something in 3D.
Almost all the games I play are flat 2D strategy....
MOO3 BABY!