OMG!! Matrox Parhelia

**Wurm** · 11-19-2002, 11:46 AM

My firm just picked up a Workstation with a Parhelia 128mb in it.

OMG is it nice!! Its not as fast as my GF4 4600ti by a long shot but the graphic quality is awe inspiring! And it has great OpenGL support unlike its g400 g450 g550 brothers.

Im running triple Samsung 19" TFT monitors using AutoCAD, Flash and surfing the web at the same time.

I just wish this thing was a gaming card. I would of bought one in a heartbeat.

Matrox quit screwing around with features no one uses or needs, get your gaming act together and you could rule the world!

**Un4given** · 11-19-2002, 01:10 PM

All the Parhelia needs to be a competitor is to have some increased VPU speed and to implement some form of early Z checking to save on bandwidth, and it could be quite a gaming card too.

**PointlesS** · 11-19-2002, 01:26 PM

did you try overclocking? but then again I just realized that this is a firm computer and not your personal one...but still

**Kero-chan** · 11-19-2002, 02:04 PM

isnt matrox going out of business?

T_T

**s1203372** · 11-19-2002, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Kero-chan
isnt matrox going out of business? T_T

I have heard nothing to this effect - I'd be quite suprised.

**Mr Cherry** · 11-19-2002, 04:51 PM

It's too bad the Parhelia is SO expensive when you compare it to other cards. Is the image quality of the Parhelia worth the +$200-300 you would pay for a Radeon 9000?

**Wurm** · 11-19-2002, 06:00 PM

Yes and No Mr Cherry...

And in all reality the Parhelia is a good gaming card. But worth the extra money for a home user who only does spread sheets and word once in a while? Im not really sure. If the person has the money to burn, then my answer is hell yes! If he is on a budget I'd have to say no.

**Dot** · 11-19-2002, 08:51 PM

Wurm...you wouldn't happen to play MTG would you?

**Highlander1** · 11-20-2002, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by Un4given
All the Parhelia needs to be a competitor is to have some increased VPU speed and to implement some form of early Z checking to save on bandwidth, and it could be quite a gaming card too.

You are dead on, Un4given, I have no idea why Matrox hasnt taken that path, a lot of people would gladly buy into the outstanding video quality, (and triple monitor support too) if it was just "competitive" as a current gaming card.

**Kero-chan** · 11-20-2002, 04:20 AM

Originally posted by s1203372

I have heard nothing to this effect - I'd be quite suprised.

well, i remember reading some interview with an employee or ex-employee about a month ago who said that matrox was going down the tube due to bad management decisions

(i dont think he said out of business, just that things looked gloomy) i looked for it on google but didnt find anything. i think there was a thread about it here though. also he was saying it's hard to compete with ati and nvidia because they just dont have the facilities like those companies do and when the engineers request certain machines to help them build the boards, nothing gets done about it.

anyone know what i'm talking about?

**al bundy** · 11-20-2002, 08:14 AM

Yes here's the Sharky thread you're talking about: http://www.sharkyforums.com/showthre...ghlight=matrox

Kinda depressing if you ask me...

**Isezumi** · 11-20-2002, 12:34 PM

Matrox was always a bad *** card maker. I kinda wish they didnt get sucked into the gaming portion of the Video card market. I think it would have been bad a$$ for them to just do products that are for office boxes and workstations Triple monitors could be so useful.

**Darkman** · 11-20-2002, 07:59 PM

On the one hand you guys are saying Matrox is good and on the other hadn no one wants to buy it because it has bad gaming performance.

But if you like Matrox and you want to support them then buy the card.

In normal resolutions the card can play most games smoothly, but everybody compares it to Geforce and radeon and comes to the conclusion that those are much faster while most people not really need all that speed.

But that is in higher resolutions and with Matrox cards you can run lower resolution but still get a good image quality thanks to the superior image quality of Matrox cards.

So which choise is better?

**Ashpool** · 11-20-2002, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by Darkman
On the one hand you guys are saying Matrox is good and on the other hadn no one wants to buy it because it has bad gaming performance.

But if you like Matrox and you want to support them then buy the card.

In normal resolutions the card can play most games smoothly, but everybody compares it to Geforce and radeon and comes to the conclusion that those are much faster while most people not really need all that speed.

But that is in higher resolutions and with Matrox cards you can run lower resolution but still get a good image quality thanks to the superior image quality of Matrox cards.

So which choise is better?

And on the third hand, it costs almost the same as a Ti4600 (from what I can recall). With that cash, you'd might as well go for the faster one.

I like Matrox for them trying to go against the grain, but could they at least back up the price?

**8 bit orgy** · 11-20-2002, 09:33 PM

I remember when the Matrox Millinium kicked so much ***.

Thread: OMG!! Matrox Parhelia

Thread Tools

Display

OMG!! Matrox Parhelia

Posting Permissions