Fill rate and pixel shader performance
I've tried to group 3DMark's synthetic test together as logically as possible. The first two of these tests measure fill rate.

As we predicted when we looked over the chip chart, Parhelia's single-textured fill rate is nothing spectacular. The GPU's low clock speed limits performance here. However, we do see a flash of brilliance (or is it three?) out of Parhelia: the multi-textured fill rate leads the pack, although it's not anywhere near the chip's theoretical peak of over 3500 Mtexels/s.

The next two tests measure performance with the two most popular forms of bump mapping. Matrox was once the world's leading proponent of environmental bump mapping, when they were one of the only ones with an implementation in hardware.

Parhelia shows some strength here, beating out the Radeon 8500 in both tests.

Let's look at pixel shader performance.

This is about the kind of performance one might expect given Parhelia's clock speed disadvantage. I watched the Parhelia run through these tests, and everything looked right to me. In fact, the image quality was quite good.