Matrox Parhelia.. NDA BROKEN!!!

[Pabster]

Electric Amish wrote:

"I will definitely buy the Parhelia before seeing anything from Nv or ATI. I really don't care what they have to offer. Matrox has never let me down."

That's a true Matrox zealot

I'm a huge nVidia fanatic. Always have been. But after dumping my Ti500 for a Radeon 8500, and comparing it to a Ti4600, I was left utterly disappointed. Not by the 3DMark numbers, but by the lack of significant real-world difference. It just didn't justify the cost. Now I've got cash set aside for the next big gun. I'm not about to rush in to Parhelia with NV30, R300, and P10 (as well as new competition from SiS). This fall is going to be interesting, for sure.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: rickn
so where are all the price complainers? You same people complain that $399 nv cards are to expensive. Your mouths is gonna fall to the floor when you see how much parhelia costs.

Difference is that you get alot for that money. With NVIDIA you just get rehash of a rehashed tech.

LOL!!! G200 --> G400 -- G450 --> G550

Ohh, puhlease At least NVIDIA's rehashes were more interesting

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: rickn

Difference is that you get alot for that money. With NVIDIA you just get rehash of a rehashed tech

You actually believe that? G400 couldnt even run Quake 3 at a decent speed at 1024 32bbp. I'd imagine it runs everything like a slideshow now. You sure get a lot for your money alright, after you have to run out and buy three monitors. Matrox should go into the monitor business with Parhelia

Last time I checked G400 is an old card. For the last few years Matrox has not been in the gaming-market. They are re-entering the market with Parhelia.

And no-one is forcing you to use three monitors with Parhelia. But if you want to, you have that option, I see no problems with that.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: rickn
so where are all the price complainers? You same people complain that $399 nv cards are to expensive. Your mouths is gonna fall to the floor when you see how much parhelia costs.

Difference is that you get alot for that money. With NVIDIA you just get rehash of a rehashed tech.

LOL!!! G200 --> G400 -- G450 --> G550

Ohh, puhlease At least NVIDIA's rehashes were more interesting

G450 and G550 were not intended as gaming cards, their target-market was elsewhere. the changes in those cards were tailored towards their target-market, which was not gamers.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: rickn
so where are all the price complainers? You same people complain that $399 nv cards are to expensive. Your mouths is gonna fall to the floor when you see how much parhelia costs.

Difference is that you get alot for that money. With NVIDIA you just get rehash of a rehashed tech.

LOL!!! G200 --> G400 -- G450 --> G550

Ohh, puhlease At least NVIDIA's rehashes were more interesting

G450 and G550 were not intended as gaming cards, their target-market was elsewhere. the changes in those cards were tailored towards their target-market, which was not gamers.

Don't give me that It's still rehashing no matter which way you slice it. You can try to justify it all you want or make excuses for it but in the end it's still REHASHING.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: NFS4
Don't give me that It's still rehashing no matter which way you slice it. You can try to justify it all you want or make excuses for it but in the end it's still REHASHING.

Not really. I mean, we had G400. They tweaked that in to G450 and G500. That's whole two new chips in the time of several years. I wouldn't call that same kind of rehashing that NVIDIA does. NVIDIA has offered several rehash of it's tech. First we had GF, that morphed in to GF2 and GF2 MX, that morphed in to GF3 and that morphed in to GF 4 and GF4 MX. Slightly different scale than what Matrod did

 

[rickn]

you need a history lesson in gpu's. over the course of the last 2-3 yrs matrox has had the G400/G450/550, all were the same darn graphics chip with modifications to the ramdac, and some were even slower than the G400MAX. Over that course of time Nvidia has went from the TNT2 to GF4, added pixel shaders, vertex shaders, hdtv capabilities, dual display, TCL engines, DOT-3 product bump mapping, Lightspeed I/II, EMBM, etc etc etc. I don't know what planet you 've been living on, but a lot has changed in graphics since the G400. Matrox has rehashed a product that was a sloth almost from the day it came out.

 

[Mingon]

Slightly different scale than what Matrod did

Timescale perhaps, but then again I would rather have the choice of a new card every 6-8months than 3 years. Hence my reason for finally replacing my geforce 2 ultra for a ti4200. I doubt the matrox is going to be anywhere near affordable for quite a while.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: rickn
you need a history lesson in gpu's. over the course of the last 2-3 yrs matrox has had the G400/G450/550, all were the same darn graphics chip with modifications to the ramdac, and some were even slower than the G400MAX. Over that course of time Nvidia has went from the TNT2 to GF4, added pixel shaders, vertex shaders, hdtv capabilities, dual display, TCL engines, DOT-3 product bump mapping, Lightspeed I/II, EMBM, etc etc etc. I don't know what planet you 've been living on, but a lot has changed in graphics since the G400. Matrox has rehashed a product that was a sloth almost from the day it came out.

No, YOU need a history-lesson when it comes to video-cards!

First of all, for the last several years Matrox has been paying ZERO attention to gaming-market. They have been focusing on multidisplay-workstations, videoediting, corporate workstations and the like. Those customers couldn't give a flying f*ck for pixel-shaders or the like, their priorities are elsewhere. And Matrox has addressed their needs with their video-cards. Pixel-shaders are used in games, and Matrox hasn't been interested in that market for years. Untill now.

G400 a sloth? When it was released it competed with TNT2 and Voodoo3, and according to may, it beat them both. I wouldn't call it a sloth!

 

[Nemesis77]

Double post

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Mingon

Slightly different scale than what Matrod did

Timescale perhaps, but then again I would rather have the choice of a new card every 6-8months than 3 years. Hence my reason for finally replacing my geforce 2 ultra for a ti4200. I doubt the matrox is going to be anywhere near affordable for quite a while.

I would rahter have NVIDIA design a real killer chip and sell that for a while, instead of taking baby-step every 6 months (and milking money from their customers)

 

[Pariah]

The difference between a Matrox rehash and NVidia rehash is that Matrox never promoted the 450 and 550 as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Matrox publicly stated they were dropping out of the gaming market after the G400Max and the failure of the G800 to reach market, so they never intended the products for anyone but business users who don't have needs for anything high end. Also Matrox's rehashes promoted cost cutting measures so they were cheaper than previous iteration at release, unlike NVidia who seems to be charging more and more with each new rehash.

"Why in the world drop the big bucks on something like this with NV30 and R300 just around the horizon?"
"So you'd get the Parhelia w/o even seeing what NVIDIA and ATi have to offer with NV30 and R300?

Absolutely, because all these cards will be more than fast enough to run anything for 12-18 months to come. With each new generation the gap between hardware and software is growing by leaps and bounds requiring less and less frequent upgrades. For some people this doesn't matter as they aren't happy unless they buy the top end card from every generation. I don't need to see reviews of any of these cards to know that Matrox will deliver the best 2D, TV-out, and multimonitor output, which is all I care about because as I said early all of these cards will be more than fast enough for games.

"so where are all the price complainers? You same people complain that $399 nv cards are to expensive"

Maybe I missed it, but I don't think official pricing has been announced yet. You can run the search yourself, I've stated multiple times on this board that if someone would release a gaming card with the top notch 2D of Matrox, or even 3dfx I would buy it even if it was $400-500. NVidia has had half a dozen chances and failed to deliver the goods. When you release cards as often as NVidia does at the prices they do and don't attempt to fix the most glaring weaknesses, you better be prepared to hear complaints. Now if the top end Parhelia runs into the rumoured $1000 range, then that's a bit extreme, and clearly not a card targetted at gamers, I find it quite unlikely the price will reach into that stratosphere though.

 

[CocaCola5]

Put me on the list.

 

[rickn]

with users like you nemesis77, Matrox company motto should be, "The blind leading the blind"

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

With this surround gaming thing on 2 or 3 monitors, what type of performance hit are we looking at? Would it effectively be dividing the power for each output? Bad example, but lets say q3a runs 99fps on a single monitor. If you had it on surround on 3 monitors would it then be 33? I mean what type of hit are we looking at for doing that? FS2002 would be killer, but would suck if you had to do 640x480x16 to get a decent framerate. If you can do 1600x1200x32 with everything on, sign me up. It would be the only reason to switch from the Ti4400 for me (for now).

 

[CocaCola5]

The Matrox G-series cards are five years old cards, they weren't released 6 months ago.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: rickn
with users like you nemesis77, Matrox company motto should be, "The blind leading the blind"

How come? There's alot of info floating around the net that suggests that Matrox is about to release a killer-product. I see no problems believing that info. It could do you some good to see beyond the allmighty NVIDIA.

 

[Eug]

Actually, I don't really care if it's 20% faster or 20% slower than a Ti4600.

If it does very good dual monitor (better than nVidia drivers or ATI drivers), with decent 3D support and excellent 2D text quality I'd consider buying it.

It would definitely be a good addition to my system purchased not now, but in spring 2003, when I upgrade to a Clawhammer mobo and CPU (with new memory) from my old trusty BX system and Radeon LE.

Considering I spend 95+% of my time in 2D and I've been won over by multimonitor at work, Matrox cards are high up on the list for me. However, I'd prefer getting something in a year that has around Ti4600 speeds at $200 or less, because there is no way in hell I'm paying $400 for a video card.

 

[NFS4]

The difference between a Matrox rehash and NVidia rehash is that Matrox never promoted the 450 and 550 as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Matrox publicly stated they were dropping out of the gaming market after the G400Max and the failure of the G800 to reach market, so they never intended the products for anyone but business users who don't have needs for anything high end. Also Matrox's rehashes promoted cost cutting measures so they were cheaper than previous iteration at release, unlike NVidia who seems to be charging more and more with each new rehash.

NVIDIA's rehashes have promoted cost cutting and HUGE feature increases. Matrox has been nothing but rehashes...I don't care what market they are going after. You cut costs AND improve. Not just cut costs. And I wouldn't call headcasting a great improvement, just gimmicky BS

Absolutely, because all these cards will be more than fast enough to run anything for 12-18 months to come. With each new generation the gap between hardware and software is growing by leaps and bounds requiring less and less frequent upgrades. For some people this doesn't matter as they aren't happy unless they buy the top end card from every generation. I don't need to see reviews of any of these cards to know that Matrox will deliver the best 2D, TV-out, and multimonitor output, which is all I care about because as I said early all of these cards will be more than fast enough for games.

Zealotry at it's best. With ALL of the new cards coming out from ATi, 3D Labs, and NVIDIA, you're saying without a doubt that Matrox will be the best. Ok, would you like your Matrox boxers ironed for your date tonight?

 

[mastertech01]

If the bottom hadnt fallen out of the prices on ram, how cheap would those new generation cards have been? Everything is cheaper now than it was two years ago. And comparing prices also includes the various packages they come in.. you cant compare a bare card with driver disk to a Deluxe model with 6 Full version game CDs and 3D glasses can you? And downsized fabs allowing 3 times as many chips make for a cheaper solution too. There are too many factors just to compare lower prices of today to yesterday.

 

[kgraeme]

First of all, for the last several years Matrox has been paying ZERO attention to gaming-market. They have been focusing on multidisplay-workstations, videoediting, corporate workstations and the like. Those customers couldn't give a flying f*ck for pixel-shaders or the like, their priorities are elsewhere. And Matrox has addressed their needs with their video-cards. Pixel-shaders are used in games, and Matrox hasn't been interested in that market for years. Untill now.

Wouldn't pixel-shaders be beneficial to 3D creation apps? Perhaps for fast preview shading? I agree that Matrox is in the pro-workstation space which is what I always assumed the rumored Parahelia would be for. The three display support only seems to confirm this for me.

The fact that this card might also be good for gaming is a way for Matrox to get better market attention. Gaming cards are where the market is these days, and that's probably why this card is being presented in that light.

 

[NFS4]

nevermind

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: kgraeme
Wouldn't pixel-shaders be beneficial to 3D creation apps? Perhaps for fast preview shading? I agree that Matrox is in the pro-workstation space which is what I always assumed the rumored Parahelia would be for. The three display support only seems to confirm this for me.

If you are in business of creating 3D, then Quadro would have been a better choice, that is not the field Gxxx was meant for. But Parhealia address that. It's targeted as much to gamers as it is to 3D-professionals.

 

[kgraeme]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77
If you are in business of creating 3D, then Quadro would have been a better choice, that is not the field Gxxx was meant for. But Parhealia address that. It's targeted as much to gamers as it is to 3D-professionals.

How can you know the market this card is meant for until it's actually on the market? I'm aware of the Quadro. Just because Matrox hasn't been in the 3D workstation market before doesn't mean they don't want to break into it. This card looks to me like that opportunity.

 

[Pariah]

"Zealotry at it's best."

Let's see... main system has 3dfx, gaming system has ATi, 2 dumb terminals with Nvidia cards, one laptop with ATi. Sounds like the textbook definition of a Matrox zealot to me...whatever dude. Considering every video card thread that comes along requires a post coming from you that it won't matter since NVidia will bring something else out so much better, it sounds an awful lot like the pot calling the kettle black.

"With ALL of the new cards coming out from ATi, 3D Labs, and NVIDIA, you're saying without a doubt that Matrox will be the best."

You didn't read my post of why I said they would.

"Ok, would you like your Matrox boxers ironed for your date tonight?"

I live down the street from you, if you are volunteering, I'd be more than happy to let you do it.