Will you be angry/upset if...

[parheliac]

Parhelia doesn't match or beat GeForce4 in benchmarks?

[FormerEx-SalesSoup]

Re: Will you be angry/upset if...

Originally posted by parheliac
Parhelia doesn't match or beat GeForce4 in benchmarks?

nope. as long as it performs reasonably well (maybe 2/3 the performance of GeForce4) and has TripleHead plus superb image quality. not to mention solid drivers.

[Mikko]

I agree with that, SalesSoup. Actually I will be more than happy just to get all those new features with a better FPS than my old G400.

[Indiana]

Well after all this hype I surely would be disappointed to say the least.
But you can't answer this that easily: I would not care if the GF4 was faster in, say 800x600@16Bits, BUT if it was faster in 1600x1200@32 with full aniso and perhaps AA, then this would really turn me off. I'm still expecting the Parhelia to be faster than the GF4 Ti4600 by quite a margin in such setups for all games.

[Drizzt]

If I was so braindead to care for FramePerSeconds, I did not keep my G400...

[Jammrock]

I'm not worried about the Parhelia performing to AT LEAST GeForce 4 speeds. With the memory bandwidth and speeds, plus the nice new architecture, the Parhelia will be a dream.

Jammrock

[ChronosZero]

As my sig indicates, I'm a member of the press now. I have done some benchmarks and I've come to realize that most other sites are somewhat misleading their readers by publishing the average FPS scores from games. Personally I'm more interested in minimum FPS under normal circumstances. Can the video card handle a heavy load without visable slowdown?

If the Parhelia cannot provide a higher minimum FPS than the GeForce4 with the quality turned up, then I'm likely to be a little disappointed.

As a side note... The Serious Engine, which powers the Serious Sam games, is my favorite benchmarking tool. Besides the fact that it works the cards hard, it provides plenty of data including maximum, minimum, and average FPS. It will even generate data for a graph of FPS across the entire demo.

[GNEP]

I'm more interested in minimum FPS under normal circumstances

Hear hear - I am still waiting for the day that people realise that what we need is in fact:

FPS set at say 85fps (i.e with the monitor vsync or whatever)

Now let the detail and features levels dynamically change according to load, to keep the prettyest picture possible at the pre-set fps level.

Dunno if it would be very easy though.

This way, instead of getting a flick-book when lots is going on, for example you might get jaggies or less detailed models for a few frames.

gnep

[newguy]

looking at the specs, it has no choice but to kick the GeForce processor's ass

Matrox has done them more than one better, and further optimization will only help.

I want quality+ framerate, and the only ones who can virtually guarantee it are Matrox.

[bm1]

Originally posted by newguy

I want quality+ framerate, and the only ones who can virtually guarantee it are Matrox.

I second that.

[mattsteg]

Yeah, the serious engine is really nice for benchmarking, as it can show where cards might slow down or have difficulties. The graph feature is one of the best gaming benchmark outputs I have seen.

Originally posted by ChronosZero
quality turned up, then I'm likely to be a little disappointed.

As a side note... The Serious Engine, which powers the Serious Sam games, is my favorite benchmarking tool. Besides the fact that it works the cards hard, it provides plenty of data including maximum, minimum, and average FPS. It will even generate data for a graph of FPS across the entire demo.

[Helevitia]

I will be a tad upset if it is not on par with GF4 speeds. I expect the card to be atleast that fast. If not, I will still buy it I rather have stable drivers, killer image quality, and the best tech support than the fastest card.

Dave

[Snake-Eyes]

Hehe. I'm wit' ya' ChronosZero. The minimum fps being at the refresh rate, enabling vsync (to lock the card down and keep it from spiking UP in low stress scenes), with all the goodies on. That's the key. It doesn't need to average 100fps, or hit 350fps, so long as it can run at 75 (85, whatever) minimum with the goodies at the refresh rate and color depth of our choice.

BTW, this was where the G400 max ruled. It didn't have the best average framerates or the highest framerates lots of the time when compared to it's peers (TNT2U, etc.), but it usually had the highest minimum, so gameplay on it seemed much smoother than on the other cards.

This is what I want from the ultimate accelerator.

[blacklotus]

Re: Will you be angry/upset if...

Nope. As long as Parhelia supports 2x1920x1200xDigital LCDs, I'm a happy camper.

Originally posted by parheliac
Parhelia doesn't match or beat GeForce4 in benchmarks?

[jackzod]

yes