Which was more disappointing? Parhelia or GeForce FX??
- Thread starter NFS4
- Start date
In my opinion the GFFX performed as it should.... problem is it SHOULD have been out 6 months ago.
Parhelia just completely underperformed...
Parhelia just completely underperformed...
Adul
Elite Member
apoppin
Lifer
It depends on if you were a Nvidia fan or a Matrox fan. 
At least Matrox fans aren't (apparantly) as hardcore "gamers" as nVidiots and THEY don't have to put up with a DustBuster in their case.
The Paraphernalia actually has some 'useful' features beyond gaming . . . it is just OVERpriced (for gamers).
The FlopXtreme has actually disappointed and embittered many Nvidia supporters . . . Just go to NV News and read the "eulogys" posted there.
So - IN CONCLUSION - the FX has been hyped since last Summer as the GREATEST VideoCard (Cinema FX) and it may well turn out to be one of the most disappointiing (except to ATI) product launches EVAR.
At least Matrox fans aren't (apparantly) as hardcore "gamers" as nVidiots and THEY don't have to put up with a DustBuster in their case.
The Paraphernalia actually has some 'useful' features beyond gaming . . . it is just OVERpriced (for gamers).
The FlopXtreme has actually disappointed and embittered many Nvidia supporters . . . Just go to NV News and read the "eulogys" posted there.
So - IN CONCLUSION - the FX has been hyped since last Summer as the GREATEST VideoCard (Cinema FX) and it may well turn out to be one of the most disappointiing (except to ATI) product launches EVAR.
Well all sorts of people were blabbing about how buying an ATI9700 was a waste of money because GF5 would mop the floor with it... but at least they had a precedent for their foolish optimism.
But the matrox fanatics had no reason besides their foolish hopes & dreams to make claims their card would be a performance champ.
But the matrox fanatics had no reason besides their foolish hopes & dreams to make claims their card would be a performance champ.
Spicedaddy
Platinum Member
- Apr 18, 2002
- 2,305
- 77
- 91
I'd say Parhelia, but it's close...
Just looking at benchmarks, Parhelia really underperformed, while FX is a little lower than I expected, but still very fast considering it should've been out 6 months ago. But if you throw in the fact that Parhelia supports 3 displays and is probably the best for 2D work, while FX is just too damn noisy and hot, you get a pretty close battle.
Just looking at benchmarks, Parhelia really underperformed, while FX is a little lower than I expected, but still very fast considering it should've been out 6 months ago. But if you throw in the fact that Parhelia supports 3 displays and is probably the best for 2D work, while FX is just too damn noisy and hot, you get a pretty close battle.
IMO the GF FX and Parhelia are equaly dissapointing.
Matrox Parhelia lauch quotes
first 512bit GPU
first 256bit memory bus
Triple head gaming
10 bit gigacolour.
It meets only the last two.
Even John Carmack was dissapointed about this card, with it being the first 512/256 bit card, other cards were only 256/128bit, so its gotta be better, right?
nVidia GeForceFX Launch Quotes.
Beyond DX9 specification
Next gen memory, DDR2
approximately 30% faster than the 9700pro.
It may meet the first thing, but lets be honest, most developers are only going to develop for the base DX9 spec, for more compatibilty with other cards on the market, rendering the extra features useless. Only a few developers will use these extra features, and that`ll only be because of a deal or some payoff by nVidia.
Next gen memory, my a$$. All DDR2 is, is DDR1 optimised for faster speeds. 256bit memory buses are the next gen thing. Cheaper to do as well(i think, by the looks of it as well) and produces less heat as well.
30% faster, likely. In most games, they are pretty much even. The only games where its 30% more, is game that have been heavily optimised and designed to be run on nVidia Hardware. If they were optimised for both, then it`d be even.
For a card thats a whole product cycle ahead of the R300, its majorly dissapointing.
Even optimised drivers, which will bring 10-15% at most, wont help nVidia. By then the R350 will be out, and the R300 will be far cheaper, and attractive to buyers.
Matrox Parhelia lauch quotes
first 512bit GPU
first 256bit memory bus
Triple head gaming
10 bit gigacolour.
It meets only the last two.
Even John Carmack was dissapointed about this card, with it being the first 512/256 bit card, other cards were only 256/128bit, so its gotta be better, right?
nVidia GeForceFX Launch Quotes.
Beyond DX9 specification
Next gen memory, DDR2
approximately 30% faster than the 9700pro.
It may meet the first thing, but lets be honest, most developers are only going to develop for the base DX9 spec, for more compatibilty with other cards on the market, rendering the extra features useless. Only a few developers will use these extra features, and that`ll only be because of a deal or some payoff by nVidia.
Next gen memory, my a$$. All DDR2 is, is DDR1 optimised for faster speeds. 256bit memory buses are the next gen thing. Cheaper to do as well(i think, by the looks of it as well) and produces less heat as well.
30% faster, likely. In most games, they are pretty much even. The only games where its 30% more, is game that have been heavily optimised and designed to be run on nVidia Hardware. If they were optimised for both, then it`d be even.
For a card thats a whole product cycle ahead of the R300, its majorly dissapointing.
Even optimised drivers, which will bring 10-15% at most, wont help nVidia. By then the R350 will be out, and the R300 will be far cheaper, and attractive to buyers.
The FX isnt a disapointment its just had its back side whipped by the Radeon maybe NVIDIA like always will pull out the stops with driver updates later on, Parhelia on the other hand flunked....big style.
Markfw
Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
- May 16, 2002
- 26,776
- 15,797
- 136
Both, in different ways. The Parhelia was slow and exspensive, but had its upsides, and no other downsides (major downsides).
The FX is too loud (I know it is suppsed to be better at release, but where to get rid of 75 watts of heat!), and too big. I don't care about the other slot either, but it also has a big passive heat sink on the other side ! Everything bad stems from heat, and it it could be cooled better somehow, they could probably even clock it up even higher ! The 256 bus is also killing it. I know that AMD put another layer of (interconnects??) in the newest Athlon, and the heat went way down. If Nvidia did something like that, and changed the bus to 256, then they might have a winner, one that would trownce (sp?) the 9700.
The FX is too loud (I know it is suppsed to be better at release, but where to get rid of 75 watts of heat!), and too big. I don't care about the other slot either, but it also has a big passive heat sink on the other side ! Everything bad stems from heat, and it it could be cooled better somehow, they could probably even clock it up even higher ! The 256 bus is also killing it. I know that AMD put another layer of (interconnects??) in the newest Athlon, and the heat went way down. If Nvidia did something like that, and changed the bus to 256, then they might have a winner, one that would trownce (sp?) the 9700.
GeForceFX. At least the Parhelia is still a market leader in the fields it is intended for. It also has unique features that aren't available at the price point it is at. The GeforceFX on the other hand was designed to do one thing which was play games which it does extremely well, only problem is the competition has the same performance for $100 less. The Parhelia has features that can justify its cost (just because you don't need them doesn't mean someone else doesn't), while the GeforceFX offers nothing (desireable) that the 9700Pro can't provide for $100 less. If the Parhelia was designed with only the gamer in mind like the FX, then the Parhelia would win hands down as the biggest disappoinment, but that isn't the case, so FX wins this title.
The Parhelia for sure! Yes the FX is disappointing, however the performance of the FX is not as bad as the Parhelia was when first introduced compared to the competition. Not to mention that the Parhelia is still $350+ in some areas.
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,000
- 126
The Parhelia by far. It absolutely puts 256 bit memory to shame and proves once and for all that building a card today with no HSR is brainless.
Sure the FX is a little disappointing but it's still a usable card and it's still quite fast too.
So to sum up:
Parhelia - DOA and total crap.
FX - disappointing but still fast and usable.
Sure the FX is a little disappointing but it's still a usable card and it's still quite fast too.
So to sum up:
Parhelia - DOA and total crap.
FX - disappointing but still fast and usable.
I'd say Geforce FX, first because I wasn't expecting much from Matrox to begin with, and second because the Parhelia has control of a segment of the market. NVidia, on the other hand, was expected to be #1 by a decent margin. Instead, it failed to pull away at all from the 9700. And unlike Parhelia, it is beaten in its target market. For all it's faults, Parhelia appeals to those that want 3 monitors, top notch 2d, and decent if far from overwhelming 3d. The Geforce FX, however, targets those who simply want speed, and the 9700 is almost as fast, cheaper, less noisy, and available a good 6 months in advance.
They are both very dissappointing, but the winner has to be the Parhelia simply due to the fact that it still hasn't come down in price!!!
Wolfsraider
Diamond Member
- Jan 27, 2002
- 8,305
- 0
- 76
you can still play on a matrox Parhelia,without being drowned by the noise...maybe the fx adds to the realism in flight sims :Q
the gforce fx,while on par with ati at this point,should get better but what happens when the heat becomes an issue?
there will be 400 posts about "help my games are crashing to the desktop" or those that have added fans to get rid of the heat
complaining that "it was loud before but since i added more cooling i just cant take the noise"
of course there will be the die hards at the lan parties shouting"noise?what noise?"
i would ather have the Parhelia...that is if i didn't already have a decent video card
the gforce fx,while on par with ati at this point,should get better but what happens when the heat becomes an issue?
there will be 400 posts about "help my games are crashing to the desktop" or those that have added fans to get rid of the heat
complaining that "it was loud before but since i added more cooling i just cant take the noise"
of course there will be the die hards at the lan parties shouting"noise?what noise?"
i would ather have the Parhelia...that is if i didn't already have a decent video card
I don?t have to, because I know for a fact that BOTH Matrox and Nvidia marketed their products for gaming, graphics etc!
It?s just that Matrox backed-off a lot because initial reviews showed that the Parhelia was sub-par compared to the competition in terms of performance. However, Matrox does in fact market gaming, like Surround Gaming for example, and EMBM as their main features of gaming.
As you can see here: Matrox Surround Gaming and EMBM
Though they do emphasize on other things as shown here, they very much in fact target gamers.
Same thing for nvidia, their site dearly shows they are not just going after the gaming market, if that were true they would not be doing as well as they are in the OEM markets. Yes, OEMs like Dell will suggest Nvidia for great gaming experience, it's not to suggest that?s all the card is capable of doing, because people will tell you otherwise.
Fixed links I hope
Exactly how I feel. At least the GFFX was fast, pushed the technology a bit further. Parhelia just had extra features no one really could take advantage of.
Wolfsraider
Diamond Member
- Jan 27, 2002
- 8,305
- 0
- 76
"I don?t have to, because I know for a fact that BOTH Matrox and Nvidia marketed their products for gaming, graphics etc!"
Market and target are 2 totally different things. NVidia is solely targetting gamers with the FX, Matrox is doing no such thing with the Parhelia. Matrox has features that appeal to gamers and of course they will market those aspects, you never want to cut off a potential market even if that is not what you are designing for.
"As you can see here: Matrox Surround Gaming and EMBM"
Matrox created EMBM years ago, why would they take it out now? 3 monitors has far more uses and applications for the professional market which is why Matrox has it. Surround gaming strikes me more as an afterthought on Matrox's part to try and give it a gamers' application though it really is an idea before its time.
"Though they do emphasize on other things as shown here, they very much in fact target gamers."
Notice gaming is 4th and last on the list, because Matrox targets the professional market. The card is still fast enough for gaming and has some interesting features that it applies and markets towards gamers so as not to eliminate a market it can still potentially sell products in.
"Same thing for nvidia, their site dearly shows they are not just going after the gaming market, if that were true they would not be doing as well as they are in the OEM markets. Yes, OEMs like Dell will suggest Nvidia for great gaming experience, it's not to suggest that?s all the card is capable of doing, because people will tell you otherwise."
Let's keep it on topic please. NVidia selling TNT Vanta's to Dell and HP has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the just benchmarked FX is targetted at no one but the enthusiast gamer.
Market and target are 2 totally different things. NVidia is solely targetting gamers with the FX, Matrox is doing no such thing with the Parhelia. Matrox has features that appeal to gamers and of course they will market those aspects, you never want to cut off a potential market even if that is not what you are designing for.
"As you can see here: Matrox Surround Gaming and EMBM"
Matrox created EMBM years ago, why would they take it out now? 3 monitors has far more uses and applications for the professional market which is why Matrox has it. Surround gaming strikes me more as an afterthought on Matrox's part to try and give it a gamers' application though it really is an idea before its time.
"Though they do emphasize on other things as shown here, they very much in fact target gamers."
Notice gaming is 4th and last on the list, because Matrox targets the professional market. The card is still fast enough for gaming and has some interesting features that it applies and markets towards gamers so as not to eliminate a market it can still potentially sell products in.
"Same thing for nvidia, their site dearly shows they are not just going after the gaming market, if that were true they would not be doing as well as they are in the OEM markets. Yes, OEMs like Dell will suggest Nvidia for great gaming experience, it's not to suggest that?s all the card is capable of doing, because people will tell you otherwise."
Let's keep it on topic please. NVidia selling TNT Vanta's to Dell and HP has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the just benchmarked FX is targetted at no one but the enthusiast gamer.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter