PDA

View Full Version : Firingsquad did one 2!



Guru
25th June 2002, 12:19
http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/parhelia

Have not read it yet so no comments!

thop
25th June 2002, 12:23
i think they swapped the colors in the graphs in the Q3A and JD2K Benchmark since every other review had the 4600 clearly in the lead, not the Parhelia (and the text also indicates that). but overall it seems to be a good review as it concentrates more on the features of the parhelia than raw FPS. havent read all yet though :)

isochar
25th June 2002, 12:25
I just saw that their Parhelia is running at 325mhz? (650mhz DDR)

SteveC
25th June 2002, 12:26
Originally posted by thop
i think they swapped the colors in the graphs in the Q3A and JD2K Benchmark since every other review had the 4600 clearly in the lead, not the Parhelia (and the text also indicates that). but overall it seems to be a good review as it concentrates more on the features of the parhelia than raw FPS. havent read all yet though :)

heh heh - D'oh!

frankymail
25th June 2002, 12:59
I think they've mistaken the Parhelia 128 memory speed with the specs announced at the same time as teh Parhelia-512 GPU that was said to have 20 GB or memory bandwidth, which implied 256-bits memory bus running at 325 MHZ; however, the final core speed is 220MHz(retail)/200MHz(Bulk) and memory is clocked at 275MHz(Retail)/250 MHz(Bulk)... I have to say I share Firingsquad's view almost %100, and when I get mine, i'll install the first compatible version of Powerstrip and overclock it right through the roof. Anyway, TripleHEad, Surround Gaming, 16xFAA, IQ nad upcoming(hopefully) high-quality Aniso is more than I needed to buy this card; anyway, anyone of you guys spends more time gaming than working in Windows? I spend about %90 of my time in windows...

maharajah
25th June 2002, 13:04
After reading this review, I might just change my mind and get this card. I may wait until I see how well it overclocks though.

IcedEarth
25th June 2002, 13:33
Excellent review IMO.

Helevitia
25th June 2002, 14:20
If you go on to read the comments about the review, the person who wrote it ahd this to say:

It's understandable that some of you are judging
the Parhelia purely on frame rates. However, from
the start, it has been stated that Matrox doesn't
intend to compete directly with NVIDIA and ATI on
just speed, they're competing on a much wider
range of things.

When you're putting down the Parhelia for its lack
of speed, keep in mind that just because it
doens't match a Ti4600 in framerates doens't mean
the card "sucks" or is "!@$%". Also, saying that I
don't know what I'm doing by giving it a rating of
87% is looking at things through tunnel vision. As
a reviewer, I'm expected to look at the big
picture, not just one part of the picture. There
are many things going for the Parhelia and those
things are in the features that it has. No other
card has better anti-aliasing, better 2D, better
color, better multi-display support, better
TV-out, etc. Sure, a GF4 Ti4600 is faster, but do
you get all the features that a lot of companies
are jumping on like with the Parhelia? You have
Adobe, the film industry, businesses, gamers, just
drooling over the features.

If all you do is play games, then that's fine, the
GF4 or Radeon would better suit you. However, that
doesn't warrant putting down the Parhelia just
because it's not targeted solely for gamers. I
like driving 4-door sedans, but it doens't mean
that 4x4's suck.

People complained that the GF3 was nothing more
than a GF2 second edition; no real enhancements or
architectural changes. People made a big fuss out
of that as well. Feature for feature, the Parhelia
is in a league of its own. And like the GF3, the
Parhelia is just a sign of bright things to come.
Was the GF3 the end-all be-all from NVIDIA? Of
course not, it was a display of what they had in
store. The Parhelia is really the stepping stone
of what can come out of great minds at work.

Again, broaden your views. Look at it from your
perspective, then ask yourself, "is this product
designed just for me?" The Parhelia is an example
of an all-around great card. It's not a
game-focused card and was not intended to be.

Speed is a good thing, but variety is the spice of
life.

Znucke
25th June 2002, 14:39
This is one of the best and more unbiased reviews of P. I've read IMHO...and the score (http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/parhelia/page14.asp) isn't to shabby either! :cool:

YngwieM
25th June 2002, 15:19
I agree with you guys...

This was one of the most compreensive reviews so far... but have you seen the comments about the Leadtek GF4 2D? What do you think?

Electric Amish
25th June 2002, 15:22
Originally posted by YngwieM
I agree with you guys...

This was one of the most compreensive reviews so far... but have you seen the comments about the Leadtek GF4? What do you think?

I'd be interested in what res, conditions, and applictations they performed their evaluation.

amish

Michel Carleer
25th June 2002, 15:59
However, at many places, comments like:
"considering the clock speed being lower than the competition by 100 MHz, it does fare very well" (not the exact words, but the meaning is there).
Sorry, but this kind of comment is not what I call unbiased.
Because then, considering the speed difference with today's machines, my old 5 MHz IBM PC also does a pretty good job.

Guru
25th June 2002, 16:01
Originally posted by Michel Carleer
my old 5 MHz IBM PC also does a good job.
Sorry, but this kind of comment is not what I call unbiased.

Clocked @ 5GHz it would still not be near as fast as a P3 500MHz CPU! :rolleyes:

Michel Carleer
25th June 2002, 16:03
Guru,
That's exactly my point!

thop
25th June 2002, 16:04
busted :D

Michel Carleer
25th June 2002, 16:09
Don't misunderstand me, I don't want put the Parhelia's head down under.
For more than 15 years I have only used Matrox video cards.
And I am pretty sure I will continue for many years to come.
I simply disagree on the "most unbiased nature of the review" comment.

Guru
25th June 2002, 16:18
Originally posted by Michel Carleer
Guru,
That's exactly my point!

Yes and I think you got it all wrong!!! You should be thinking of the Matrox as the Runing at 1 GHz Alpha @ 5MHz and the GF4 as the 8MHz 286 runing at XXXGHz!

Liquid Snake
25th June 2002, 17:03
Good review, but I wish the reviewer had tested with applications other than games. I agree that it seems a little biased towards Matrox but the reviewer is right about looking at the big picture and not just some benchmark numbers.

isochar
25th June 2002, 17:11
That's a valid concern. However, gaming performance is indicative of 3d CAD performance. How will this card fair against competitors like 3dlabs when it's about as fast as a GF3 ti200?

Michel Carleer
25th June 2002, 17:16
Liquid Snake,
I totally agree.

Guru,
If I were interested by benchmark numbers, what would matter to me would be the biggest number, and not how they are achieved. And certainly not by the stated fact that brand x is better than y because *if* it was running at the same clock speed as y, it *would* be better. But I am not interested by higher benchmark numbers, so I think I will continue buyng M.
And apart from a slight bias towards M, the review in every other respect is a very good one indeed.

Parhelia Pro256
25th June 2002, 17:18
here (http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/parhelia/images/23.gif)

According to this benchy, P beats GF4 with full eye candy, @ 1280 x 1024 with playable fps of ~65

:classic:

Dogbert
26th June 2002, 00:42
Firingsquad took this review very seriously...

It's one of the best all around reviews out there.
They gave time for 2D as well as for 3D, checked through most features and as gamers should, didn't forget the "fun factor" while not forgetting the "out of the box" experience.

It's a wonderfully written very fair review.

Dogbert
26th June 2002, 02:39
From beyond 3D


There reviews are coming online in Matrox's latest. Now Firingsquad has a review, but this must be the worst review that FS ever produced. It looks at 2 benchmarks (3dmark and quake 3 arena) and then they gave it a rating.

Ouch...!

Ryu Connor
26th June 2002, 07:35
That's a valid concern. However, gaming performance is indicative of 3d CAD performance. How will this card fair against competitors like 3dlabs when it's about as fast as a GF3 ti200?

That statement is either a gross simplification or just grossly wrong. Good gaming performance does not make good professional performance.

http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=45000354

A proffesional GL driver for the Parhelia will likely prove quite interesting. As it has several key points going for it:

1. It's ability to do 16x edge AA for basically free.
2. Cheaper than 3DLabs P10 and the NVIDIA Quadro.
3. Crisp 1600x1200 output on two monitors
4. Hardware acceleration on both monitors
5. No need to hack the hardware to turn it into a Quadro (which doesn't work anymore any ways).

I'm simply amazed by the sheer number of gamers in this forum. Where the hell are the professionals?

isochar
26th June 2002, 07:44
Gross simplification. nvidia's been using their GF series rebadged as Quadro and it's been very competitive (price/performance). The P10 isn't looking all that powerful against the Quadro 4...

Ryu Connor
26th June 2002, 07:51
The P10 isn't looking all that powerful against the Quadro 4...

The $600 VP760 is doing quite well against the 750GXL Quadro which is $700.

http://www.amazoninternational.com/html/benchmarks/multiple/wildcatVP/wildcatVP.asp

It does lose in gaming, but pfft. That's not the point.

Cheesekeeper
26th June 2002, 07:59
The $600 VP760 is doing quite well against the 750GXL Quadro which is $700.

Exactly as isochar said, the Quadro is a rebadged GF4. By editing the bios on a Geforce card, you can turn it into the equivalent Quadro. The "SoftQuadro" utility can do this as well. This does at least go to show the corrolation between gaming speed and professional workstation performance.......

Ryu Connor
26th June 2002, 08:16
the Quadro is a rebadged GF4. By editing the bios on a Geforce card, you can turn it into the equivalent Quadro. The "SoftQuadro" utility can do this as well.

Not anymore you can't. NVIDIA changed the GF4 in such a way as to prevent that from working.

http://www.digit-life.com/articles/profcards/profcards-04-2002-update1.html


The situation with the GeForce4 and Quadro4 cards is diametrically opposite. You won't get a complete copy of the professional card using a game one. Well, in some tests the clone works faster than the original, but do designers work often only with lighting and texturing? In all other modes the NVIDIA Quadro4 900XGL is unconquerable. It means that the manufacturer uses different chips for GeForce4 and Quadro4 cards. Some units are identical, but these two families are different. Probably this is the way NVIDIA protects itself from loss of profits, or probably it just develops a new line. If you want to get new machines for modeling, you'd better use original Quadro4 cards instead of the GeForce4 with the SoftQuadro driver.

NVIDIA got tired of people eating their proft share.

I'm still hunting for the link that shows the Hardware hack has now been broken as well. I'll post an update with that as soon as I find it.


This does at least go to show the corrolation between gaming speed and professional workstation performance.......

How's that? I can show you professional cards that suck at gaming but beat the GF4. In fact I just did. Look at the P10 V760. Gaming and professional apps don't go hand in hand. Yes you can make a gaming card competitive in professional apps, but that doesn't mean that professional cards are any good at gaming. In fact they typically stink at gaming.

This argument would be somewhat stimulating if you guys were making valid points, but I get the impression you don't even know what you're talking about.

Ryu Connor
26th June 2002, 08:23
http://www.cgchannel.com/story.php?story_id=1051

There's the link that shows the hardware hack is now useless as well.

The Quadro hack is no longer an option for professionals trying to pinch a penny.