Tell me about it. Besides the relatively poor performance of the Parhelia I think the most interesting thing out of these tests is the performance of the Radeon 8500. It's keeping relative pace with the 4600. Impressive.
Tell me about it. Besides the relatively poor performance of the Parhelia I think the most interesting thing out of these tests is the performance of the Radeon 8500. It's keeping relative pace with the 4600. Impressive.
Originally posted by: Pabster
Give it up Amish
No one in their right mind would drop $400 for a card that can't outperform a $140 one.
I've already bought it.
Hmm... lets see. Beta drivers versus generation what now of optimized Geforce drivers?
amish
They appear to have pulled the review.
Not surprising since the NDA doesn't expire until tomorrow.
One line summary:
Parhelia got it's ass kicked.
Viper GTS
probably a dumb question, but how come the companies don't benchmark the cards themselves before they officially announce them?
you can't read it because the article has been pulled. hardocp has an analysis on the frontpage, however. i think that this really proves the foolishness of not looking before you leap (i'm not flaming you in particular, Amish, i'm just making a general observation).
It was only a time before my flaming statement would draw Mr. Matrox in this forum.
Yes, the card is a generation behind for performance. But WHAT about all the claims of 20-30% faster than the exisintg Ti4600? It seems the card is slower than 20-30% in OpenGL games, so that's definitely not going to help the card in MOST gamers eyes. Also, I fail to see how an underperforming card will conquer future games when it cannot conquer existing games build off a three year old engine (Quake3)
For business users, it a different story. You can sell business users dual, triple head all day long and they'll eat it up. For this machine I'm on now, the Parheila sounds like a nice option to use, but if I want stunning 2D, I can get your old G400, or a G550 -- why would I need a $400, killer 2D card? Cmon!
If Matrox SERIOUSLY wants to aim this card at hardcore gamers, their FPS numbers are not helping them at all. Matrox should stick with their core 2D business (where the money is anyhow and they know it) and come back to us in anohter 3-4 years when they have yet ANOTHER underachieving card in the marketplace of cards that trounce them.
vash
I'm pretty disappointed in the performance of the parhelia, but it's not the end of the world as we know it, because 3dlabs has a nice video card (the Wildcat VP) that they've just released.
I never said it would be 20-30% faster. I simply said faster.
Like I said earlier, the performance is lagging on Beta drivers versus drivers that have been complete and just optimised for the last year?
I don't care
Flame all you want. All I know is that I'll be able to have a readable 1600x1200 small fonts desktop and plenty of power for gaming for the next several years.amish
NFS4
No Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 72,636
- 47
- 91
Originally posted by: Electric Amish
I never said it would be 20-30% faster. I simply said faster.
Like I said earlier, the performance is lagging on Beta drivers versus drivers that have been complete and just optimised for the last year?
I don't care
amish
Ummm, if I remember correctly, Anand said in his graphics update that the card they sent him had RC1 drivers and that he would have Release drivers by the the weekend or so...
So maybe Tom was using Final Drivers...if that's the case, an even bigger OUCH!!!!!!
Even so, I wouldn't expect performance to improve THAT much with a final driver. Matrox would sent reviewers their BEST effort since the chip will be released tomorrow.
The drivers are still very beta. As acknowledged by a beta tester on the MURC forums, and the revision Tom has must be several weeks old.
amish
amish
LOL!!!
Amish you must feel like a real DOPE now... A month or so ago you were saying that this Parhelia would make all Geforce4's paperweights. I guess the moral of this story is ______________.
But anyway, in all seriousness, you have to admit that those drivers are a bit immature and assuming that Matrox puts some more efforts into producing decent drivers (instead of lets say making Headcasting 2 software) this should be a decent card due to all its features. I personally think the surround gaming feature is awesome, and as long as games are playable with this feature, it doesn't reallly matter if they run at 40 vs 100 fps.
Amish you must feel like a real DOPE now
... A month or so ago you were saying that this Parhelia would make all Geforce4's paperweights. I guess the moral of this story is ______________.But anyway, in all seriousness, you have to admit that those drivers are a bit immature and assuming that Matrox puts some more efforts into producing decent drivers (instead of lets say making Headcasting 2 software) this should be a decent card due to all its features. I personally think the surround gaming feature is awesome, and as long as games are playable with this feature, it doesn't reallly matter if they run at 40 vs 100 fps.
A Matrox Parhelia 512, $400.
A decent 19" monitor, $300.
Another decent 19" monitor, $300.
Playing Giants at 1024x768x32 (without AA or AF) using Surround Gaming? @ 14.3fps, priceless.
A decent 19" monitor, $300.
Another decent 19" monitor, $300.
Playing Giants at 1024x768x32 (without AA or AF) using Surround Gaming? @ 14.3fps, priceless.
I never singled you out for the performance claims of this card, there are plenty of MURC forum members that can be pointed to having "reliable" sources with performance in mind.
In all honesty, the Perhelia will definitely be great on the 2D eyes (never had issues at 16x12 with any of my Geforce cards, so I still don't understand the problem from other people) and will having some gaming power for current and some future games. But with the poor performance of the drivers that were posted, their driver team has to get their butts in gear to crank out a card that is considered, by many, the most advanced card today. If the card can't even touch the Ti4600 for performance, it'll have no hope in Doom3 -- the 'next" defacto benchmark that gamers will care about.
Let's see them optimize the drivers, but until that happens, everyone will have moved on to something "proven".
vash
That makes sense..so like I asked b4...how come companies don't benchmark the card themselves beforehand to prevent releasing a disappointing product? It's like manufacturing a racecar without testing to see how fast the prototype can go. I'm sure there's probably a good explanation tho..
They do, but at some point they have to get the card out the door.
FWIW- the review was written by Lars from Rivastation.
amish
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter