Matrox meeting , no benchmarks but :)

[Geeforcer]

After reading this: http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=33618033

I don't think I can see HellBinder as more than a fan boy, really... (or should I say hype boy, because earlier posts in the very same board would indicate that he was druming parhelia drum a bit too eagerly... so the general mistake: first over hype and then under hype. And, oh dear... He has started same to NV30 and R300 already... )

*sigh* when ppl notice that anything changes in PC industry as fast as lightning?

the only thing where you can see new DX9 features as in action will be newest 3DMark on the works right now. Hopefully even it will get released before december.

LOL. One could try to make a case that Parhelia will not quite match NV30/R300, but to say that Parhelia "is not a worthy competitor to R8500" is sure something.

 

[John Reynolds]

I'm not trying to be a Matrox apologist. . .just trying to understand how a few months can so radically date this product.

Process technology can make a lot of difference John, it can dictate a lot WRT to price and performance.

I remember the arguments that were had endlessly over 3dfx sticking with tried and tested 'cheap' process technology while NVIDIA were busy adopting the bleeding edge with the high costs of masks and supposedly low yeilds - I think its been proven which is the best route to go in the fast paced 3d marketplace.

Agreed, though I'm not sure the VSA-100 chip is a valid example in this case. That chip was just 'porked' from the get-go, and I think 3dfx stuck with .25u while Nvidia moved to .18u with the GF2 chips, a considerable difference from .15 to .13. Moreover, the process depends largely on what you're trying to do with it, and NV30 and R300 should both be quite a bit more advanced and complex than Parhelia. That said, I do agree that Matrox needs Parhelia out the door ASAP and any delays will see them fighting uphill against Nvidia and ATi announcements and the inevitable DX9 tech. that, though safe to say won't be present in a published game anytime this year, will nevertheless cast Parhelia in a bad light and therefore make it appear less desirable to any hardware enthusiast and/or gamer.

 

[Sharkfood]

Entropy's post on Page 2 does make a case for the fact that a "PC Gamer" really is a diverse and wide market.

Some people still feel that "speed is king" whereas others simply want an immersive, incredible looking experience that still is within the realms of playability.

I really dont buy into the "speed is king" ethic myself, as any of the previous generation cards can solve this already- similar to Entropy's "Quake3 is a solved problem." There really isnt much out there that an 8500 or Ti4200 cant handle as far as speed and on a properly tuned, high-end system. The 2% of titles that still have performance problems will need a hell of a lot more than a simple videocard upgrade in order to accomodate their issues, IMO, - like patches or changes to swing bottlenecks video<->cpu.

What I find more of an issue that needs solving today is how video hardware handles extreme settings. When you crank the visible distance clipping to where you can see clear to the next continent and geometrically expand overdraw, when you layer 8x or 16x anisotropic filtering, when you apply 4x or greater antialiasing. This is what needs a solution *now*. I'm totally disinterested in whether or not a videocard can break the 300fps barrier in Quake3 at 10x7x32. I'm more interested if it can break the 100fps barrier with *tangible* 4xSSAA + 16x anisotropy since this would better match my gaming needs. Matrox has been working overtime to make this distinction.

I also like the specific wording chosen for this nature-

It will not be a Quake3 Geforce4 Ti killer with the way most reviewers run the benchmarks.

Specifically, we can look forward to 3dmark2001SE w/ no AA, no AF.. and Quake3 w/ no AA, no AF benchmarks in the near future. And if any of the features are decided to be used, they will only be done mutually exclusive or in ways to emphasize/champion a lesser method of a preferred platform (i.e. AF only for 8500 champion sites, AA only for NV champion sites.. with neither providing any form of deductive comparisons or analysis in hopes of non-inquisitive readers). This is what I clearly "get" from the "the way most reviewers run the benchmarks" in that quote.

 

[Gunhead]

It's true that people have very different expectations of and requirements for a video card. Parhelia tempts me in particular because (I expect) it'll run the games I'll propably play very nicely at 1600x1200 with maxed out quality settings (trilinear/anisotropic -- maybe FAA or the lowest FSAA with slower games, or older games with a lower max rez) and, this is important, it'll give me the best possible 3D and 2D output on my 21" tube.

I don't (can't) care about Surround Gaming; and I believe it'll be a small handful of gamers who'll hurry to lay down $$$ for two extra monitors just because SG is kewl -- people worry about the card's price already. But I expect Parhelia's single monitor output quality (alone) is enough to win me over. It has enough gamming speed to be an "okay" gamer card for a coupla years, and that's sufficient for me on that department. My "speed king purchase" Elsa GF2Ultra has hurt my eyes long enough