Them Sweet Parhelias

[skid]

Any of you guys who got the Matrox Parhelia get 10,000 on 3D Mark yet? I'm not putting them down, the features on the Parhelia are just about the coolest out there... I just wanna know about where they stand in performance now that CPU's are a little faster than when the card was released and driver improvements should be helping out.

[skid]

C'mon somebody out there knows somethin to tell me...

[Yodums]

Someone by the name of HotKoala here has his Parhelia running at 265/270, A7N8X, and 1.2 MP Chip @ 1.2 just 166 FSB and he's getting a 7.75K score. Pretty impressive for a rather low clock speed. It's still in the works too so I'm sure he'll be tempted to get a new chip and get a higher score :D

[funnyperson1]

this is the best ive seen:

http://forum.oc-forums.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=155700

[Cowboy X]

Here are two links :

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20021218/index.html

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20021218/vgacharts-05.html

[Anaxagoras1986]

Hehe those card cost about 300 bucks. Could easily get a R300 for that.

[Yodums]

Originally posted by Anaxagoras1986
Hehe those card cost about 300 bucks. Could easily get a R300 for that.

Well, if you look at it from a different perspective: Will the R300 be able to maintain its speed if you turn up all settings? Nope :)

[speedy4500]

Can the R300 support 3-head display? Does the R300 have special AutoCAD driver support? Are there any R300 cards with dual DVI connections? The Matrox Parhelia has a feature set unmatched by any other consumer level cards....if I had the cash I'd put together a dual Xeon system with a Parhelia and dual DVI LCDs.

[Anaxagoras1986]

Originally posted by Yodums


Well, if you look at it from a different perspective: Will the R300 be able to maintain its speed if you turn up all settings? Nope :)

But I bet it would still have more performance than the Parhelia. Right?

I am not bashing the Parhelia - I am just saying that I would rather have a more gaming type card. And yes I do know that the Parhelia does have 3 monitor support and a whole load of nice features on it.

[HotKoala]

3072X768 w/ 16X FAA on in every game that supports surround gaming. Basicly any of your popular games have it.

It's like looking at the 9500Pro. Without anything fancy it's about as good as a 4400. With the eyecandy it's better than the 4600. The Parhelia is almost the same. Except in performs like a 8500/GF3 Ti500. Eyecandy on, and I'm only 10% behind a 9700Pro with eyecandy on...and my field of vision is a lot wider. Nevermind 3072X768 is a lot more pixels than 1600X1200.

Reviews? I have yet to see a big review site that usees anything close to the latest driver revision for that period. Not even close to the performance we're seeing. Hell, Hardop couldn't even get the drivers installed. Shows real competence there, yet people still go there.

Here's something you won't get to see in those more popular "review" sites like tom, anand, hard, sharky. Quality shots.

http://www.seijin.de/index2.php?page=Artikel/tvout.php

[Anaxagoras1986]

I still think it is a bit pricy. And The r9700 would just be so much faster. The Parhelia is probably going to be seeing some performance problems at high res in Doom3 (am I right?).

[HotKoala]

Pricey? Maybe. I think the 9700Pro is pricey for all that it offers. Only good for gaming. For $300? Not worth it to me.

Parhelia actually handles high resolution and eye candy better due to it's architechture. Without any of that, it performs about 8500 due to the game not using all of it's texture units.

Parhelia has 4 TMU's per pipe and 4 pipelines. 9700 and GFFX have 8 pipelines and 2 TMU's per pipe. They're great at regular old 1024X768 but once you hit higher resolution and turn on AA they start to take a huge hit. Parhelia, on the otherhand, doesn't get fully utilised until the higher resolutions.

As for Doom3, I don't know about that. The game isn't out and I never downloaded the alpha. All cards pretty much ran like crap on that game anyways.

[Anaxagoras1986]

I too think the R9700 is a bit pricy but it is still cheaper than the P.
And the R9700 is the to second to the fastest card in the world fo gaming.

[skid]

Hey HotKoala, how does the Parhelia look in 3DMark03? I bet it does better than any Geforce currently available.

[HotKoala]

"And the R9700 is the to second to the fastest card in the world fo gaming."

Yeah but that is all it is good at, unfortunately. I plan on getting one anyways because I like to have personal experience with cards before passing real judgement, rather than playing parrot to what I read online.

"Hey HotKoala, how does the Parhelia look in 3DMark03? I bet it does better than any Geforce currently available"

I haven't downloaded it yet. Maybe if Takiwa nags me enough for OC3DMark=) I've taken my core to as high as 270 from the stock 220. I leave it at 250 because, well, I don't see any difference in framerates at 3072X768 w/ 16XFAA on.

If you're curious, in 3dmark2k1 -- I get 7700Marks with a 1.6GHz AXP with a stock Parhelia. Overclocked to 250 core, I get 9100. 15% core overclock for a 17% increase in score. If that's any indication of the core's potential. Overclocked the ram anywhere from 270 to 330 gains nothing.

Others are getting ~1000 in 3dmark03. Waiting on DX9 drivers I guess. Dunno, I find it hard to believe that a 2.2GHz AXP with a Parhelia is slower than a 1.0GHz AXP with a 9700Pro. But that's what the demo says, by about 3000 points.

Benches as fast as a GF3.

[HotKoala]

3Dmark03 has been looked at and known problems will be fixed. Mostly clipping in Game 2 and 3. Parhelia cannot run Game 4(mother nature) because it requires pixel shader 2.0 which the Parhelia does not have.

[skid]

Dang it, I figured it would do test 4 and therefor give you a better score in '03 than alot of the cards outperforming you in 3Dmark2k1.

[Anaxagoras1986]

Originally posted by HotKoala
If you're curious, in 3dmark2k1 -- I get 7700Marks with a 1.6GHz AXP with a stock Parhelia. Overclocked to 250 core, I get 9100. 15% core overclock for a 17% increase in score. If that's any indication of the core's potential. Overclocked the ram anywhere from 270 to 330 gains nothing.

Thats really interesting ( :) ). You get a monster increase from just a slight increase in the core. And the mem doesnt help. If it werent so expensive it would be cool to vmod it and pelt it. Imagine what your score would be then!

[HotKoala]

Voltmod would kill the card in short order. I don't recommend anyone doing a volt mod on their videocard if they plan on keeping it.

Anyone with a Degree in EE would tell you the same.

[Anaxagoras1986]

Didnt say it would be a good idea. :eek:

[HotKoala]

Well, in that case, people have gotten their Parhelias up to 310 core with a voltmod.

[Anaxagoras1986]

Only 40mhz more than what your doing? Guess the core doesnt like to go much higher then. Well I guess thats a bit more....

Whats the performance (in games) at that level - Ti4200? It would be cool if they made a new Parhelia with a much higher clock rate or even dual chips ( :p I know that wouldnt work that well).

[HotKoala]

Only 40more? I'm already 15% more mhz than stock.

Performance at that level is at least equal to a 9700Pro with eyecandy up. Without -- I guess 4400.

Want to know something? Matrox already has a fixed chip(Parhelia8X) that is clocked higher and more than competitive with current cards. Why don't they release it? They're sitting on a huge stock of Parhelias and refuse to go forward with the next card.

Pitou is also ready for production but who knows..

I currently wouldn't reccomend this card to anyone due to Matrox's dubious future.

edit: your locale is spelt wrong. "UNITES"

[Anaxagoras1986]

I was saying 40 more than you. As in, its not that much of a benifit from the volt mod.

And I know my thing is spelled wrong. And my system is differerent now too. I cant change it because I have yahoo and all yahoo addresses have been banned. Therfore I have to gte a new e-mail befor I can get a new profile!

[speedy4500]

HotKoala, if you could elaborate on the "Parhelia8X" and "Pitou" you mentioned in your above post i'd appreciate it. Are they Matrox's next gen GPUs? Also, what monitor set up are you running with your Parhelia? I think that you and I have the same mindset...give me 50 fps and high quality images rather than 100 fps and crap images. My dream is to have 3 18" LCDs on a Parhelia. Too bad they'd have to run in analog.

[HotKoala]

Parhelia8X was ready to ship around novembre. It was a revision Parhelia that fixed everything that was suppose to be the intended released Parhelia. It would give the 9700Pro a run for it's money.

Pitou is Matrox's next gen. It's taped out and ready for production. But thus far has been canned along with the Parhelia8X. Decisions of head of Matrox...who knows what they're thinking anymore.

As for now, I can only expect a G450 revision of the Parhelia(read: slower version, less heat, less power)

I'm only dissapointed at management of Matrox. The card itself and drivers have been great. That is why I don't reccomend the Parhelia to anyone. Who knows what they plan to do in the future and what of support?

I'm running 3 21" CRT monitors @ 3072X768. I had 2 18" LCDs @ 2560X1024 before but I gave those away for a college friend's computers. The Parhelia can run 2 analogue and 1 DVI if you use 3 LCD's too(what I plan on). Analogue out of the Parhelia is a lot than any of the other companies anyways.

If it's anything. I also have a GF4 Ti4600 here. It gets faster but less consistant framerates. When the frames get below 30 for both cards, the 4600 becomes jerky. Parhelia still renders smoothly.

For singlehead gaming only, the 9700Pro would be the better buy though. With only one monitor, the Parhelia is nothing special.

[Anaxagoras1986]

I agree wioth thier managment probs if what you say is true. They have a faster version and they still refuse to sell it? Do they want to go out of business? Yes I know they want to sell the other ones but still....they could just market the older ones at a lower price and have the new ones at really high prices. Does the Parhelia have 64Megs? Also, does this new version have the memory bandwidth *optimizations* fixed? I heard that that was a problem with the the one out right now. If the parhelia was alot cheaper I would probably buy one, its just right now I dont see the total benifit. Not only would I have to buy the card (which is a good bit of $$), I would also have to get some more screens if I wanted to actually use it and that is putting the price up more obviously. Anyhow, maybe when I get my CCNA job I will gte a card like the Parelia (Prob P2 by then), and a system to use it.

And BTW, the Parelia does look pretty cool. I like the way the memory chips kinda wrap around the chip.

[HotKoala]

The thing is, Matrox's video cards have always held their price really well. It has never really changed because of their reputation on quality.

The slower revision I was talking about comes in 64MBs. That's the next card from Matrox that is expected to come out.

Memory bandwidth has never been a problem with the Parhelia. Infact, it is the least of the card's weakpoints. The ram is rated at 3.3ns(303MHz). But they all run at 270MHz. There's a lot of low latency aggressive timings there. Much like how people buy Corsair XMS PC3500 Cas2 to run them at PC3000 with even more aggressive settings.

Don't hold your breath on a newer faster videocard from Matrox for a while. But if it's anything, there hasn't been a processor that has maxed out the Parhelia's GPU yet. The core has a lot of potential yet.

[Anaxagoras1986]

No I know they have alot of bandwidth. Its 256bit and a very decent clock speed. I said memory optimizations, not bandwidth. It lacks alot of helpful features that nvidia and ati use to utilize it.

Oh wait a second, you said changing the memory speed didnt help right? Guess the optimizations wouldnt help then. Oh well. Looks more like that new chip would be helpful!

[HotKoala]

Originally posted by Anaxagoras1986
Oh wait a second, you said changing the memory speed didnt help right? Guess the optimizations wouldnt help then. Oh well. Looks more like that new chip would be helpful!

You must be the very first person to get what I've been saying.

[speedy4500]

Argh! I hate it when companies have a possibly great product and can it before production! I can't even imagine how great a card with either of the two chips you mentioned would be. Better frame rates, famous Matrox quality, triple head gaming....wow. It's kinda like when you see a great concept car and the manufacturer says "We don't see a market for it." Bah!!! No other company offers such an all around high performance card...9700 and Ti4600 suffer in CAD/modeling apps, and cards like the Wildcat and FireGL can't run games very well....but the Parhelia can do it all. Such a waste of good engineering.

[HotKoala]

Here's the bad part. They have Parhelia8X ready to ship. They just refuse to. Waiting on Parhelia inventory to go before they push out the Parhelia8X.

No logic in it at all.

[FemtoHz]

How's the 2D compare on the parhelia to the others? Is the Matrox still the best or about the same?

[Anaxagoras1986]

It'd be nice iof they did release the 8x...then the normal ones would drop in price alot.

[Blkout]

Originally posted by HotKoala
"And the R9700 is the to second to the fastest card in the world fo gaming."

Yeah but that is all it is good at, unfortunately. I plan on getting one anyways because I like to have personal experience with cards before passing real judgement, rather than playing parrot to what I read online.

"Hey HotKoala, how does the Parhelia look in 3DMark03? I bet it does better than any Geforce currently available"

I haven't downloaded it yet. Maybe if Takiwa nags me enough for OC3DMark=) I've taken my core to as high as 270 from the stock 220. I leave it at 250 because, well, I don't see any difference in framerates at 3072X768 w/ 16XFAA on.

If you're curious, in 3dmark2k1 -- I get 7700Marks with a 1.6GHz AXP with a stock Parhelia. Overclocked to 250 core, I get 9100. 15% core overclock for a 17% increase in score. If that's any indication of the core's potential. Overclocked the ram anywhere from 270 to 330 gains nothing.

Others are getting ~1000 in 3dmark03. Waiting on DX9 drivers I guess. Dunno, I find it hard to believe that a 2.2GHz AXP with a Parhelia is slower than a 1.0GHz AXP with a 9700Pro. But that's what the demo says, by about 3000 points.

Benches as fast as a GF3.

You shouldn't find it too hard to believe, the Parahelia is a real slug. It would have been a nice card around the GF2 or GF3 days, but its way too slow nowadays. The best card Matrox ever made was the G400 MAX which I owned long ago. It was at that time neck and neck with the best cards out there. The Parhelia is a failure, just like the GF FX. The only useful feature is the triple head support and how many people have three monitors for one single PC? Not many. Hell, I have the money to do it and still wouldn't.

The Radeon 9700 Pro is a real beast, image quality is fantastic and its blows everything else away even with all features enabled.

And before you take offense to this post, which I'm sure you will since you own a Parhelia, buy a Radeon 9700 Pro and watch it run circles around your Matrox with similar IQ.

[speedy4500]

Originally posted by Blkout


You shouldn't find it too hard to believe, the Parahelia is a real slug. It would have been a nice card around the GF2 or GF3 days, but its way too slow nowadays. The best card Matrox ever made was the G400 MAX which I owned long ago. It was at that time neck and neck with the best cards out there. The Parhelia is a failure, just like the GF FX. The only useful feature is the triple head support and how many people have three monitors for one single PC? Not many. Hell, I have the money to do it and still wouldn't.

The Radeon 9700 Pro is a real beast, image quality is fantastic and its blows everything else away even with all features enabled.

And before you take offense to this post, which I'm sure you will since you own a Parhelia, buy a Radeon 9700 Pro and watch it run circles around your Matrox with similar IQ.

Well, I look at it this way: the Parhelia is a Bentley Arnage Red Label, and the 9700 Pro is perhaps a Ferrari 360 Modena. Both cars are great. The Bentley can seat more people in the most sumptuous of interiors (Parhelia - 3 screens) and hold more luggage (eye candy) and because of its torque, the performance won't suffer to much. The Modena is outright quicker than the Bentley, but it can't hold 4 people in luxury and if it were forced to hold a large amount of luggage, it's meager torque would hinder performance. Nonetheless, both the Bentley (Parhelia) and the Ferrari (9700 Pro) are excellent automobiles, they just have different goals in mind. Obviously, Matrox doesn't wish to participate in the 3DMarkXX arms race with nVidia and ATi and would rather focus on unique features. I suppose if all I were going to do would be 3DMarking and games (or racing, back to the Ferrari example), I would get a 9700 Pro. If I enjoy 3D Modeling, CAD, flight sims, AND games (or touring, cruising, or racing - Bentley) I would go with the Parhelia. Neither card can fully satisfy the entire video card market.

PS, Blkout, sure sounds like you might be suffering from the same "fanboy" stance of which you're accusing HotKoala.

[Blkout]

Originally posted by speedy4500


Well, I look at it this way: the Parhelia is a Bentley Arnage Red Label, and the 9700 Pro is perhaps a Ferrari 360 Modena. Both cars are great. The Bentley can seat more people in the most sumptuous of interiors (Parhelia - 3 screens) and hold more luggage (eye candy) and because of its torque, the performance won't suffer to much. The Modena is outright quicker than the Bentley, but it can't hold 4 people in luxury and if it were forced to hold a large amount of luggage, it's meager torque would hinder performance. Nonetheless, both the Bentley (Parhelia) and the Ferrari (9700 Pro) are excellent automobiles, they just have different goals in mind. Obviously, Matrox doesn't wish to participate in the 3DMarkXX arms race with nVidia and ATi and would rather focus on unique features. I suppose if all I were going to do would be 3DMarking and games (or racing, back to the Ferrari example), I would get a 9700 Pro. If I enjoy 3D Modeling, CAD, flight sims, AND games (or touring, cruising, or racing - Bentley) I would go with the Parhelia. Neither card can fully satisfy the entire video card market.

PS, Blkout, sure sounds like you might be suffering from the same "fanboy" stance of which you're accusing HotKoala.


And how would I be a "fanboy"? I've owned S3, 3DFX, Nvidia, Matrox, and ATI cards in the past. I'm not loyal to any company except whoever has the best product at the moment.

Your analogy of cars to video cards is silly and doesn't make a lick of sense. Name one thing the Parhelia does better than the 9700 Pro other than triple monitor support? Even image quality is debatable between the two nowadays. Games? The ATI eats it for lunch. Game developing? ATI is faster there too. So maybe you can point out what makes the Matrox superior in its own way other than the triple monitor support. I can only think of one useful feature that the Matrox has over the ATI and that feature is ridiculous, I'd say about 1% of PC owners have three monitors to use for one PC.

[james.miller]

actually it does make sence. names both cards have different goals. Though i agree with blkout, the difference in image quality and I.Q is now negligable and, at the end of the day, the matrox lags badly in all RELEVENT tests.

@ HotKoala: you keep saying how the matrox destroys the ATI at 3000x2000 or there-abouts. but tell me this, who would want to run that res if they were forced to run 3 monitors? 2 thick bands down the middle of the screens? no thanks.

You also keep telling us that the matrox isnt primarily for gaming. That's fine. But why then do you keep referencing 3dmark scores, again when using 2 or 3 monitors? to me, thats totally usless - you can't compare them.

[speedy4500]

Originally posted by Blkout



And how would I be a "fanboy"? I've owned S3, 3DFX, Nvidia, Matrox, and ATI cards in the past. I'm not loyal to any company except whoever has the best product at the moment.

Your analogy of cars to video cards is silly and doesn't make a lick of sense. Name one thing the Parhelia does better than the 9700 Pro other than triple monitor support? Even image quality is debatable between the two nowadays. Games? The ATI eats it for lunch. Game developing? ATI is faster there too. So maybe you can point out what makes the Matrox superior in its own way other than the triple monitor support. I can only think of one useful feature that the Matrox has over the ATI and that feature is ridiculous, I'd say about 1% of PC owners have three monitors to use for one PC.

I'd be interested to know why you think my analogy doesn't make a "lick of sense," instead of just refuting it and providing no reasoning.

The Parhelia would kill the Radeon in AutoCAD or most other OpenGL programs. Matrox has committed many resources to developing OpenGL drivers. If you look at the Matrox web site, the Parhelia has received numerous certifications for programs that would usually only be run on a professional level workstation card. Also, even if many aren't running 3 screens, I venture to say there are quite a few with dual LCD screens. Last time I checked, the Radeon only supports one DVI, Parhelia has two. I'd bet the majority of Parhelia users are actually using two or three screens, versus the Radeon 9700 Pro, whose users most likely have one screen, and perhaps a TV-out. I may be incorrect, but I do believe Matrox has been doing this multi-monitor thing much longer than ATi or nVidia. Also, like I said earlier, comparing straight up frame rate is a moot point, Matrox wasn't aiming for that, and I guess if that's really important for you, then the Radeon 9700 Pro is your choice. The Parhelia's performance does not suffer greatly when loaded up with Anti-Aliasing and Anisotropic filtering, and as far as I'm concerned, any fps over 80 is really quite useless. I personally have a Ti4200, but if I had the cash, I sure as hell would get dual 18" LCDs and a Parhelia.

[FemtoHz]

Just got my Parhelia. I love it. It is sharper at 2d at 1280 x 1024 than my G400.

[Blkout]

Originally posted by speedy4500


I'd be interested to know why you think my analogy doesn't make a "lick of sense," instead of just refuting it and providing no reasoning.

The Parhelia would kill the Radeon in AutoCAD or most other OpenGL programs. Matrox has committed many resources to developing OpenGL drivers. If you look at the Matrox web site, the Parhelia has received numerous certifications for programs that would usually only be run on a professional level workstation card. Also, even if many aren't running 3 screens, I venture to say there are quite a few with dual LCD screens. Last time I checked, the Radeon only supports one DVI, Parhelia has two. I'd bet the majority of Parhelia users are actually using two or three screens, versus the Radeon 9700 Pro, whose users most likely have one screen, and perhaps a TV-out. I may be incorrect, but I do believe Matrox has been doing this multi-monitor thing much longer than ATi or nVidia. Also, like I said earlier, comparing straight up frame rate is a moot point, Matrox wasn't aiming for that, and I guess if that's really important for you, then the Radeon 9700 Pro is your choice. The Parhelia's performance does not suffer greatly when loaded up with Anti-Aliasing and Anisotropic filtering, and as far as I'm concerned, any fps over 80 is really quite useless. I personally have a Ti4200, but if I had the cash, I sure as hell would get dual 18" LCDs and a Parhelia.


Your analogy doesn't fly because of the reasons you listed as difference between the two cars which is supposed to be relevant to the two video cards. I've already said, name one thing that Parhelia can do that the 9700 Pro can't do other than triple monitor support. Everything else the 9700 Pro can do just as good or better.


Well, I'd like to see some benchmarks on Autocad showing the Parhelia killing the 9700 Pro, and if you want to get really nit picky and compare workstation cards, ATI makes the Fire series just for that. As for Open GL apps, how about Quake 3? Which performs better? I'll take the ATI.

The Parhelia is a flop, face it, it came along about 1-2 years too late. It really serves no practical purpose, there are better cards out there, and cost less too.

[HotKoala]

Originally posted by james.miller
actually it does make sence. names both cards have different goals. Though i agree with blkout, the difference in image quality and I.Q is now negligable and, at the end of the day, the matrox lags badly in all RELEVENT tests.

@ HotKoala: you keep saying how the matrox destroys the ATI at 3000x2000 or there-abouts. but tell me this, who would want to run that res if they were forced to run 3 monitors? 2 thick bands down the middle of the screens? no thanks.

You also keep telling us that the matrox isnt primarily for gaming. That's fine. But why then do you keep referencing 3dmark scores, again when using 2 or 3 monitors? to me, thats totally usless - you can't compare them.

I'm sorry you think so. "Relevence" depends highly on the user. If gaming is your first and only priority(99% of those here) I would and have suggested the 9500Pro. I think it's a superb card for the money for it's intended market. I should know, I have one too.

You obviously have never used multimontors before. When you drive, do you notice those two thick metal bars on your sides?

I reference to 3DMark because that's all anyone cares for here. I give numbers for other games and it's ignored, just like you have done.

If you can't see the difference in output quality, even in DVI -- you either have a subpar monitor, manufactor bundled cables, poor electrical outlets or any/all of the above. You haven't seen it in person, therefore stop playing parrot.

[HotKoala]

Originally posted by speedy4500

The Parhelia would kill the Radeon in AutoCAD or most other OpenGL programs. Matrox has committed many resources to developing OpenGL drivers. If you look at the Matrox web site, the Parhelia has received numerous certifications for programs that would usually only be run on a professional level workstation card.

This is partly true. Matrox cannot compete in professional 3D. Their OGL has never been their strong point(even back in the G400 days). They have certifications, yes, but it's still bloody slow compared to 3Dlabs. Had you said AutoCAD/Visual art/programmers, et-c, I'd agree. The P is a joke for Professional OGL 3D rendering.

Who knows, that might have changed with the latest drivers that boosted OGL performance by 200+% I'm still not convinced by merely *one* driver though.

[james.miller]

card for card, they arent that much diferent. yes, your matrox's fsaa is better (not THAT much though). and of course its better at stupidly high resoultions across multi-monitors. but whats the point? what games are gonna be worthwhile palying across a mulit-monitor setup except fligh sims? because i KNOW that it isnt gonna make UT2003 a better game, or make the upcomming Doom]l[ more enjoyable.

multiply monitors are only for flight sim's, 2d and rendering. And with that in mind - the cards are extreamly close.

BTW, yes i DO use multiply monitors - all the time. But do i use them for games? no, i dont. because its a waste of time.

so it all comes down to what you intend to use them for. rendering? matrox (only just...). gaming? radoen (much, much better). Which is exactly what i said in my last post.

[HotKoala]

As you say, mate.

If you want to argue for the sake of arguing, save it. It's pretty blõody obvious you are either a newbie to multimonitor or that you dõn't really do anything productive -- and I mean as either a profession or a serious hobby -- on your computer anyways.

As for gaming, you're obviously not going to shell out $300 for a card and >$800 per monitor. Don't knock it till you've tried it. And ,again, it's obvious you haven't. To answer your query anyways, every popular game out supports triplehead.

[james.miller]

yeah ok, im a newbie. so is EVERYBODY else who doesnt argue for the matrox:rolleyes:

every popular game out supports triplehead.
And i never said otherwise. but what price do you have to pay for that "3072X768 w/ 16X FAA" when its spanned across 3 monitors. how slow???. hmm ok then, turn the FSAA down....how blocky???

whatever im not gonna argue with you, your obviously right, and everybody else is wrong.

If you want to argue for the sake of arguing, save it. It's pretty blõody obvious you are either a newbie to multimonitor or that you dõn't really do anything productive -- and I mean as either a profession or a serious hobby -- on your computer anyways.
please, quote the passage that proves that:rolleyes: I said the matrox was the choice for professionals, how does that suggest i dont know anything about it?

[a c i d.f l y]

Matrox has never sold their products on the concept of 3D Gaming, and the typical computer facist... but more into the 'professional' realm of imaging. Where it renders one screen really fast, at better than the rest's quality... Consistency, and the multiple monitors boast opportunities not beneficial to the basic user.

-Frank

[Anaxagoras1986]

Not always true, the parhelia was sold along the lines of "surround gaming".

[HotKoala]

That was one of the card's most touted features, for the gamer's side. How much the feature is actually worth is another matter.

I personally had 3X 21" CRTs and couldn't stand the intense radiation much. It was gone in 4 months and replaced with LCDs.

[Anaxagoras1986]

Bah I cant stand LCD. Ghosting and $$ just doesnt make it worth it to me. I know some dont have as bad ghosting but they are still just too expensive.

[HotKoala]

Can't argue with you there. What made my purchase worth it was my EIZO L685EXs. ~$1900 per display, but the 10-bit gamma really shows picture quality.

All on your primary priorities. I only have two eyes, I plan to take care of them=)

[Anaxagoras1986]

Yes I agree, do have to take care of them!!

But really, how much damage does a CRT do anyway?

[HotKoala]

Well, during my trial in those few months my eyes went from 3.25 to 4=P They were stable before that for a couple years with LCDs. I also have astigmatism whereas before I was fine.

There are also headaches you get after hours of work I can no longer stand. I'm an extreme case though.

It varies upon user, but most no longer have perfectly round eyes any more.

[Anaxagoras1986]

Are you talking about myopia?

[HotKoala]

No, it was first caused by my looking straight into a light bulb at an early age. Didn't know what the bloody thing was. My vision got worst(.75) but not so bad until I got hooked on to computers.

Over 20 or so odd CRTs degraded my vision quite rapidly while the 2 years I was on LCDs it was stable. Then I went 3 CRTs and in a few months I went from 3.25 to 4.00. I noticed my vision getting worst and that was the scary part.

For that reason I've switched back to LCDs. And no, I don't go to big chain eyeware stores. Talk about **** poor quality glasses..

[Anaxagoras1986]

What type of rating is that with the numbers?

[HotKoala]

Uhm? moderate to heavy is 4. As for actual 20/XX I haven't the slightest. More than 7 inches from my face is blurry if that helps.

[Anaxagoras1986]

Really? wow. My vision is pretty bad, but not quite like that.

[Deagle]

HotKoala, do you have the 128MB or 256MB version?

Does anyone know how they compare?

I wish Matrox would up the game performance. I'd shell out the extra cash... Matrox visual quality is far better than anyone elses in this market.

Good gaming performance and respectable ACAD... no such thing huh... :(

[HotKoala]

128MB Retail.

The 256MB versions are clocked slower so in applications with less use of textures, the 128MB would be faster. I'm also investigating a triplehead thing with shared ram. If it's true, then the 256MB version would be faster in triplehead at higher resolutions. But I can't really be bothered with it as I don't game very much. For desktop, 128MB is sufficient for any overlay you want across 3 monitors.

However, since they're all the same batch, you could always clock them up to retail speeds. No guarantees though as overclocking is never 100%

[Arghuin]

A very interesting thread this one...

personally had 3X 21" CRTs

I might be soon(ish)- i.e over the next 2-3 months -in the market for a Parhelia...and I've so far spent days looking into what has been described as the 'banding' effect of the card on the image output...did you experience any similar problems? Seeing as I'll be using the card on CRTs (no way for me to afford LCDs), will I be in trouble? Current reports indicate that not all the Ps have this problem, but it really is a hit and miss situation

Also, users have been reporting different BIOS versions for their P, depending on when it was bought (can not remember them atm tho :( )

[HotKoala]

I'd have to reccomend you not to get one if you're a gamer. I wouldn't reccomend any other card if you're a desktop worker.

They've a revised(and therefore fixed) core out, but only the LX versions that are the P750/650. There is *suppose* to be a higher clocked better performing P8X out but I highly doubt that one anymore. At the moment, it looks like Matrox is getting out of 3D performance all together. Their next card will only meet the bare minimum to run Windows 3D accelerated GUI. Don't take my word on it. None of this is official.

Over my 2 Retail Parhelias I did not experience any banding. Half of the people getting this are seeing the tearing when v-sync is disabled. The other half have a minor to very serious problem with it. Matrox still haven't official word on it which is a shame.

As with anything else, the people with problems are naturally more vocal. The ones without, don't care=P

I haven't any BIOS problems with my P either. I know there is more than one for DVI-out fix revisions, but I haven't had to use it yet. It all comes down to if the gremlins want to play=P

[Arghuin]

I'd have to reccomend you not to get one if you're a gamer. I wouldn't reccomend any other card if you're a desktop worker

Ta :)

There is *suppose* to be a higher clocked better performing P8X out but I highly doubt that one anymore

I think I've heard about this as well....Matrox are/were also supposed to be hard at work on Parhelia 2 (or Pitou as it was euphemistically called), but again, as with most things from Matrox, no official word

Over my 2 Retail Parhelias I did not experience any banding

Which is extremely encouraging...

Half of the people getting this are seeing the tearing when v-sync is disabled

As I've posted in another thread in this forum, this (http://www.btinternet.com/~freakpascal/parhelia_banding.zip) is what banding looks like (at least in desktop mode anyway)

I've yet to see a proper review of the 2d quality of the card set against the latest ATI/nVidia offerings tho (i.e. 9700/9800 radeon series and the 5600/5800/5900 FX series). As for gaming, Parhelia does what I need and then some :o

Again thx for the input ;)

[Deagle]

Originally posted by HotKoala
At the moment, it looks like Matrox is getting out of 3D performance all together. Their next card will only meet the bare minimum to run Windows 3D accelerated GUI.

I hate it when Matrox does that :bang head

[HotKoala]

Originally posted by Deagle


I hate it when Matrox does that :bang head

When was the last time Matrox did that? It's not all a bad move on their end. Desktop video sells loads more than gamer enthusiasts ever will. Look how sucessful the FX5200 is in the real world and how unpopular it is here.

Still, I wish it wasn't like that. I'm giving 3DLabs a whirl. Neither ATi nor nV have anything close to serious multi-monitor support. Which is a pity, because they have the performance to spare.

[Arghuin]

I'm giving 3DLabs a whirl

Another relatively sad story there....3dlabs are now owned by Creative Labs, which has so far done next to NOTHING to promote 3dLabs' VPUs in the mainstream and even to the professional market.....I'm amazed they still churn out variants of their wildcat series of cards (although they, as well as matrox, do have sort of their own market segment, i.e. people that buy specific products for specific application and have specific requirements)

Well....Creative have (http://www.americas.creative.com/products/product.asp?product=1068&campid=20058) actually released a card based on the Wildcat core (one of the very low-range models), but if all I wanted to do photo/image editing, I'd take the P750/P650 over this thing any day :p

[HotKoala]

I've heard that Creative has only aquired 3DLabs. The 3DLabs and Creative teams are still seperate though. If it wasn't like that I wouldn't even consider them.

I can't imagine how buggy and bloated the drivers would be if Creative actually writes them.

I think 3DLabs does rather well in games. They even actively support games in their forums. This was what the P10 was somewhat like:

http://www.tilebase.de/reviews/VP560/VP560_01.html

I'm looking at the VP880 because of Dual DVI(ok, so it was my only reason as I'm spoiled by the P's dual DVI). Higher clocks and memory than the VP760 can't be a bad thing either.

[Deagle]

Originally posted by HotKoala


When was the last time Matrox did that? It's not all a bad move on their end. Desktop video sells loads more than gamer enthusiasts ever will. Look how sucessful the FX5200 is in the real world and how unpopular it is here.

Still, I wish it wasn't like that. I'm giving 3DLabs a whirl. Neither ATi nor nV have anything close to serious multi-monitor support. Which is a pity, because they have the performance to spare.

Well, back in the day of the G400Max 32MB...

That card was very near the TNT2 Ultra in 3D performance, greater in performance than the ATI counterpart, had excellent dual monitor support, had the cleanest image quality, and was way faster in the 2D department than anything in that market. Though it wasn't supposed to overclock well, I remember getting it about 10% above stock, stable.

Then they were supposed to release the G800Max which was going to have dual chips for tearing up games. I had the check written out and the car warmed up to go buy this thing. Then they cancelled and then quickly disappeared out of the gaming market.

Then there was the Voodoo 5 6000.....

Now I'm hearing about a dual 9700 Pro.....

[Arghuin]

I can't imagine how buggy and bloated the drivers would be if Creative actually writes them

Hopefully they'll do the same thing that they did/do with their nVidia-based accellerators: keep the reference drivers intact :D

I'm looking at the VP880 because of Dual DVI(ok, so it was my only reason as I'm spoiled by the P's dual DVI). Higher clocks and memory than the VP760 can't be a bad thing either.

Not to mention the fillrate and memory amount (are you after the Pro version?). My question would be, wouldn't this card be a tad more specific to its applications than, say, Parhelia? Also, what about the cost?

[HotKoala]

Originally posted by Deagle

Then they were supposed to release the G800Max which was going to have dual chips for tearing up games.

The G800 is the G550 today. Rather a stripped down version of the G800 after serious inside muck ups. I don't recall any bit of dual chips other than the rumours started by fans that websites decided to turn into insider sources.

In any case, it wasn't even officially announced and therefore just a rumour. It never existed in the consumer world.

The V4.5 was the super scalable VSA 100 chip.
The V5 was 2 of them
The V5 6000 was 4 of them working together.
There's a simulation somewhere using 100 of them.

I think 3DFX was the only company to successfully do multiple chips for the gamer world. I forget why I didn't like them. Something about their proprietory API.

ATi, when I see it, I'll believe it. Seeing as how the current R3XX requires a very noisy(signal-wise) and inefficient way of drawing extra power for a mere 1 VPU, I'd hate to imagine 2 of them in tandem. How much strain that would put on a PSU, and what market it would sell to. Gamers? That's not even close to being worth the R&D for their <2% market.

They're hurting from the 9500->9600 transition, I reckon.

[HotKoala]

Originally posted by Arghuin

Not to mention the fillrate and memory amount (are you after the Pro version?). My question would be, wouldn't this card be a tad more specific to its applications than, say, Parhelia? Also, what about the cost?

It is, but then the Parhelia was never really designed for just one market. It excels uncontested still in many features. 3DLab and Matrox have several things in common in that they're geared towards a more professional market. As I rarely game, I couldn't really be bother with it's gaming performance so long as it's over 60FPS. Above that and V-sync catches it due to refresh rates.

What I do care about it rendering accuracy, colour accuracy, proper multi-monitor support(note that 3DLabs also offers dual hardware overlay like Matrox. ATi and nV just got to a secondary RAMDAC for its secondary display) Driver features, both desktop and to a lesser extent games, that are customisable and are useful. It's just the things that are overlooked by nV and ATi that make life a lot easier. They would rather spend their resources throwing mud at each other and seeing which can get the highest on the frame counter.

Neither 3DLabs or Matrox bow down to 3DMark or even optimise for it either. That's just a perk right there. I hate synthetic or even popular benchmarks as they take away from optimisation/bug fixing of actual games.

[Arghuin]

Neither 3DLabs or Matrox bow down to 3DMark or even optimise for it either. That's just a perk right there. I hate synthetic or even popular benchmarks as they take away from optimisation/bug fixing of actual games.

To each his own, alhough I have to say that my views are not that different :D

3DLabs also offers dual hardware overlay like Matrox

Two 10-bit DACS if I'm not mistaken? :confused:

As far as drivers and market segments are concerned though, we should bear in mind that both nV and ATI (perhaps nVidia a bit more) have established a more or less firm foothold in the professional sector with the Quadro and FireGL line of cards respectively. Also, again on the driver arena, if I were running, for instance, Linux my first choice of gfx card company would be nVidia...great drivers and great support. ATI's Linux drivers are more or less at their infancy and Matrox...well...no comment :rolleyes:

I still would choose a Matrox product over a 3dlabs one tho :p

(very first gfx cards :Mystique and Millenium for me and a friend of mine...we also used to swap them from time to time :D)

[Deagle]

Originally posted by HotKoala


The G800 is the G550 today. Rather a stripped down version of the G800 after serious inside muck ups. I don't recall any bit of dual chips other than the rumours started by fans that websites decided to turn into insider sources.

The dual chip configuration was on the Matrox website. That's how I found out about it. Of course it was just in news briefs etc...

[HotKoala]

Originally posted by Arghuin

Two 10-bit DACS if I'm not mistaken? :confused:

As far as drivers and market segments are concerned though, we should bear in mind that both nV and ATI (perhaps nVidia a bit more) have established a more or less firm foothold in the professional sector with the Quadro and FireGL line of cards respectively. Also, again on the driver arena, if I were running, for instance, Linux my first choice of gfx card company would be nVidia...great drivers and great support. ATI's Linux drivers are more or less at their infancy and Matrox...well...no comment :rolleyes:


I'm confused on what you intended with the 10-bit DACs.

I'll have to agree with you on linux. Me Ti4600 works brilliant under linux and windows. Matrox support there is still pathetic. ATi, eh. =)

I've seen what the Quadro and FireGL can do. My first GF was a Quadro because I was more concerned about the signal quality. It was better than all the other GFs out there and very, very good in gaming. FireGLs have driver/rendering problems, Quadros have rendering problems. The Parhelia is just too bloody slow doing anything in that arena even if it does them right.

This is why people look at 3DLabs seriously for 3D modeling. Likewise, the nV and ATi for gaming. Matrox for photoshopping and Videoediting. They serve their market and do it really well. Granted there are those who aren't too serious and will say anyone of those will be perfectly fine.

[HotKoala]

Originally posted by Deagle


The dual chip configuration was on the Matrox website. That's how I found out about it. Of course it was just in news briefs etc...


Still don't recall it. In any case, I was using the original radeon for 3D by that time. Drivers didn't mature till much later, but when it did that card was solid. Brilliant signal, great colours, decent for CS=)

By now I also moved to LCD monitors, the G400 didn't have that without an adaptor that costed $30. The Radeon came with DVI-I out. Slightly less quality for better performance and ability to use a monitor that doesn't give me headaches. The latter was most important, so I stopped using the G400.

Matrox didn't really move during this time. The crippled G450 that should have never come out. The G550 was an improvement for desktop in that it had DVI and higher clocked RAMDACs, but the G400 was still in many way superior in quality and useful/useable features.

...I forget what point I was suppose to make, but the cranberry and vodka bids me to play.

[Arghuin]

I'm confused on what you intended with the 10-bit DACs.

If you go here (http://www.3dlabs.com/product/wildcatvp/vppro/index.htm) and about half-way through the page click on the audio-visual tour, and have a look at the slides (esp. the 7th one i think...)

[HotKoala]

Originally posted by Arghuin


If you go here (http://www.3dlabs.com/product/wildcatvp/vppro/index.htm) and about half-way through the page click on the audio-visual tour, and have a look at the slides (esp. the 7th one i think...)

Well, it's nothing special in that, nV, ATi, Matrox, and 3DLabs have it on their recent cards.

The only two that actually use it are Matrox and 3DLabs however. Matrox's 10-bit output is superb. Although, it had a lot more to do with its internal precision and how that was kept the whole way through than just the RAMDAC.