My take on the Parhelia
- Thread starter Fuz
- Start date
Doomtrooper
Veteran
Higher peformance is a given, image quality is only thing that may be different but then again IMO ATI has always been very close to Matrox.
I think Parhelia is performing exactly the way I thought it would, with driver optimizations it will get a 10-15% boost.
Keep in mind Carmack had a Parhelia and what card ran Doom 3 with FSAA on beta hardware
I think Parhelia is performing exactly the way I thought it would, with driver optimizations it will get a 10-15% boost.
Keep in mind Carmack had a Parhelia and what card ran Doom 3 with FSAA on beta hardware
Thats what I was getting at. I think its a safe bet it will perform higher.
Now if it has the same image quality as Matrox, especially in 2D, alot of Matrox users, particularly professionals needing crisp and clear display across two monitors, will make the switch.
What market would be left for Matrox? Not looking good at all.
Fuz
Now if it has the same image quality as Matrox, especially in 2D, alot of Matrox users, particularly professionals needing crisp and clear display across two monitors, will make the switch.
What market would be left for Matrox? Not looking good at all.
Fuz
I tend to agree, the dropping of the clock from 300 to 220 seems to have severely cramped the card. If they have the finances after development to continue as they have been, simple tweaking and process shrinkage at a later date could make it pretty competitive in the pixel quality with acceptable performance arena. What I'm waiting for is the non-standard benchmarks. Oh, and the first significant driver optimization revision, but there is no telling when that will happen.
I'm a bit surprised that, for example, no reviewer that I've seen has tested with Morrowind. Perhaps I just misunderstand the technology of the game, but my understanding is that it pushes more eye candy features than other engines available right now. It seems to me that it would be a good tool for further analysis of the Parhelias problems, and possible strengths.
I really look forward for some reviews from some of the regular crew here.
I'm a bit surprised that, for example, no reviewer that I've seen has tested with Morrowind. Perhaps I just misunderstand the technology of the game, but my understanding is that it pushes more eye candy features than other engines available right now. It seems to me that it would be a good tool for further analysis of the Parhelias problems, and possible strengths.
I really look forward for some reviews from some of the regular crew here.
Johnny Rotten
Regular
Morrowind is MASSIVELY cpu limited.
It´s always nice to see benchmarks from "non industrial standard games" like Morrowind etc. Those results gives us a good overall view of the driver´s quality. I still personally think that most of the manufacturers show too much interest on games like Q3. Don't get me wrong. I know it´s important to get those extra few frames per second. But still, is it not the most important thing to get good overall workability in all games and programs. Now, this is something that some manufacturers still doesn't have.
Morrowind is actually probably a terrible game to do benchmarking on, specifically because it seems to be rendering from back to front. In addition to this, it doesn't seem to be very smart about the way it does it. Neither system speed, nor videocard speed seem to have much of an effect, as people with PIII 800MHz systems pull about the same fps as people with highend athlon and P4 systems. It seems to be a combination of the back-to-front rendering, and that it doesn't do really any hidden surface removal until the max view distance is reached, where nothing gets rendered. I don't know if it's the NetImmersion people's fault, or if it's bethesdasofts for not doing front-to-back rendering, but this is pretty sad, and explains (atleast partially) why people are getting piss poor performance in morrowind. I really don't think it's because the game is so advanced (I should know, I've put probably about a 150hours into it so far).
Edit:
Wanted to include a thread from the elderscrolls page relating to this:
http://www.elderscrolls.com/ubbthre...2&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1
Nite_Hawk
Edit:
Wanted to include a thread from the elderscrolls page relating to this:
http://www.elderscrolls.com/ubbthre...2&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1
Nite_Hawk
Fuz said:
Well, the same market that Matrox had beforehand, only a bit bigger.
After all, Matrox didn't have a real 3D solution before. Now it has one that is much more competitive with current cards, even if it's not the fastest. How can than not be good? Those who do use Matrox cards, and appreciate what it had to offer, now have something considerably better that they can switch to. Those gamers who didn't know about Matrox are not very likely to switch to the Parhelia now, but at least now know that Matrox exists.
ET said:Fuz said:
Well, the same market that Matrox had beforehand, only a bit bigger.
After all, Matrox didn't have a real 3D solution before. Now it has one that is much more competitive with current cards, even if it's not the fastest. How can than not be good? Those who do use Matrox cards, and appreciate what it had to offer, now have something considerably better that they can switch to. Those gamers who didn't know about Matrox are not very likely to switch to the Parhelia now, but at least now know that Matrox exists.
I see what you are saying, but I think you missed my point.
What advantage does Matrox have or had over the past few year? Correct my if I am wrong, but I think its in the areas of 2D quality, in particular dual monitor features and support, right? An area where professionals can't compromise.
Now, my point is, if a card is released that can match, with out any doubt, the quality and features/support, particularly in dual display, of Matrox and with faster 3D acceleration, at a cheaper price, alot of professionals will make the switch.
Most professionals aren't 'fans' of any company, and will buy according to thier needs and budget. Matrox can't afford to loose ground in that market.
I hope I am making sense.... what I am trying to say is that Matrox needs to have alteast some sort of advantage to sell the Parhelia, I don't think relying on 'fans' to buy cards is enough. If the *insert any upcoming next gen card* has the image quality and multi-display capabilities like the Parhelia, what advantage does matrox hold?
Fuz
Arrghhh! My beautiful answer all gone!
The short of it: I think that pros (such as artists) are: a) less knowledgeable or interested in exact specs and performance issues than computer geeks and gamers; b) those who are interested in 3D don't have a Matrox anyway, and those not doing major 3D work don't care that much about it as you might think; c) do prefer to stick to brands they know and are satisfied with (whereas gamers will look for the performance).
The more important point was perhaps that Matrox is also in the realtime video editing business, which may be more lucrative for them than the display card market, and the Parhelia makes sense there. Video is limited to 30fps and low resolution, but quality (AA, for example) matters. The Perhelia has enough pixel shader power and fill rate to provide quite sophisticated realtime effects.
The short of it: I think that pros (such as artists) are: a) less knowledgeable or interested in exact specs and performance issues than computer geeks and gamers; b) those who are interested in 3D don't have a Matrox anyway, and those not doing major 3D work don't care that much about it as you might think; c) do prefer to stick to brands they know and are satisfied with (whereas gamers will look for the performance).
The more important point was perhaps that Matrox is also in the realtime video editing business, which may be more lucrative for them than the display card market, and the Parhelia makes sense there. Video is limited to 30fps and low resolution, but quality (AA, for example) matters. The Perhelia has enough pixel shader power and fill rate to provide quite sophisticated realtime effects.
ET said:Fuz said:
Well, the same market that Matrox had beforehand, only a bit bigger.
After all, Matrox didn't have a real 3D solution before. Now it has one that is much more competitive with current cards, even if it's not the fastest. How can than not be good? Those who do use Matrox cards, and appreciate what it had to offer, now have something considerably better that they can switch to. Those gamers who didn't know about Matrox are not very likely to switch to the Parhelia now, but at least now know that Matrox exists.
I absolutely disagree with this assessment. Several years back Matrox had the G400 Max which was a lot closer to the cards at the time, than the Parhelia is now.
Matrox will keep the same market they had before...the release of the Parhelia is really just a non-issue. It's not good, it's not bad, it just doesn't really matter.
