I've used matrox card since G100,I admire the image quality of matrox card.Image quality is more important than FPS.

The Matrox Parhelia "IS NOT A GAMERS" Card. It was never really meant to be. The Parhelia is meant for the graphics professional. (Photo editing, CAD, Medical Imaging). "Graphics Professionals” these people actually exist and don’t have to much time if any to “PLAY GAMES “ daily. I have this card, this is an IMAGE QUAILTY FIRST GRAPHICS CARD” all other things (frames per second, etc, etc, are secondary.)

The Matrox Pharhelia "IS NOT A GAMERS" Card. It was never really meant to be. The Pharhelia is meant for the graphics professional. (Photo editing, CAD, Medical Imaging). "Graphics Professionals” these people actually exist and don’t have to much time if any to “PLAY GAMES “ daily. I have this card, this is an IMAGE QUAILTY FIRST GRAPHICS CARD” all other things (frames per second, etc, etc, are secondary.)

Matrox have made a very stupid, stupid mistake by marketing this new Parhelia card at $400.

What in hell were they thinking?

"Well, it's about as powerful as a ATI 8500 LE, but let's price it so ridiculously, we'll effectively be raped by the FPS community..."

I mean, that's what they're going to HAVE to expect everyone to react to.

I mean, I expect the ATI R300 and NV30 to be around that price point... and you know what? I'd buy the damn things before a bloody review even came about confirming their overwhelming power toward next-gen 3D DX8/9 games.

Matrox, my decision to order got cancelled shortly after the first horrific review that came about...

AG 133,

"The GF3 and GF4 use multisampling, which does *nothing* to anything that is not a triangle edge. This includes the middle parts of alpha textures."

Slightly wrong. Of course it does something to the insides too. It merely reuses the texel data, instead of resampling texels for each subpixel sample point, for all subpixel sample point color calculations -- this doesn't mean that every subpixel receives the same texture color result in the end. Some math usally happens on the way...

So MS keeps doing the same thang inside triangles as well -- otherwise we would be discussing Edge AA (whether it's MS, SS, Z3, subpixel mask, whatever), not Full Screen AA (whether it's...). But you're right that it doesn't much improve the insides (diagonal lines, whether they are in an alpha or an opaque texture) -- and can actually blur them, having actually a negative impact on image fidelity. But it does *something* ;-)

Just wanted to correct any confusions between MS and SS, and EAA and FSAA.

LOL

*DAY

STOOPID FLOODER.... !!!!

DUKE NUKEM FOREVER WILL NEVER SEE THE LIGHT OF THE DAT .....BASTARD !!!

#128 True, but a new card is a new card...

130,

It simply amazes me. Go learn something, please.

The GF3 and GF4 use multisampling, which does *nothing* to anything that is not a triangle edge. This includes the middle parts of alpha textures.

The GF1 and GF2 use supersampling. Either 2.25x (1.5x1.5) or 4x (2x2). Either way, its ordered grid.

AFAIK, Matrox's FAA also fails to do anything to alpha textures.

#116, Gainward offers a dual-DVI GF4Ti 4600. That's probably your best bet, short of a Parhelia.

#125: [q]which did a great job thanks to its hardware rotated grid feature (impossible to dupicate in software)[/q]GF2 does 2x RGSS and 4x OGSS. You sure it's a hardware limitation?

GF1/2 does super sampling, 3/4 multisampling. SS filters textures, MS doesn't. To compensate for the lack of filtering, you might lower (which, in fact, increases texture detail) the LOD while using MS.

OGSS is better at 45 degree lines, RGSS better at lines near the horizontal or vertical

Wrong. Nvidia uses Multisampling, not supersampling.

AG127, nvidia's antialiasing is supersampling based, NOT edge antialiasing.

OTOH, the Parhelia's antialiasing IS edge antialiasing (of a sort)

The performance deficit wouldn't be an issue if the Parhelia still left the impression that it will perform well in the next year or two. JC already updated his .plan saying the Parhelia basically sucks monkey balls. That was the final nail in the coffin.

I'm waiting three months and buying a middle-of-the-line NV30 for $299...

#112,

Matrox has been producing a QuadHead G200 for a few years. If these people don't care about 3D performance....

#125,

I'm dying to know how the 2x or 4x multisampling of the Geforce 4 can do anything that resembles blurring. It doesn't even touch anything that is not an edge. Take a screenshot with it turned on and off, then do a difference filter in Photoshop. It's identical except for the edges. It's all in your head, bud.

Quincunx is a different story. It is exactly the 2x mode with a blur filter.

And the 2x RGMS mode is hardware rotated grid.

see this site for a review you're looking for:
http://www.icrontic.com/index.php?page=public/hardware&hardwareId=405

Just for my curiosity among fellow GF4 ti4600 owners: do any of you use FSAA, and if so, why?

I use anisotropic filtering set to 8x forced on for D3d and OpenGL, and that, along with a Digital Vibrance setting of medium, gives me terrific image quality. I haven't really seen great FSAA since my Voodoo 5 5500, however, which did a great job thanks to its hardware rotated grid feature (impossible to dupicate in software), and which did a particularly good job AA'ing the near-horizontal and near-vertical lines in a frame.

By comparison, my 4600 is simply terrible at the near horizontals and verticals, and I notice that 4x FSAA is extremely blurry. Now, 2x FSAA is not as blurry, but I can still see the difference.

So for me I get a lot better image quality running AF maxed out with trilinear and no FSAA than I get with AF maxed, trilinear, and any FSAA mode the current drivers provide.

I'm looking forward to the nv30 as this will be the first project the 3dfx engineers have assisted in, and I hope to see an in-hardware rotated grid feature for FSAA, because then I might start using it again, at least sometimes.

But back to the question at hand: for the 4600 owners who use FSAA, don't you find the results very blurry?

Ive got the perfect plan for matrox, since they have superior 2d as some have said, and used often in publishing, and other 2d uses, why not pair up with apple, for the desktop publishing market? apple could develop a line of g4's for publishing using the Parhelia, can you imagine 3 of the 22" apple flat panals on your desk!

Ok, I could be wrong about this, but I seem to recall Matrox making a Mac-specific card a good while ago. Seems like it was a very poor seller and Matrox discontinued its Mac products. Forgive me if I'm wrong about this...

But on the whole, the Mac 3rd-party videocard market is one of the toughest, most thankless markets in the industry. I recall reading comments by ex-Radius employees describing the demise of what had been the largest of the Mac-specific 3rd-party videocard makers. The guy said that in a good year they'd be lucky to sell 50,000 cards--! I thought that was an incredibly low figure, but Apple doesn't supply any help to these companies (as 3dfx found out rudely), and the market as a whole doesn't run on the same dynamics as the x86 market as regards 3rd-party hardware peripherals. Most Mac users keep their standard hardware and have little interest in upgrading their machines. The Radius guy said it was the toughest market "you could imagine."

Companies like ATI and nVidia are the "lucky" ones, I suppose, when it comes to Apple because they get contracts from Apple guaranteeing a certain level of purchasing from Apple, and in return these companies agree to provide drivers on a continuing basis. 3rd party Mac videocard market is meager indeed.

Hi. Ok we've established ladies and gents that the Parhelia is not the GF4 Ti4600 killer some of us expected it to be. Matrox did say that they will be concentrating on Image quality rather than FPS, then ok. To be honest as long as a game plays at around the 100fps mark, I have all the eye candy full wack. I play in 1024x768x32 with 8x aniso and 4xS AA, and i play that at around the 120fps mark. This matrox it obviously design for high res/definition image quality, and mabie for the "professional" graphics side of things rather than the high speed FPS of the gamers world in which the GF4 Ti's were souly designed for. What I do object to though quite strongly indeed, is the price at which Matrox expect the consumer to pay, £399, i'm sorry Matrox, but that price takes the mick, and you "do" expect sky high FPS at that price aswell as image quality. If the price was lower then this would be a viable option, but GF3 Ti500 performance at a £399 asking price is too overwhelming. Yes I'll say again, I love image quality, but also at a performance so that it justifies the asking price. I paid £375 for my Leadtek Winfast A250 Ultra GF4 Ti4600, but I knew that I was buying the fastest card on the planet with good image quality and blistering AA performance, that would last (it's still the fastest card on the planet now...4 months later), whereas the Parhelia is more money, and already "only" as fast as cards produced just over a year ago. Drop the price by £100-150 Matrox and then mabie you will earn more repect of a broader range of consumers (including mine). I dread to think what the asking price for the 256mb card will be if the price of this 128mb does not drop!

[/qpeaking of ebay and voodoo 5-6000, are there any benchmarks posted anywhere on that card?[/q]

http://www.tech-report.com/onearticle.x/1603

Of course since the voodooextreme.com domain is in traction, you'll need to use this instead.

http://www.ve3d.com/hw/previews/v5_6000/

At this point though, the driver support has decayed to the point that new applications aren't working. Neverwinter Nights, for example either causes a BSOD or crashes to the desktop.

[qnless Matrox issued a new set of drivers specifically for rendering station/q]

http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2002q2/parhelia/index.x?pg=11

[i]Matrox says they plan to offer certified OpenGL drivers for all Parhelia card/i]

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,182558,00.asp

[i]For the 3D workstation, Matrox will be releasing drivers that will target each major application over time. The Parhelia brings the only high performance three-screen accelerated 3D solution to this market, which we believe is a feature of key importance for increasing productivity and application usability in visualization applications. Additionally, Fragment Anti-aliasing 16x makes a large difference in quality in complex 3D assemblies. Look for Matrox to provide additional details regarding our plans for this market at this year's Siggraph in San Antonio, Texas.[/i]

Siggraph started on the 21st of this month and continues through to the 26th (today). So I assume we're going to hear more soon.

speaking of ebay and voodoo 5-6000, are there any benchmarks posted anywhere on that card?

corrosive23, I tried imagining 3x 23" Apple flatpanels on my desk, but then I lost my concentration as my underwear suddenly became very tight.

[q]I would love more games to support multiple monitors. In RPGs it could easily be done by sticking the menus and status windows on a second screen allowing the main screen an uninterrupted view of the action (nothing sucks like getting attacked while sorting potions)[/q]

Neverwinter Nights in Surround Gaming:

http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/parhelia/page8.asp

[q]So what is the best dual head vga card for the money? One that will give decent game performance (warcraft 3) and still give good clarity on two lcd screens at 1280X1024?[/q]

Take a look at the document I referenced in comment #88. You'll see the second output of most cards has reduced quality compared to the primary output.

As for the Warcraft III question. Just about anything can run that game well. I've seen a Voodoo5 zip along in it in high detail.

AG 112, the Parhelia would get slaughtered by the Quadro or any other workstation cards unless Matrox issued a new set of drivers specifically for rendering stations. The cheaper models it may stand a chance but drivers are the key.

So what is the best dual head vga card for the money? One that will give decent game performance (warcraft 3) and still give good clarity on two lcd screens at 1280X1024?

My ATI radeon VE has good clarity, it's just impossible to match the color hue of the monitors because I can't compensate using the RGB adjustments for the Yellow added by the card to the second monitor. It's not the monitors. I have tried a friends matrox and the color is damn near perfect...

Ryu - That's because Matrox praise from a MURCer is worth less than the air it took to say it. About as plentiful, too. Do they pay these guys?

As far as the three head goes. I use a G450 and a Millenium card at home and really like the whole triple monitor deal. I'm actually using one of my own cards in my work's computer so I can run duals. You have no clue how good it is until you start using it, then you'll never want to go back. It's like suddenly going from a fiat to a Caddy, at first you're overwhelmed, but then you're spoiled rotten :)

I would love more games to support multiple monitors. In RPGs it could easily be done by sticking the menus and status windows on a second screen allowing the main screen an uninterrupted view of the action (nothing sucks like getting attacked while sorting potions)

[q]Guess you did not notice Matrox skipped supplying review cards to sites that they thought might be a bit hard on it?[/q]

Didn't give it to the site that would go "easy" on it either. MURC didn't receive a review card.

Damage - Would love to see a review of this card compared to the PNY line of Quadro cards. Some of them come in under the Parahelia's price even. How about a review that puts gaming as a (If it works for occasional gaming, it's a plus) attitude, and focuses on the card 3D Rendering performance in a CAD/CAM enviroment. Also performance in applications such as Maya, Lightwave, Inventor, 3D Studio Max, even Bryce. There are alot of "hobby" graphics people out there who want a good card for graphics work and decent rendering speeds, for a card priced below $500. The fact that they can get decent performance when they OCCASIONALY play games is just icing...But, everyone focuses on the gaming cards and performance. A review like this would be great!

Also, in response to AG#98
"and this time it's this 3-head bullshit. "

I don't know what you do for a living, but just the fact that it is a 3 head will sell TONS of these cards. Most people aren't heavy gamers, it does the occasional gaming fine. There a TONS of people looking for 3 head cards, right now, Appian Graphics has a quad head that is best option, but Corporate people WANT matrox. We still get HUNDREDS of people a day looking for Matrox cards. So, don't say that this 3head is "bullshit" and go back to playing Unreal asshole.