|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
Matrox Parhelia reviews start rolling in
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Asmodai
Here's a quick list of Matrox Parhelia Reviews. Doesn't look that good so far.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1645
http://tech-report.com/reviews/2002...ia/index.x?pg=1
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic...0625/index.html
More reviews to come I'm sure.
Posted by: TotalRecall
I still wonder why the German Tom's Hardware took it down yesterday. The review is back up today. I guess they didn't want to be ahead of the crowd..?
Anyway, it's heavily disappointing. I suppose top image quality and performance are too much to ask. I also think that there is something wrong with the filter NVidia uses that is compromising image quality.
Posted by: Gunslinger
That's just fine if the card can't get as many frames as the GF4.
As was mentioned in another thread - the GF4 can get 200 fps in Diablo 2. This Matrox will get 60 or so, but the image quality is better.
60 on a better image beats 200 on an image that isn't as good.
The Matrox card is very well rounded - a good mix of quality and performance, IMHO.
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
This card just won't do well in the gaming community. At least not with that nasty pricetag behind it. Surround gaming is cool, but that's a very small % of a niche market.
Posted by: Gunslinger
Agreed. Way too expensive.
Posted by: SKYHN
I cant tell the difference in Image quality on video cards, so I look at performance.
Posted by: Null Actor
http://www.webdog.org/plans/1/
Posted by: iTaL
They better price that thing at 100 bucks if they expect to compete with any graphics card exp geforce
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
 Quote:
Originally posted by SKYHN
I cant tell the difference in Image quality on video cards, so I look at performance.
|
It's impossible to compare image quality with a screenshot due to how the video card and monitor work together. You basically have to be there and see the displays for yourself to tell.
Really, I myself was hoping this card would get more respectable performance because Matrox image quality really is better. But i'm not willing to spend a shitload of money just to read text easier when I can already read it now.
Anyway, i'm keeping an eye on LCD technology. If they can get the contrast and refresh rates up high enough, they will be worth looking into.
Posted by: Bobaroo
I have a LCD monitor, it has very good image quality.
It is a 15" and runs at 1024x768x32 @75hz. That is better quality then my old 17" monitor.
Posted by: SKYHN
I run My current monitor, HP Pavilion mx90 19", at 1152x864@32(@16 on desktop) and get 91.6khz/100.0hz. It actually runs this mode better than 1024x768.
I think this is probably one of the best Non-LCD Monitors ive ever seen.
|
|
|
|
|
