[penvzila]

I am leaning heavliy towards the Matrox Parhelia 512

http://shopmatrox.com/usa/products/datasheet.asp?ID=304

base mainly on the fact that I would be able to run Morrowind panoramically on three monitors. I know people who do this the screenshots they send me are amazing. Is there really anything that separates this from ATi's upcoming card? Obviously price is not an issue, but i dont want something ridiculously overpriced.

 

[Nightfall]

The Parhelia is terribly slow compared to any of the better cards out today. Its very, very disappointing in gaming performance. Its light years behind the ATI Radeon 9700 Pro, much less the new 9800 Pro.
The ONLY thing the Parhelia has going for it is the three monitor trick. Its been a great disappointment to gamers since it was introduced. At one point, I was planning to buy one ntil the reviews came out just completely slamming it.



JC

 

[blip]

Nightfall has a good point. I was really excited about the Matrox card too, but the performance just isn't up to snuff for newer games. Of course, if you don't need the performance (i.e. you will never play a DirectX 9 game) you might be okay with it... and the three monitor support would be pretty dang kicking.

If you want more performance, I've heard that the latest revision of the GeForce is pretty kicking. The numbers I've seen beat ATI's without the irritating noise from earlier GeForce FX heatsink/fan combos. The ATI offerings are great too.

Another option might be a multi-card solution. (2 monitors on your primary card, 1 on a secondary) I don't know if you could rig it to work for games though... Never worked with one myself.

 

[PeterG]

I'm suprised the matrox was able to handle Morrowind. It must be amazing on three screens. It seems like you're a gamer and the Parhelia just doesn't perform well with games. Go with one of the newer gf fx or ati 9700/9800. The 9700 has the best bang for your buck in that range.

 

[dd3mon]

The Matrox Parhelia 512 is a great card, for everything but gaming. It's several generations behind Nvidia or ATi in terms of performance/speed/fps. Even Nvidia's or ATi's cheap stuff can easily overtake this card. It's unfortunate, but the truth. Another forseeable problem is drivers. If ATi's drivers are it's downfall, then Matrox's drivers killed it long ago. I have owned cards by all three manufacturers, and both ATi and Matrox have driver issues, the only cards that have super-stable, high performance drivers are Nvidia, which is why I'll be sticking with them until things change.

The exact same situation exists now between nvidia/ati as did a couple years ago between intel/amd. ATi is not a new kid on the block, but the fact that they're challenging and even outperforming nvidia is. Their drivers have been playing catch-up ever since, and they're still not all there. AMD's fatal flaw (in my opnion) was it's chipsets - the ones made by AMD, VIA and others just couldn't hold up to Intel's. Intel spends more on stability testing than most of those other companies do total on research and development (exaggeration, but not far from the truth), and it's chipsets all reflect that.

It all comes down to money. If a company has the money for R&D, they will eventually produce superior products to smaller companies. There are definitely exceptions to this rule, but in general the big get bigger (or broken up by the government) and the small sink or swim (after a struggle).

-dd3mon

 

[Hajime]

Quote:

Originally posted by PeterG Go with one of the newer gf fx or ati 9700/9800. The 9700 has the best bang for your buck in that range.

I agree with Peter here. I reccomend the 9700 also.

 

[Fastjack]

At the moment I'd go with ATI. All my previous cards have been nvidia but the stunts they tried to pull off lately (benchmark-cheating, LOUD cooling) were disgusting.

One question: Does anybody know whether you can play games on a dual-monitor setup with the current ATI/nvidia cards? The way like Matrox does with three monitors?
Oh, on the other hand in most situations that doesn't even make sense as you'd have a gap in the middle of the view. Impossible for FPS games.

For Neverwinternights it might be OK though.

 

[raymondlin]

The only reason to get a Matrox card would be the 2D quality, where it is unsupass. As for 3D, it sucks big time. I've had the ATI9700pro for almost a year now since the day it cae out, never regretted it, even thought it cost a lot, it was worth it as I've had it a year and it is STILL a top card, only the lsat month or so it got over taken by the 9800 and the 5900.

 

[Born2bwire]

I would go with ATI. I find that since the 8500 they've revamped how they do drivers (going for a more unified driver pack now) and they're really doing a lot better in that respect. Plus I feel they're a better buy for the money than Nvidia. It will be interesting to see what Nvidia is going to hash out next but for now I'm sticking with ATI.

 

[penvzila]

I just read anadtech's big 10 page review and I am off the parhelia. Maybe if it was a lot cheaper. I'll settle for the next-gen ATI card, possibly I will wait for the 10000, but I might break and get a 9800 pro if it comes down in price much.

 

[DanG]

Should a card like the ATI 9200 have benefited from better driver development? My 7200 is having driver problems and I'm considering a new card in the sub-$100 range with DVI.

 

[dd3mon]

Quote:

Originally posted by DanG Should a card like the ATI 9200 have benefited from better driver development? My 7200 is having driver problems and I'm considering a new card in the sub-$100 range with DVI.

I believe any card above the 8500 (newer than it, not necessarily better performing) will benefit from ATi's new 'unified' driver system. It's a good system (originated from nVidia) and it is head and shoulders above ATi's older drivers - but it still has compatibility problems. ATi cards just don't work perfectly in as many systems as nVidia cards do. Hopefully they will get there, more good competition is always better.

-dd3mon

 

[Born2bwire]

My latest card is a 8500 and I had the original Radeon before that. I would say that with the Catalyst drivers ATI has finally gotten on the right track. One of my online buddies is very anal about driver stability (I mean REALLY ANAL) and he's now finally ok'd the ATI products in his book. I know he has one of the 9000 series, but he's on vaca so I don't know how soon I can ask about his thoughts on the drivers.

EDIT: Basically what dd3mon said, anything 8500 and above is cleared in my book.

 

[Pace]

Quote:

Originally posted by Born2bwire My latest card is a 8500 and I had the original Radeon before that...

My history is very similar and I haven't had any driver problems that I could blame ATI for. Of course there are those dumass beta-driver-tests that I've done, but those I can only blame on myself.