Sign in to follow this  
maxter

Parhelia official benchmark scores: doesn't look pretty

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Well dont forget that if you want to use it specifically for image quality and also for 3 monitor Fs2002 fun, which we know is all CPU power more than anything else, then its not the end of the world yet. It kind of reminds me of the G400max which had rave reviews and everyone was wanting one, then the geforce card came out and blew it away.What with the new cards coming out in the summer though it looks like this card wont appeal to the hardcore gamer but will still be ideal for people who do business presentations and wanna play dvds on one screen etc and have nice image quality and also still play games at a reasonable rate, I mean 7000 3dmarks isnt bad is it...Craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Craig,Problem is: this isn't anywhere near the price of the G400Max - even when it was fist released. All of the configurations of the Parhelia are extremely high end and run $399+ US. For GeForce4 MX 440 performance and tri-monitor support, I'll pick up a GeForce4 MX 440 with built-in dual-monitor nView along with a second PCI GeForce4 MX 420 for the third monitor. Total price will be far, far less than the Parhelia for better performance.Another problem is: since these reviews weren't allowed until tomorrow to coincide with actual retail availability of these cards, this is the performance you'll get out of the box (if Tom's testing was sound - they usually are). No waiting for driver improvements here before the cards are available: its too late for that.Take care, http://members.rogers.com/eelvish/elrondlogo.gifhttp://members.rogers.com/eelvish/flyurl.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NO NO please Elrond...dont buy those geforce 4mx's ....People here have been having problems with them in Fs2002, I know you are speaking metaphorically but you know what I mean.Yeh it is very very high...but then again some people will be ignorant of the facts and will buy it because its the most expensive card out there. Id rather stay with my vanilla geforce 3 for a while as that gives me 7300+ 3dmarks and Im happy with it, have been for over a year.But yeh I know where you are coming from and I am too abit disappointed about what I read in your post as I was thinking that this card might be one to go for in 6months time but doesnt look to be..will be the lastest geforce5 I guess which I believe might have some of 3dfx's Anti Aliasing technology thrown in....Craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>NO NO please Elrond...dont buy those geforce 4mx's .... hehe hehe hehe :-lol gotta love newbies, eh Elrond? ;) BTW, I have a bit of a grievance about the benchmark scores for the Parhelia... The Parhelia wasn't designed to run 5000 fps @ low detail, it was designed to provide acceptable/good fps @ extremely high detail settings and, as such, should be benchmarked so. What's the point of running benchmarks at 1024x768 w/medium detail settings on a card that was designed to run benchmarks/games @ high resolutions w/AA & AF enabled? I think it would be more beneficial for people to see the results of the Parhelia running benchmarks @ 1600x1200 w/max. detail and AA & AF enabled, compared to the GF4 and Radeon xxxx.Max Cowgill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Elrond,Very interesting stuff about the Parhelia. I guess I'll be hitting Tom's site tomorrow to read the reviews. Does not look very promising though.They also posted a site with Benchmarks from Israel. I can't read it, but the graphs are pretty clear. In the 1600 x1200, the Matrox gets smoked, bigtime. Looks like Nvidia has nothing to worry about here.All hype, and no performance from Matrox. Unless they have already produced a better driver to up these scores.Here are the facts:http://www.hwzone.co.il/archive.php?file=n...1024962420,5658,Regards,Joe :-wavePS - One more German site shows the Parhelia outperforming with AA turned on at higher speeds, but worse if AA is turned off. Interesting:http://www.chip.de/produkte_tests/untersei...ts_8737734.html.Oshkosh Pictures From 2001 (Part 1) 78 Pics in Frames with 1mb in ThumbnailsHigh speed connection Recommended:http://home.attbi.com/~flypics1/FrameSet.htm.Oshkosh Pictures From 2001 (Part 2) 106 Pics in Frames with 1.5mb in ThumbnailsHigh speed connection recommended:http://home.attbi.com/~flypics2/FrameSet.htm.Picture Gallery of My Flight in a 1945 SNJ-6 on June 1st, 2002Joliet, Illinoishttp://home.attbi.com/~jranos/FrameSet.htm.http://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Elrond,For those that want this card for its high image quality and Tri-display these numbers will be going up as the drivers mature and the faster models come out in august and september (the 256mb and 512mb are reported to have a faster clock) But as has already been pointed out don't look for a record performance out of these cards just nice 3D and 2D performance.Here are some official and not so official snipits that I have been collecting from Nvidia and ATI concerning the NV30/31 and RV250/300/350:NV30:full DX9.0 and 8x AGP bla bla bla..."film-like image image quality"-3D gaming :-roll120 million transistors - My "mighty" AMD XP as 37.5 million!900-1gigMhz memory clock!!! anyone for toast?200 million poly/secNV30 will be the first Chip that the old 3dfx team has worked on -can you say better AA? :)NV18 (OK, this is still the GF2/4mx but...):DX9 support as well as 8xAGPATI R300:350Mhz Clock speed 400Mhz Memory speed 0.15 micron 107 million transistors 150 million triangles/s 8 pipelines Dual RAMDAC DirectX 9 supportATI R250:Programmable Pixel & Vertex Shader up to 128 instructions 4 parallel rendering pipes 6 textures per pixels Full AGP 2/4X support 300Mhz core clock DirectX 8.1 & OpenGL support Adaptive De-interlacing & Temporal Filtering And for those that read all the way done here to the bottom a special treat:ClawHammer MB's are starting to show up here...and there..... :)Strange as the Hammer chips aren't to show up until 2003! :-rollScrew driver please!http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif :-beerchug http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif :-beerchug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya.So Max....What do you mean by Newbie??? :-)Ive been around here for a while now ..Cheeky monkey..heheheheAll good humoured of course. I was teasing Elrond as I know he knows his stuff.All I mean about the Geforce 4 Mx is by what Ive been reading about on posts on here by users that have bought said card and are having problems with reflections and everything else with those cards or because of the fact that because it has Geforce4 in its name people think its going to be better than a Geforce 3. Those cards are great value though and are brilliant for playing other games with and also dual head support etc. I think back to when I had a voodoo 3 and then I got a geforce1 and then had that Fs2000 lights in the sky problem all the time but because games like Quake3 and Midtown madness were transformed it was a keeper for me. Craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig,Might you have meant to reply to MAX?Take Care,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya Paul.Well....I hit reply under Max's post but for some reason it always puts me at the bottom of the pile after.Craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I have learned about FS and video cards is that benchmark testing is (almost) useless when it comes to determing how a card performs. You play around with registry settings with a number of cards that in turn result in huge reductions in benchmarking performance. But then you apply those same registry settings in FS2002 and there is not only no performance loss, but a big, big improvement in image quality. Personally I already have all the FS2002 speed performance I want with my Geforce 3. Infact I also had all the speed performance I wanted with my Voodoo 5500 and TNT Vanta card. Infact, I even get enough fps if I disable hardware acceleration altogether and just run the sim in software mode!To me it is all about image quality. I remember back to my Voodoo that had terrible benchmarks compared to Geforce cards, especially when you turned AA on. But then you run any MS FS, and the AA resulted in no performance drop at all. Then there is anisotropic filtering on my Geforce 3. Up to 32 tap, I don't notice any performance drop in FS2002, but there is a corresponding huge improvement in image quality. Run a 3D Mark test with aniso on, however, and the benchmarking score tumbles down a long way - a loss of something like 40%.Even when I upgraded from the Voodoo to the Geforce, there was a massive improvement in benchmarks, but no actual fps improvement in most games at all. But there was a substantial improvement in image quality because I could set all the texture sliders and a few other settings right to maximum.I really expect the Matrox to be all about image quality, as one would expect with a Matrox pedigree. Unfortunately image quality is quite subjective, so there probably won't be a definitive answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I read the benchs/review from chip.de and it seems it's not so bad with matrox's new pixel acrobat.....Parblabla is the fastest card at higher res (from 1280x1024 upwards) with fsaa on. (some games/benchs even from 1024x768)To be honest I don't care if I get 300 or 200fps at 640x480.....Chip.de 's staff say image quality is superior compared to G4Ti's.I run FS at 1600x1200 so maybe this card could help here....Lucien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Max,Well, I don't personally toss around "newbie" comments as I'm too much of a newbie in many, many, many areas that others are not (golf anyone?). :-)If you view the benchmarks as available widely today, you'll see that the Parhelia doesn't stand up on any account. In non-quality performance tests: it sucks. In quality performance tests: its adequate - but (and this is a huge but here) its quality is quite inferior. We as flight sim enthusiasts (well, all gamers not just flight simmers), want the best quality possible in both anisotropic and AA performance. While the FAA performance/quality of the Perhelia is quite excellent, it doesn't work in many games. Add in its vastly inferior aniso quality AND worse performance and the card takes a severe nose-dive.Personally, I don't see the Parhelia in a good light for anybody's situation. At "normal" quality it blows. At high quality it blows. For those who dearly love 2D quality and nothing more, it still blows. Why? Because you can get excellent 2D quality with the existing Matrox line - the G400 Max - for far, far less than the extremely overpriced Parhelia! At $399 (street!) for such a card, I find it so out of whack to its existing competition that its almost laughable. An ATI 8500 for $200 is a MUCH better deal. Even better, a Ti4200 with dual-display nView for that same $200 and less simply blows it away.The final nail in its coffin from my perspective: this is the "next-gen" part from Matrox. As Paul points out below, the R300 and the NV30/31 are just a few short months away and are the direct competitors to the Parhelia (well, even more: they are true DX9 parts - the Parhelia is a halfbreed DX8/DX9 part without support for AGP 8x to boot). Either of these ATI or Nvidia cards should provide vastly superior performance and visual quality at their highest settings than the Parhelia.In the end, I wouldn't recommend the Parhelia to anyone - specially flight simmers who desire the best visual display possible. My recommendation to those on the edge? Wait a few short months for the Parhelia's direct competitors - or get a Ti4200 today that won't kill your pocketbook and will provide you better performance to boot - and at least the OPTION to run 32 or 64 tap aniso!Take care,http://members.rogers.com/eelvish/elrondlogo.gifhttp://members.rogers.com/eelvish/flyurl.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Paul,Where did those banana's come from? They're HILARIOUS! I've stolen them so I hope you don't mind. :-)As I replied to Max above, if 2D quality is the only criteria, the G400 is a much better solution as its price is much, much lower than the Parhelia. For tri-display, the same thing can be had using any combination of cards in Flight Sim, so I don't see that as a great point either. I simply think the Parhelia is a poor choice for anyone unfortunately - I really had high hopes for it and for Matrox (they ARE Canadian like ATI after all! :-)).Good information there on the next-gens from the competitors. I too can't wait to see what kind of influence those former 3DFX employees had on the already outstanding Nvidia technology. Should be an interesting fall for many reasons (ClawHammer's included - in December or January as you say).Take care,http://members.rogers.com/eelvish/elrondlogo.gifhttp://members.rogers.com/eelvish/flyurl.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hey Paul, >>Where did those banana's come from? They're HILARIOUS! Elrond, I've encountered those bananas on Madonion's "Gamers' HQ" message boards before, I believe that is where they originated (that's where they're most commonly used, anyway).Max Cowgill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like others are confiriming the results.Are we witnessing perhaps the beginning of the end of Matrox ?Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hey Paul, >>Where did those banana's come from? They're HILARIOUS! >I've stolen them so I hope you don't mind. :-) These bannas are all over the place,I stole mine from: http://www.xtremesystems.orgHere, have a crate of em on me! :)http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif http://www.frontiernet.net/~pleatzaw/images/banana.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Michael,Indeed. When John Carmack speaks and has nothing but bad things to say about a "next-gen" card, its hard to recover from that:http://www.shacknews.com/finger/?fid=johnc@idsoftware.comAnd that from the most competent and influential "next-gen" or otherwise engine author that exists. Carmack sure is the EF Hutton of the industry. :-)I hope one of two things happen: either Matrox slashes the Parhelia's price to $150-$199 immediately (highly unlikely), or they develop some extremely high quality and certified OpenGL drivers and refocus this card completely away from consumers toward the professional CAD and Media markets (Wildcat type market). I can see 16x AA doing well there, but not here with its poor performance and aniso.Take care,http://members.rogers.com/eelvish/elrondlogo.gifhttp://members.rogers.com/eelvish/flyurl.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got back from Tom's looking at the screenshots on the Parhelia review (couldn't care about the benchmarks ;-) ) I have to say that on the basis of that review, the Parhelia won't even be able to hold it's own in terms of image quality either. It was quite disappointing to note the current Parhelia drivers only allow for anisotropic filtering to be fully on or fully off - and the fully on only partly filters the textures in comparison to the Geforce 4. I must say I get better image quality from my ASUS Geforce 3 Ti than those Parhelia shots, even with level 4 aniso enabled (which is my standard setup). I guess it is still a little premature to make a definitive judgement, as there could still be a fair amount of driver development ahead (one would hope so). Still, it reminds me of when 3dfx released the Voodoo 5500. Not to put too fine a point on it, that card was too little too late. And of course everyone knows what happened to 3dfx.The fact of the matter is that not even taking into account image quality, it is still principally (and unfortunately) benchmark performance that sells premium priced video cards. That was a major factor as to why 3dfx succumbed to Nvidia. Matrox have obviously put a huge investment into this card and I'm beginning to wonder whether the return on it will meet their own forecasts. As for it's use in FS2002, I know of only 2 or 3 Avsim readers for whom the Matrox, in it's current guise, could even be considered. They are the ones who run everything totally maxed out on very large monitors. But as they probably already run Geforce 4's, they probably wouldn't bother anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe, Very nice pics of late July at KOSH. Unforunately, didn't make it due to work. It looks like you got the famous afternoon t-storms that happen almost like clockwork during EAA. You can see the humidity :~P .( I.E. B-1 contrails) . I see your children had a good time ... What child wouldn't? :-) Are you making it back to EAA this year ? If so, hope to meet possibly.. If not we can just enjoy the new scenery that MS gave to us.Regards,RomanGreen Bay, WisconsinProject 737-400

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I should add that imo, the best card for FS2002 remains the Geforce 3 Ti 500 - that is, if you want the best image quality with minimal performance loss. I would have said Geforce 4, but so far that card is barely any better (and reportedly even worse) than the Geforce 3 when the aniso is set to 32 or 64 tap. By the time Nvidia bring out drivers that might improve Geforce 4 aniso, many people will already have their sites set on the NV30.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Elrond,I can certainly vouch for the Ti4600. It has given me the most realistic simming experience since I started in 1984 on a PCXT.Cheers,Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern Australiahttp://www.fsd-international.com/images/FSD_beta_tester.jpg[h3] FSD Aircraft "Around the world" flight.Now at KCRG (Craig Muni.) Florida, USA[/h3][h3]"I drive way too fast to worry about cholesterol."[/h3]Intel Pentium IV 2.26GHz(533) Socket 478 pins, 512K L2 Cache 0.13micron TechnologyIntel D850EMV2-LAN P4 (533MHz FSB) w/ Management S/WKingston/Samsung 256MB PC-800 RAMBUS, "Intel Approved" x 2 (512Mb)MSI-8872 GeForce4 Titanium 4600 128MB DDR with TV-OUT & Video CapturePioneer 16x DVD , 40x CD-ROM Tray Load Version ATA 66Hyundai -ImageQuest P910+, 19" Multi-Scan Digital Monitor, 0.26mm 1600x 1200 @ 85HzIBM Deskstar 60GXP, 60GB HDD IDE, 2MB Cache, 8.5ms, 7200rpm, ATA 100Microsoft Internet Hardware Value Pack , Internet PS/2 Keyboard & Optical Intelimouse Bundle3Com 3CSOHO100-TX OfficeConnect 10/100 Faset Ethernet 10/100 NICAOpen QF50 ( with Multimedia USB2.0 Front Panel ) Midi ATX Case with 300W P4 ATX Power Supply Hercules Game Theater XP, 6.1 speakers Dolby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this