Matrox Parhelia review @ Toms
- Thread starter Leon
- Start date
NFS4
No Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 72,636
- 47
- 91
GAWD DAMN!! A quick glance at the numbers shows the the Parhelia got R@PED[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-shocked.gif[/img]
Ouch. I was so looking forward to this card as an upgrade from my 8500 to last me a few years.. guess I'll have to wait now. Maybe their later releases(w/ higher clocks) will fair better. Regardless none of this warrants the pricetag in my opinion.
ripthesystem
ripthesystem
Also, take a note of Parhelia anisotropic quality, from the looks, it barely equals GF4 level2 (16tap).
Random Variable
Lifer
- Aug 10, 2001
- 10,420
- 2
- 0
I'll reserve judgement until it begins selling.. using the drivers available then..
It is good to see a third major player in the graphics market again. It will force prices down..
It is good to see a third major player in the graphics market again. It will force prices down..
You don't need German to read the graphs. Longer = better. And the Parhelia has the shortest graphs, even with the FSAA, etc 
It took a huge performance hit with FSAA enabled. Same thing with anisotropic. But the fillrate and polygon counts under 3dmark are right up there with the Ti 4600 so the Parhelia probably needs a few driver revisions before its ready for prime time. Heck, the Radeon 8500 is breathing down the neck of the Ti 4600 and remember how dissapointing it looked when it first came out. The Parhelia also needs a bump in megahertz.
It took a huge performance hit with FSAA enabled. Same thing with anisotropic. But the fillrate and polygon counts under 3dmark are right up there with the Ti 4600 so the Parhelia probably needs a few driver revisions before its ready for prime time. Heck, the Radeon 8500 is breathing down the neck of the Ti 4600 and remember how dissapointing it looked when it first came out. The Parhelia also needs a bump in megahertz.
If those are the initial drivers for OpenGL performance, the Parhelia has a ways to go to claim any performance at all. In many benches the card couldn't beat the Radeon 128 meg! Its basically saying the card is one generation behind, in terms of performance in existing games. What does the this mean for the future? The drivers either have A LOT of headroom to grow, or Matrox is going to let the card be as-is, for business users.
I'm waiting for the Matrox zealots to come in and say: who needs more than 60fps anyways?
Sorry excuse for the poor performance of this card.
vash
I'm waiting for the Matrox zealots to come in and say: who needs more than 60fps anyways?
Sorry excuse for the poor performance of this card.
vash
But, it's a step ahead in performance on next generation games.
Oh, and if 60fps is the minimum, not an average, then that is all you need.
amish
Wow... I'm glad I bought my Ti 4200.
Something must be wrong, maybe drivers or something. Those number are scary, the 8500 does better in most of the benchmarks.
Something must be wrong, maybe drivers or something. Those number are scary, the 8500 does better in most of the benchmarks.
Give it up Amish
No one in their right mind would drop $400 for a card that can't outperform a $140 one.
No one in their right mind would drop $400 for a card that can't outperform a $140 one.
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![R@PED[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-shocked.gif](mailto:R@PED[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-shocked.gif){kind=link}