Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Matrox Parhelia

Author
Message
Shadow Robert
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 19th Sep 2003 07:09
today i finally got to see in action the Matrix Parhelia 512, the brand new card from Matrox.
Based on thier Parhelia256 512bit processor but for DirectX9

i'm not a big fan of games with all the fancy gaudy graphics,
but today i got to play World of Warcraft in 10Bit GigaColour, using 3x 21" monitors at a resolution of 1280x1024x32bpp ... with full shader and 16x AntiAliasing.
and quite frankly, that was the best god damn visual experience i've had in my life!!

you wanna taster of what this card is capable of get your butts over to Matrox - but quite frankly it isn't even close to what gaming like that is worth.
Gotta say the speed and graphics even give my QuadroFX 3K a run for its money ... and the fact that its processor is setup for gaming needs not just 3d packages - I can see why CDR love this card so much.

Quite frankly if i had to to asked what card is best for HL2 right now, no doubt in my mind ... the Perhelia is just one damn outstanding graphics card, quieter than the R380 or nv38 - It's Smaller, Jesus we took it out of the machine and it was so hard to believe that a card the size of my GeForce2mx was THAT! powerful.

Tell ya what i know where my next $800 is going as soon as its released

the absolute kicker has to be on 3DMark03 the G550 gets around 1,2800 marks ... even the best GeForce and Radeons get only around the 8,000 mark - ran this card through it. It got over 10K on each of the screens, and it could run a max of 3.
quite frankly that is mind blowing power.

just a pitty they don't do a budget version

Falelorn
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Jun 2003
Location: Canada
Posted: 19th Sep 2003 09:42
WOAH!

I have a G400 Dual Head 64mb, and its a kick ass card. I love Matrox for graphics, and business workstation.

Im going to pick up the 256mb version and a nother 21 inch monitor now. Thats a kick ass looking card.

I get a huge speed increase when using 2 cards, I bet 3 is so much better.

We need more games that support multi monitors. Flight Sims are the obvious choice, but RTS, and RPGs would be great also.

http://matedit.com/forums/index.php (other great DB forums)
Current Project - Legends of the Sword - On my WWW
Check out profile for more information
Falelorn
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Jun 2003
Location: Canada
Posted: 19th Sep 2003 10:20
$850 cdn isnt expensive for that card (256 mb) thats actually cheaper then I thought.

http://matedit.com/forums/index.php (other great DB forums)
Current Project - Legends of the Sword - On my WWW
Check out profile for more information
Falelorn
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Jun 2003
Location: Canada
Posted: 19th Sep 2003 11:35
Nah thats only about 575 USD. Its average. Remember that is not a game card. It can be used as a game card. But that is a a business card, it was designed to work with with high end software packages, workstation, etc.

I use the dual head for developing, ive seen 4 head cards that start over 2 grand. This is a much more powerful card.

http://matedit.com/forums/index.php (other great DB forums)
Current Project - Legends of the Sword - On my WWW
Check out profile for more information
Shadow Robert
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 19th Sep 2003 12:56
the cards price is expensive to alot of non-serious gamers (and thieves ) ... but seriously i paid like £350 ($495usd) for my Radeon 9800pro and £380 ($530usd) for my GeForceFX 5900 ultra.

Really this card isn't much more that that, isn't nothing that a serious gamer isn't preparied to pay.
what truely got me was how fast shaders ran... it was like FSAA on my FX5900 - didn't phase the card no matter how intense they got.

Stuff like Field of Depth, didn't change the speed even slightly.
Looked at the technicals of it and its impressive because it has just as many shader instructions as the FX6000 (which is 2x as many as the FX5900 and 4x more than the Radeon 9800pro).
The structure of the chip is also a very impressive peice of kit, it has 4 shader level headers which then are cut into another 2 shader pipelines each.

you could theoretically run 4 shader FP at the same time, which compared to the QuadroFX is hardly anything impressive - but what is impressive is that it isn't specifically setup for Maya/Softimage/Max/trueSpace like the Quadro, Wildcat and FireGL are.

(not that any self respecting render farm would have a FireGL inside it )

However what i've noticed on the site is that the Unreal2 Engine based games - America's Army Online, Unreal2, Unreal Tournament 2003/04 are capable of the Surround Gaming.
until i saw it at work though i just though Imperium Galatica would be pretty lame with it, but the way its setup ... atleast in WoW it certainly is very impressive

Command&Conquer Generals had support for it, pitty i never say that working at the time.
The only real thing that fails it, is the vertices & mtriangles per second. It's only around half of the other cards, as this'll only affect brand-brand new games with almost 1million triangles per scene - but then thats what SLi is for isn't it hehee

Falelorn
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Jun 2003
Location: Canada
Posted: 19th Sep 2003 21:45
Geri: I have a workstation at home, win 2k server with SQL Server, linux web server, and building a .net web server to test code on. Im sure other coders have similar. Its cheaper usually to do it at home then far away by leasing dedicated space.

My workstation is old, but I bought it when P3 700 (I have dual P3s) were still insanely expensive, 512mb ram was high (I have 1gb), its entirely SCZI. My G400 Dual head Matrox card was $900.00 CDN.

If your testing alot of code, its easier to do it in house, then out side. Especially with hardware issues. You can test certain hardware set ups for speed.

Check out going out of business sales, forclosure auctions, forced seizure auctions. You can get alot for pennies on the dollar.

Raven is right its comparable to other cards for cost. Any serious gamer would drop $500.00 USD on a card.

http://matedit.com/forums/index.php (other great DB forums)
Current Project - Legends of the Sword - On my WWW
Check out profile for more information
TKF15H
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Jul 2003
Location: Rio de Janeiro
Posted: 20th Sep 2003 04:20
I'm a serious gamer...sort of... my 3D card cost me a grand total of....40 bucks
I'm gonna get a job so I can buy a better card...
I'm gonna sell my DreamCast...
I'm gonna sell my dog...
I'm gonna sell my old card...
I'm gonna sell my brother...
After all that, I'm still 200 bucks short of buying a good card.

I need an animator!!! HELP ME!!
Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 20th Sep 2003 05:43 Edited at: 20th Sep 2003 05:44
@Raven

The Matrox Parhelia 512 isn't exactly a new card. It came out when the GF4Ti was the top of the range from NVidia, and despite the fantastic features onboard, it just couldn't keep up with either NVidia or ATI when it came to 3D performance. 3DMark03 wasn't available at the time of its release.

http://www20.tomshardware.com/graphic/20020625/index.html

Shadow Robert
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 20th Sep 2003 05:54
Rob check the site... the 512 edition is the DirectX9 edition of the Parhelia 128/256 editions.
the number at the end simply reffers to the onboard ram amount, not sure why they've decided not to change the number.

seriously check out the site and you'll see what i mean, the new one is pretty outstanding speed wise. But its poly for poly rendering isn't the same as the FX or R380 ... which was kinda my point about wanting to get 2

i love that about professional workstation cards, you can just get 2 or more - throw them in the machine and forget about it.
all thanks to nVidia VAGP technology ... wonderful stuff.
kinda obsolete with PCIX here now, but still wonderful stuff.

Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 20th Sep 2003 06:02 Edited at: 20th Sep 2003 06:04
Nope. Its the same one. Checked Matrox' site and looked around the web, no news of anything newer. The G550 you referred to in your original post was the ID of an older series of Matrox cards (G400, G450, G500, G550) - that was pretty poor at 3D as well. Matrox cards are excellent for multi-monitor displays though.

Shadow Robert
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 20th Sep 2003 06:16
nope the ones they have on the main site are the DirectX 8.1 Perhelia 128/256
you have to do some digging on the new DirectX9 one, and the G550 was reffered to simply because it was the last public user or rather gamer card they produced. Still uses DirectX 8.0 - so it is going back sometime.

Would seem wrong to try and state the speed compared to current cards and more recent ones from other manufactures, no?
though the G550 is still a pretty good card, its speed is on par with the GeForce2 GTS DDR. Oki so by todays standards thats pretty piss poor - but still for a 2year old card ain't too bad

Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 20th Sep 2003 06:49
'but still for a 2year old card ain't too bad '

People were telling me my GeForce 2 was crap when I bought it 2 years ago

The card does seem to be new, it's on Matrox's site...

Frankly, however, while the card may not be horribly expensive for a serious gamer, three "21 screens and a computer capable of handling those games, all together, would be quite a huge investment. I don't see the multi-monitor thing catching on, really... it's too clunky. A single, big, curved, half-circle 180 degree LCD screen would be what'd impress me-- THAT would be seriously fun.

--Mouse: Famous (Avatarless) Fighting Furball
Read It: http://www.angryflower.com/itsits.gif
Learn It: http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
Shadow Robert
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 20th Sep 2003 08:35
the army has those... LG makes them, just a pitty they got for $15 grand eh

Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 20th Sep 2003 13:55
Quote: "you have to do some digging on the new DirectX9 one"


Nope. Check the site link above. It mentions in the review for the card that it IS a DX9 specific card with full VS/PS 2.0 support. There isn't a DX8.1 Parhelia AFAIK.

Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 20th Sep 2003 19:32
' pitty they got for $15 grand eh '

Not too big an investment for a serious gamer

--Mouse: Famous (Avatarless) Fighting Furball
Read It: http://www.angryflower.com/itsits.gif
Learn It: http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
CloseToPerfect
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Dec 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 20th Sep 2003 20:08
Imperium Galactica surround play would be so much fun, I can't wait to get ig3, 1 and 2 were great, the cream of space rts games.

CTP
Shadow Robert
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 21st Sep 2003 00:29
Imperium Galatica 3 was made by a different company, and unfortunately it shows in spades.
personally i don't like it - far too technical

ahh your on about the review, i didn't see any refference to being a DirectX9 card. But the most current on the site is the Perhelia 256 which on the comparison chart says DirectX8.1
don't have the card so can't say for sure.

however notice the benchmarks that the Perhelia is about 2/3 the speed of the GF4 ... well as i mentioned something the MP can do that the GF can't is you can have more than one in a machine, in particular you can have upto 4 provided you have the additional PCi sockets
and the drivers are setup to take advantage of this, so 2 Cards will give you around 2-2.5x the speed of a single card.

For a workstation card this is really a normal feature, for one capable of gaming too - well that is kinda novel as only the Voodoo2 was capable of it, and we all know the power they could push.

Shadow Robert
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 21st Sep 2003 00:34
hey Rob you seen this >>
Quote: "http://www20.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030912/index.html"


this is becomming very very interestinng.
the GeForce are still being out performed, but the conditions are what is more interesting about the situation.

Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 21st Sep 2003 05:08
Interesting, but nothing unexpected. I would have thought that NVidia would perform better in the FSAA tests as they have done in the past.

It is also worth noting that ATI scores should be compared against the FP scores from NVidia, as HP (Half-precision), isn't the same visually I presume.

Shadow Robert
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 21st Sep 2003 08:25 Edited at: 21st Sep 2003 08:31
visual quality difference is negletable

[edit- that was stupid]
nv3x HP - 16bit per float 64bit Floating Point,
FP - 32bit per float 128bit Floating Point
r3x0 FP - 24bit per float 96bit Floating Point

(should've put that down so no one sat there and did a "well actually" on me)

[edit2-]
oh yeah and graphically speaking, thats 16bit per colour range - the difference visually between 64bit Colour and 128bit Colour is only noticeable to bloody good artist or if your actually having the area pointed out... even then alot of people wouldn't really see it much.

its annoying really that both companies do them differently, nVidia actually make alot more sense development wise - especially considering Shaders user FP 32bit and HP 16bit as specified by Microsoft and nVidia, well its silly really but Radeons numbers just don't add up.

Which can be frustruating when you want to do ARGB in a single instruction but you can't on a radeon cause you only get float3 rather than the float4 because the radeon simply drop the extra float.

as i said, its not the benchmark which is interesting - but rather how the benchmarks had to be carried out and the given stipulation from Valve saying the the DetonatorFX 50.x drivers could not be used even though benchmarks already done with them quite rightly show a 40% speed increase over the 45.x drivers.
Unfortunately there is a slightly noticeable quality drop in texture precision - they don't look as sharp as they used to.
Next to the Radeons they're finally on par visually, i have a feeling that there was a hiccup in the last driver set meaning the post-process of Texture Sharpening is always on in the FX Chipset.

this can be echoed by games like Oni, if i get a chance later i'll swap my FX5200 for my old Mx200 and show you what i mean.
was a good read though

Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 21st Sep 2003 14:18
When HL2 is released these sites can do benchmarks using the latest NVidia and ATI drivers, so it will be a fairer test hopefully. I'm watching and waiting

Shadow Robert
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, England
Posted: 22nd Sep 2003 03:04
well the Benchmark demo is actually due out within the next month, so hopefully we'll all be able to see results for ourselves

AlecM
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: Concord, MA
Posted: 24th Sep 2003 00:03
my radeon 9800 Pro All In Wonder was only $380

Looks pretty sweet

Goto http://www.shellshockede.com

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-09-20 13:18:07
Your offset time is: 2024-09-20 13:18:07