***Matrox Parhelia....It's Coming......

[kami]

LOL

 

[Goi]

Well, if Matrox can keep the pressure up and continue designing cards that follow through and pick up where the Parhelia left off, perhaps the future would be more exciting. The Parhelia might only just be a stepping stone, a platform for Matrox to test some of their technology on, rather than an actual end-all-be-all graphics card. You've got to admit that the card does have some merits and on paper at least it should have some huge potential over rival cards. Its probably the low clock speeds(core especially), lack of occlusion culling techniques and lack of driver refinement/optimization that's holding it back. Of course, it might take months, even years to get the Parhelia to work as it should, but by that time hopefully they'll have something newer that's more mature and optimized.

I'm not holding my breath, but it'd be nice...

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: grant2
br>LMAO at Amish's paperweight comment.

LMAO at NSF4's "can you say vapourware" comment
LMAO at Nemesis77's "can't you read, it's 20-30% faster than a geforce4600!" comment

Still waiting for an "Ok, i was wrong..." comment from any of these people...

Still looks like vaporware to me. Promised class-leading performance ends up being "pound me in the ass" performance

 

[Chadder007]

Yep it was the clock speed and lack of occlusion culling techniques that brought this sucker down in no time......maybe if it had 512bit DDRAM (thinks Matrox, "yeah lets do that instead of optimizing...its easier and we don't have to hire any programmers to create better drivers to optimize it instead!!!")

 

[grant2]

but come on, he has a point. We can't possibly compare Matrox to ATI/Nvidia yet. Give them time to settle in, and work on drivers,

Why why the hell CAN'T we compare the products now? Matrox APPROVED the comparisons by sending the units to be reviewed.

Will the product "get better" in time? Maybe, but for now, we can certainly judge the product based on its current state.

 

[bluemax]

Still looks like vaporware to me. Promised class-leading performance ends up being "pound me in the ass" performance
NFS4, I'm rather disappointed in your attitude. :frown:
The thing is usually faster than a R8500 which is sometimes as fast as a TI4200. That's NOT "pound me in the ass" performance as you so eloquently stated above.
There's room for driver improvement, and it offers features noone else has. Plus the price will fall, no doubt about it.

Is that worth $400? To some people it is. If you're gaming and only need one/two monitors and/or not interested in the other advanced Matrox features then there's the R8500/GF4 for you at anywhere between $100-300. I'm sure your sole argument is that $100 vs. $400 seems cut-and-dry, but there are people who will appreciate what Matrox offers, especially those feature noone else brings to the table.

 

[PG]

The thing is usually faster than a R8500 which is sometimes as fast as a TI4200. That's NOT "pound me in the ass" performance as you so eloquently stated above.

You have a point, but we were all led to believe that the new Matrox card would be head and shoulders above the ATI's Radeon 8500 and Nvidia's GF4 Ti4600. It wasn't even suppposed to be competing with them at all.

 

[bluemax]

Can't argue with that. ^^^ The thing is- [/i] it's still pretty darned fast!!

 

[Woodchuck2000]

How about growing up and giving the guy a break.

Hey, let the doubters enjoy their moment of glory

 

[grant2]

Originally posted by: NFS4
Still looks like vaporware to me. Promised class-leading performance ends up being "pound me in the ass" performance

Let's examine how the shipped product meets all of the 'vapourware' claims made back in march:

3. It is fast. It will have a new memory design, different from all current video cards. Memory speed will be faster than the current fastest (a GeForce4). ...
Yes, 20gb/s is the fastest memory interface ever. The card is "fast" enough to compare with, and occasionally beat, the fastest cards available.

4. It is fast. It will be an all new chip. It will not be 256 bit and will not be 128 bit ...
Yes, it's a 512bit chip

5. It is 3D feature filled. ...
Yes, full dx8 support (the latest completed standard) + more is full featured.

6. It is 2D feature filled. ...
Yes, superior analog out, triple-head, and 2-display hardware overlay is feature filled

7. It will be expensive. ...
Yes, $400 u.s.

8. There will be different versions of the card at launch. ...
Yes, there are 2 models.

There is no claim of "Class leading performance" in the claims that you labelled 'vapourware'. Too bad you can't backpedal that fast in Europe, or else you'd win the Tour de France!

 

[BD231]

Originally posted by: grant2

Originally posted by: NFS4
Still looks like vaporware to me. Promised class-leading performance ends up being "pound me in the ass" performance

Let's examine how the shipped product meets all of the 'vapourware' claims made back in march:

3. It is fast. It will have a new memory design, different from all current video cards. Memory speed will be faster than the current fastest (a GeForce4). ...
Yes, 20gb/s is the fastest memory interface ever. The card is "fast" enough to compare with, and occasionally beat, the fastest cards available.

4. It is fast. It will be an all new chip. It will not be 256 bit and will not be 128 bit ...
Yes, it's a 512bit chip

5. It is 3D feature filled. ...
Yes, full dx8 support (the latest completed standard) + more is full featured.

6. It is 2D feature filled. ...


Yes, superior analog out, triple-head, and 2-display hardware overlay is feature filled

7. It will be expensive. ...
Yes, $400 u.s.

8. There will be different versions of the card at launch. ...
Yes, there are 2 models.

There is no claim of "Class leading performance" in the claims that you labelled 'vapourware'. Too bad you can't backpedal that fast in Europe, or else you'd win the Tour de France!

You must not have been paying attention grant.

 

[grant2]

You have a point, but we were all led to believe that the new Matrox card would be head and shoulders above the ATI's Radeon 8500 and Nvidia's GF4 Ti4600. It wasn't even suppposed to be competing with them at all.

The matrox fanatics didn't have any real proof that perhelia would be a top performer, and we all knew it. That's why it was so easy for them to pluck figures like "20% - 30% over geforce 4" out of thin air- without actual tests, there's no way to dispute the claims.

The fanatics fooled themselves into being sure that Parhelia was "the best" and the non-fanatics fooled themselves into being sure that the fanatics actually knew what they were talking about.

anyone who's disapointed got what they deserved from misplaced faith.

 

[grant2]

You must not have been paying attention grant.

Are you saying you've paid more attention then I have? Then please, point out which of the original parhelia speculation was "vapourware"

 

[Chumster]

I hereby dub thee card... Sub-parhelia!

Chum

 

[ElDonAntonio]

I agree with grant2 100%. I also think that NFS4, while probably being a very nice guy in person, is acting here like an obnoxious fool. Just admit you were wrong and move on. You'll never get anywhere in life with that kind of attitude.

 

[NeoMadHatter]

did you get your card yet amish?

despite all these bad reviews, i still like the card. maybe i'm just weird.

 

[Pocatello]

I got to admire Amish for his effort in selling the Parhelia to the rest of us, he really stuck his neck out there for Matrox's golden child (or still born). He also willing to put down 400 big ones for a Parhelia before any comparative benchmark. Matrox should hire him as head of its PR department, if it isn't the case already.