More info on the Parhelia, and now some numbers

[Czar]

http://www.sharkyforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=136638

Well I just got back from the AMD tech tour in Vancouver and I got to see some very interesting things, I got to see alot of motherboards (1 k8 board) alot of Nvidia Geforce4 Ti4600 cards running insanely cool demos, I was about to leave and then I saw the matrox table. Matrox had a working parhelia card setup with 3 monitors running windowsXP.

I was talking with Mr.Smith the matrox rep and I got some inside scoops. The first thing I asked was what games will support surround gameing his anser "all, The developer just has to code for it" Well that kinda sucks since most game companys are ****ing lazy, Anyway I got to see Quake3 v1.17 running surround gameing which was awesome they were running 1024X768-32bit medium detail and they were getting 50fps per monitor, The next thing I got to see was Microsoft flight sim which was running at 1024 with atleast 4x fsaa I believe and he quoted 30fps which is decent for a flight simm.

I asked what kind of performance will this card get vs the Gf4 Ti4600 he said:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The maxtrox card will not be winning any benchmarks other then some of the 3Dmark tests, We believe gamers have had enough of fps and want features and awesome IQ, This card should run future games as fast or faster and should last longer because of the partial DX9 support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I then asked when we could expect linux drivers he said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matrox will be releasing linux drivers but do not expect them for some time since we are currently focused on getting XP drivers upto snuff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I also asked how much onboard ram will this card have he said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The card will launch with 128megs of DDR ram and will not feature 256 until a later date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



My final question was when do we get to see reviews and also when can we buy this card he said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most review sites like sharky/anand/toms/firing have all got the card and will be posting full reviews with benchmarks in the next 2-3 weeks, The matox card will be available is mass numbers in july.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Quake3 medium detail 1024-768-32bit 55fps in surround gameing and 160fps in signle monitor mode
MSF2 1024-32bit 4xfsaa 30fps surround gameing
As for 3Dmark we should expect around 11k with the fastest avaiable AXP on a KT333

I had to sign an NDA so if you repeat this you didn't hear it from me.

anyone guessing if this guy gets to see anything ever again from matrox

 

[Sunner]

Im beginning to get worried.

No Linux drivers?
Won't be winning any benches cept for some 3DMark stuff?
160 FPS in Q3, 1024x768x32 med detail? My GF3 Ti200@250/250 can hit 200 at the same settings cept high detail.

I hope either these numbers aren't true, or that the quoted prices aren't, Im not paying $400 to get a downgrade in speed, even if the 2D quality is stellar.

And before everyone starts telling me how it's gonna rock in future games, who cares?
The R8500 was supposed to annihilate the GF3 in DX8 games, but I still see the GF3 beating the R8500 in some DX8 games and equalling it in others.
Whats to say the same thing isn't gonna happen with the Parhelia?

C'mon Matrox, I was hoping to get GF4 speed at least, as well as Matrox class 2D, especially if it's gonna be $400.

 

[DaFinn]

The guy signs an NDA, and then spills his guts out???

anyone guessing if this guy gets to see anything ever again from matrox

err...nope!

Anyway, cool to have some indication about performance although I think it will improve with more mature drivers. (Not being bad as it is!)

 

[Aquaman]

Dang............ I live just 15 minutes away from there Probably qould not have gotten in anyhow

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Sunner
Im beginning to get worried.

160 FPS in Q3, 1024x768x32 med detail? My GF3 Ti200@250/250 can hit 200 at the same settings cept high detail.

I hope either these numbers aren't true, or that the quoted prices aren't, Im not paying $400 to get a downgrade in speed, even if the 2D quality is stellar.

Like it has been said several times: There's still room for driver-revision or two before the product is released. Also, GF4 will beat Parhelia in simple games like Q3 (but come on! 160FPS is not enough?!?!?). In more complex games Parhelia should walk all over GF4 (more shader, texel-units, memory-bandwidth etc.).

 

[Athlon4all]

Cool. Can't wait for Anand to do a review

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: SunnerIm beginning to get worried.160 FPS in Q3, 1024x768x32 med detail? My GF3 Ti200@250/250 can hit 200 at the same settings cept high detail.I hope either these numbers aren't true, or that the quoted prices aren't, Im not paying $400 to get a downgrade in speed, even if the 2D quality is stellar.

Like it has been said several times: There's still room for driver-revision or two before the product is released. Also, GF4 will beat Parhelia in simple games like Q3 (but come on! 160FPS is not enough?!?!?). In more complex games Parhelia should walk all over GF4 (more shader, texel-units, memory-bandwidth etc.).

Im not saying 160 FPS isn't enough, however, I would find it less than satisfying to shell out $400 for a card, only to have a GF3 beat it by 25%, no matter what the game is, the GF3 is over a year old for crying out loud.

But like you said, there's still room for improvement, and I sure hope it's comming.

 

[Goi]

Come on, seriously, can you tell the difference between 200+FPS and 160FPS on Q3A at that resolution? I wouldnt' mind that FPS at that graphical setting if it means that I can enable more eye candy(Matrox's new 16X FAA, anistropic filtering, max geometry, etc) and still get that kind of performance...

Matrox should really be showing some benchmarks with maxed out graphical settings to tout its IQ argument...

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Sunner<br I would find it less than satisfying to shell out $400 for a card, only to have a GF3 beat it by 25%, no matter what the game is, the GF3 is over a year old for crying out loud.

There's no point in staring at max FPS, it's the minimium FPS that counts. 160FPS is more than enough. I really couldn't care less if Parhelia gets 160FPS in Q3 while NVIDIA-card gets 500FPS. To me, it matters what the iamge-quality is like and what the minimium FPS is. 160FPS is more than enough for me. The only point of comparing max FPS is to see who has the biggest penis

 

[NFS4]

OK, so let me get this straight...when the Parhelia was first announced, everyone was screaming about how it was gonna kill the GF4 Ti4600 and Radeon 8500 in performance (and that also makes me wonder where all that bandwidth is going to). Now that we get some numbers, these same people NOW say that FPS doesn't matter anymore??

I mean, while those "raw" numbers in FPS's may not seem very important to you, they are pretty important when you start factoring in where's you're starting from when you start enabling things like anistropic filtering and FSAA.

i.e.

Card A gets 200 FPS in Game X @ default settings
Card B gets 160 FPS in Game X @ default settings

Depending on how each card manufacturer implements their features (like anistropic filtering and FSAA), Card A would have a higher FPS count once the FPS start dropping due to the increased features enabled.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: NFS4
OK, so let me get this straight...when the Parhelia was first announced, everyone was screaming about how it was gonna kill the GF4 Ti4600 and Radeon 8500 in performance (and that also makes me wonder where all that bandwidth is going to). Now that we get some numbers, these same people NOW say that FPS doesn't matter anymore??

I mean, while those "raw" numbers in FPS's may not seem very important to you, they are pretty important when you start factoring in where's you're starting from when you start enabling things like anistropic filtering and FSAA.

Like it has been repeatedly said, in simple games GF4 should beat Parhelia. But that extra bandwidth and other tricks even the odds when you start to use FSAA, anisotropic filtering and the like. and in more complex games (like Doom 3 and Unreal Tournament 2003) Parhelia should walk all over GF4. But, in simple games (older games, low resolutions, no FSAA, low number of polygons etc. etc.) GF4 with it's higher raw fill-rate sgould win. But even then that victory is in reality just academic, because both cards get performance that is more than enough to be smooth. Of course FPS matters! But what doesn't really matter is do you get 200 or 2000 FPS. What matters (what has ALWAYS mattered) is the minimium FPS. If card A gets 150FPS, with occasional dips to 100FPS, while other card gets 200FPS, with occasional dips to 20FPS, which one would you own?

 

[Goi]

NFS4, I don't know about the rest, but I sure wasn't rooting for the Parhelia because it would kill the GF4 Ti4600. I knew from the start performance would be about the same. Matrox or another source already stated that initial product would only be 20-30% faster at most. What I cared about was the features that it supported, the technology, and the image quality. Remember that the Parhelia has more texturing pipelines than the Ti4600, and so when you start enabling things that would require multiple passes on the Ti4600, it would take the Parhelia less passes to do and hence it would be faster.

 

[Sunner]

I'll say it again, the R8500 was supposed to be supperior to the GF3, and it certainly has the specs to be.
Then when it turned out it wasn't, the argument changed to it's going to be faster in DX8 games.
Today, that doesn't hold true either, and now the GF4's are out.

What's to say this same thing isn't gonna happen with the Parhelia.
160 vs 200 FPS isn't the issue, the issue is a 1 year old card is beating tomorrows card, granted, in this case it was a 3 year old game, but it still isn't a good sign.
What do the numbers look like at 1600x1200x32 max detail?
What are the numbers in Max Payne? Serious Sam 2?

Basically Im saying "I've heard it all before" about this whole "It will be faster in X game" argument.

 

[Gog]

I wonder were Amish is... I remember him saying that the Parhelia will make the Geforce 4 Ti a 'paperweight.'

Sure having nice features is good, but when it comes to video cards whats primary of importance is fps... if you don't have enough of them, you simply can't play your games. The Parhelia's mediocore scores (relative) on Quake III hint at the cards relative performance at future games... sure it may have partial directx 9 support, but those features will just be enough for it to pull even with a Geforce 4 on future titles....

Furthermore, Matrox doesn't have the experience that Nvidia does in releasing top notch drivers on a continuous basis...

 

[Pabster]

Actually, I'm more concerned with a good balance of fps, IQ, and features. That said, you don't sell a $400+ video card that can get ran over by a card $100 less (and performs better to boot). Matrox had better get their act together.

 

[hungrygoose]

Originally posted by: NFS4
OK, so let me get this straight...when the Parhelia was first announced, everyone was screaming about how it was gonna kill the GF4 Ti4600 and Radeon 8500 in performance (and that also makes me wonder where all that bandwidth is going to). Now that we get some numbers, these same people NOW say that FPS doesn't matter anymore??

I mean, while those "raw" numbers in FPS's may not seem very important to you, they are pretty important when you start factoring in where's you're starting from when you start enabling things like anistropic filtering and FSAA.

i.e.

Card A gets 200 FPS in Game X @ default settings
Card B gets 160 FPS in Game X @ default settings

Depending on how each card manufacturer implements their features (like anistropic filtering and FSAA), Card A would have a higher FPS count once the FPS start dropping due to the increased features enabled.

you should actually read about the technology behind the parhelia b4 you make that kind of post....if you would, you would find out that there won't be any decrease in frames per second after the implementing of filtering or faa.....you also seem to forget that the parhelia hasn't even hit stores yet, don't you think drivers will improve rapidly??

 

[grant2]

you also seem to forget that the parhelia hasn't even hit stores yet, don't you think drivers will improve rapidly??

I'm still waiting for decent drivers for my g200.

People who buy XXX product under the wishful assumption that new drivers down the road are going to magically make everything A-OK are setting themselves up for a fall.... SMART people wait til AFTER the drivers are mature before laying down cash.

 

[Electric Amish]

Originally posted by: Gog
I wonder were Amish is... I remember him saying that the Parhelia will make the Geforce 4 Ti a 'paperweight.'

Sure having nice features is good, but when it comes to video cards whats primary of importance is fps... if you don't have enough of them, you simply can't play your games. The Parhelia's mediocore scores (relative) on Quake III hint at the cards relative performance at future games... sure it may have partial directx 9 support, but those features will just be enough for it to pull even with a Geforce 4 on future titles....

Furthermore, Matrox doesn't have the experience that Nvidia does in releasing top notch drivers on a continuous basis...

You called??

First of all I have to call bullsh*t on the "Matrox doesn't have experience releasing top notch drivers." Have you owned a Matrox card? I have only owned Matrox cards and EXCEPT for the G200 OpenGL fiasco (which didn' t bother me because I didn't have any use for OGL) I have NEVER had a driver problem.

As was mentioned before, these are beta drivers. VERY beta from what I've heard.

It's a Quake X bench. Matrox has NEVER been top dog on a Quake bench. Ever. I'd be more interested in a UT 2003 bench or Doom III bench. I have no doubt that Matrox will come close to matching Geforce4 Quake benches.

amish

 

[grant2]

First of all I have to call bullsh*t on the "Matrox doesn't have experience releasing top notch drivers." Have you owned a Matrox card? I have only owned Matrox cards and EXCEPT for the G200 OpenGL fiasco (which didn' t bother me because I didn't have any use for OGL) I have NEVER had a driver problem.

Maybe you've missed it but people regularly report matrox driver problems on these boards, not to mention matrox's surly or apathetic attitude regarding known bugs & missing os-card support combinations.

Your fanaticism may be the equal of 1,000 ordinary men but your experience alone still does not erase other people's problems...

 

[Electric Amish]

Originally posted by: grant2
First of all I have to call bullsh*t on the "Matrox doesn't have experience releasing top notch drivers." Have you owned a Matrox card? I have only owned Matrox cards and EXCEPT for the G200 OpenGL fiasco (which didn' t bother me because I didn't have any use for OGL) I have NEVER had a driver problem.

Maybe you've missed it but people regularly report matrox driver problems on these boards, not to mention matrox's surly or apathetic attitude regarding known bugs & missing os-card support combinations.

Your fanaticism may be the equal of 1,000 ordinary men but your experience alone still does not erase other people's problems...

What problems???

I see just as many Nvidia problems as I do Matrox. That's what happens when there are so many combinations combined with idiot users that don't know what the hell they're doing and/or don't follow instructions.

amish

 

[Sunner]

People who buy XXX product under the wishful assumption that new drivers down the road are going to magically make everything A-OK are setting themselves up for a fall.... SMART people wait til AFTER the drivers are mature before laying down cash.

Well said!

I see just as many Nvidia problems as I do Matrox.

Thumbs up for nVidia then, since there are probabaly 50 nVidia users for every Matrox user on these boards.

 

[grant2]

That's what happens when there are so many combinations combined with idiot users that don't know what the hell they're doing and/or don't follow instructions.

Hmm would i be one of those "idiot users" because my g200 drivers are incomplete and unwieldy?

Well, that's definately how matrox has always treated me... "like an idiot" ... no wonder i'm so happy with my 3dfx card that still has better driver support even though the company has disapeared!!

Thumbs up for nVidia then, since there are probabaly 50 nVidia users for every Matrox user on these boards.

I always see messages from people eager to get new Nvidia drivers, not because they have defects, but just because they get faster and faster. Where's the "buzz" for matrox drivers? I think there is none because matrox users quickly get resigned to the fact that known defects will forever sit in 'known' status, and forget about performance enhancements!!

 

[Electric Amish]

What problems are you having with your G200. I never experienced any.

About the bugs sitting in "known" status forever, there was a graphic bug in Ghost Recon when it was released. Matrox was notified and it was fixed with the next release a month later.

amish

 

[Dion Unroe]

If that card can do DoomIII 1024-768-32bit with surround gamming and get no less the 30fps.... It's mine =)

 

[Athlon4all]

Amish, I dunno if this is the case with other ppl. but I don't doubt Matrox's ability to release stable drivers (or ATi's for that matter), but to be honest, what I doubt is Matrox's/ATi's ability to match nVidia's optimization level. There is no doubt that nVidia's drivers provide their cards with an additional speed boost that definately makes a differenece, and that is what I feel will end up being the decicive factor with Parhelia is once again, nVidia's drivers. We'll see. But, I definately wouldn't bet on Matrox's drivers being at nVidia's level. Where Parhelia wins in benchys vs the GF4, it'll because of superior technology.