A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Video Cards » Matrox Videocards
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Parhelia Display Quality vs. G550, or Radeon 8500.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 5th 04, 11:27 AM
Frederic W. Erk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Parhelia Display Quality vs. G550, or Radeon 8500.

I read with interest that, according to tecchannel.de, the display quality
of the G550 is distinctively superior to the Parhelia. This is quite
contradictory with reviews stating that the G550 display quality is now
roughly similar to the one reached by high-end ATI and NVidia solutions -
albeit you can expect some surprises there, with expensive hardware failing
display quality tests. I used a Hercules Radeon 8500 DV, which, in my
opinion, did not perform according to its very steep price, especially
regarding colours. Now according to tecchannel.de, this very ATI card is
receiving more credit than the Parhelia with a significant higher grade -
the shift in colours is however acknowledged. The Parhelia display quality
has been described to be close to perfection, i.e. "pristine". I am
disturbed with that German review, especially the impression that for the
sake of adding 3D power to the Parhelia, 2D display quality - Matrox
trademark - had been "sacrificed" to some extent. It is also possible that
beyond the rough technical measurements, the display quality of the Parhelia
is subjectively more impressive than the one achieved by other graphic cards
from NVidia or ATI, e.g. Radeon 8500.

I look forward to reading from Matrox users about that issue, especially
regarding the G550 versus the Parhelia.

- Frederic W. Erk

http://www.tecchannel.de/hardware/907/32.html (content in German)



  #2  
Old February 5th 04, 02:59 PM
J. Clarke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Frederic W. Erk wrote:

I read with interest that, according to tecchannel.de, the display quality
of the G550 is distinctively superior to the Parhelia. This is quite
contradictory with reviews stating that the G550 display quality is now
roughly similar to the one reached by high-end ATI and NVidia solutions -
albeit you can expect some surprises there, with expensive hardware
failing display quality tests. I used a Hercules Radeon 8500 DV, which, in
my opinion, did not perform according to its very steep price, especially
regarding colours. Now according to tecchannel.de, this very ATI card is
receiving more credit than the Parhelia with a significant higher grade -
the shift in colours is however acknowledged. The Parhelia display quality
has been described to be close to perfection, i.e. "pristine". I am
disturbed with that German review, especially the impression that for the
sake of adding 3D power to the Parhelia, 2D display quality - Matrox
trademark - had been "sacrificed" to some extent. It is also possible that
beyond the rough technical measurements, the display quality of the
Parhelia is subjectively more impressive than the one achieved by other
graphic cards from NVidia or ATI, e.g. Radeon 8500.

I look forward to reading from Matrox users about that issue, especially
regarding the G550 versus the Parhelia.


Did any of the reviewers calibrate the video system with a spectrophotometer
before testing? Color shifts and the like are of no significance unless
there is insufficient control to allow calibration. If they did not
calibrate then all they were seeing was that one board's default settings
fit the monitor they were using better than another board's default
settings, and if they had used a different monitor the results might have
been very different. If they _did_ calibrate they should haved explained
why they weren't able to achieve adequate calibration, i.e. what
shortcomings were present in the board's controls.


- Frederic W. Erk

http://www.tecchannel.de/hardware/907/32.html (content in German)


--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  #3  
Old February 5th 04, 06:48 PM
Rick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Frederic W. Erk" wrote in message ...
I read with interest that, according to tecchannel.de, the display quality
of the G550 is distinctively superior to the Parhelia. This is quite
contradictory with reviews stating that the G550 display quality is now
roughly similar to the one reached by high-end ATI and NVidia solutions -
albeit you can expect some surprises there, with expensive hardware failing
display quality tests. I used a Hercules Radeon 8500 DV, which, in my
opinion, did not perform according to its very steep price, especially
regarding colours. Now according to tecchannel.de, this very ATI card is
receiving more credit than the Parhelia with a significant higher grade -
the shift in colours is however acknowledged. The Parhelia display quality
has been described to be close to perfection, i.e. "pristine". I am
disturbed with that German review, especially the impression that for the
sake of adding 3D power to the Parhelia, 2D display quality - Matrox
trademark - had been "sacrificed" to some extent. It is also possible that
beyond the rough technical measurements, the display quality of the Parhelia
is subjectively more impressive than the one achieved by other graphic cards
from NVidia or ATI, e.g. Radeon 8500.

I look forward to reading from Matrox users about that issue, especially
regarding the G550 versus the Parhelia.


Output filters used on today's video cards are very similar in spec
and design, so there's a very good probability one will not see
much if any difference in 2D display quality between a Matrox
Parhelia, G550 or ATI 8500, at least at resolutions up to
1600x1200. Above that and one might see a marginal difference
with a Parhelia.

The card itself is only one piece in the puzzle. Others are just as
important, such as the quality of monitor cable, proximity of a
monitor and video card to sources of interference, etc. If you
weren't getting good 2D with an ATI 8500 the first thing to try
is a different cable and/or a different monitor location.

Rick


  #4  
Old February 6th 04, 04:46 PM
Frederic W. Erk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rick" a écrit dans le message de
...

Output filters used on today's video cards are very similar in spec
and design, so there's a very good probability one will not see
much if any difference in 2D display quality between a Matrox
Parhelia, G550 or ATI 8500, at least at resolutions up to
1600x1200. Above that and one might see a marginal difference
with a Parhelia.


This is in contradiction with Parhelia white papers, where it is stated that
the Parhelia output is close to "pristine" in comparison to ATI Radeon 8500
clones and GeForce 4 series. Is this only advertisement from Matrox? Or
should we understand - at least that is my point of view - that there _is_ a
difference between chipsets and manufacturers regarding 2D. Consider the
number of subsidiaries integrating ATI or NVidia chipsets on generic graphic
boards? Obviously the demand is focusing on FPS in 3D games, not on quality
in 2D output. Is there a real quality control on output quality? This is the
kind of QC, which I expect from a manufacturer like Matrox. At least, this
is the one I would expect from a manufacturer who is occupying a
technological niche.

- Frederic.


  #5  
Old February 6th 04, 05:19 PM
J. Clarke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Frederic W. Erk wrote:


"Rick" a écrit dans le message de
...

Output filters used on today's video cards are very similar in spec
and design, so there's a very good probability one will not see
much if any difference in 2D display quality between a Matrox
Parhelia, G550 or ATI 8500, at least at resolutions up to
1600x1200. Above that and one might see a marginal difference
with a Parhelia.


This is in contradiction with Parhelia white papers, where it is stated
that the Parhelia output is close to "pristine" in comparison to ATI
Radeon 8500 clones and GeForce 4 series.


What is the engineering definition of "pristine"? In any case the Radeon
8500 and the Geforce 4 are a generation out of date.

Is this only advertisement from
Matrox?


Yes. If they don't support it with numbers it's just what the courts have
described as "a seller's puffing".

Or should we understand - at least that is my point of view - that
there _is_ a difference between chipsets and manufacturers regarding 2D.


If there is it should be measurable in some objective way. So where are the
measurements?

Consider the number of subsidiaries integrating ATI or NVidia chipsets on
generic graphic boards? Obviously the demand is focusing on FPS in 3D
games, not on quality in 2D output. Is there a real quality control on
output quality?


Define "output quality".

This is the kind of QC, which I expect from a manufacturer
like Matrox. At least, this is the one I would expect from a manufacturer
who is occupying a technological niche.


Again you haven't said you mean by "QC".

- Frederic.


--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  #6  
Old February 6th 04, 07:02 PM
Rick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Frederic W. Erk" wrote in message ...

"Rick" a écrit dans le message de
...

Output filters used on today's video cards are very similar in spec
and design, so there's a very good probability one will not see
much if any difference in 2D display quality between a Matrox
Parhelia, G550 or ATI 8500, at least at resolutions up to
1600x1200. Above that and one might see a marginal difference
with a Parhelia.


This is in contradiction with Parhelia white papers, where it is stated that
the Parhelia output is close to "pristine" in comparison to ATI Radeon 8500
clones and GeForce 4 series. Is this only advertisement from Matrox?


Yes. There's no such thing as a "pristine" video signal. FCC rules
require output filters on all consumer video cards -- regardless of
manufacturer -- which attenuate the same set of frequencies.

Or
should we understand - at least that is my point of view - that there _is_ a
difference between chipsets and manufacturers regarding 2D. Consider the
number of subsidiaries integrating ATI or NVidia chipsets on generic graphic
boards? Obviously the demand is focusing on FPS in 3D games, not on quality
in 2D output. Is there a real quality control on output quality? This is the
kind of QC, which I expect from a manufacturer like Matrox. At least, this
is the one I would expect from a manufacturer who is occupying a
technological niche.


This was a problem with some earlier cards, especially those based
on Nvidia controllers. A few years ago it got to the point where
people were lopping off or bypassing output filters on some GF2
cards. But these issues have been addressed, both Nvidia and
ATI clamped down on their OEMs to make sure they are
following specs and using components that meet specs.

Rick


  #7  
Old February 6th 04, 09:24 PM
KJ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Very little is said of the quality of the Parhelia's output in comparison to
the competition...the vast majority of negative remarks for the Parhelia are
for 3D performance in fps of 3D benchmarks, not exactly the Parheila's
strong suite. But for NLE, 2D design work, the ability to game decently,
triple-head, multi-monitor, etc....all on one card, it's a darn good
product.

Is it the single best card for any one benchmark? Probably not. Though it's
2D quality may prove truly superior on some well constructed and documented
tests. Does it perform at least 90% as good in every category as any other
card's single strongest category, at least at the time of introduction, of
course? Quite likely.


"Frederic W. Erk" wrote in message
...
I read with interest that, according to tecchannel.de, the display quality
of the G550 is distinctively superior to the Parhelia. This is quite
contradictory with reviews stating that the G550 display quality is now
roughly similar to the one reached by high-end ATI and NVidia solutions -
albeit you can expect some surprises there, with expensive hardware

failing
display quality tests. I used a Hercules Radeon 8500 DV, which, in my
opinion, did not perform according to its very steep price, especially
regarding colours. Now according to tecchannel.de, this very ATI card is
receiving more credit than the Parhelia with a significant higher grade -
the shift in colours is however acknowledged. The Parhelia display quality
has been described to be close to perfection, i.e. "pristine". I am
disturbed with that German review, especially the impression that for the
sake of adding 3D power to the Parhelia, 2D display quality - Matrox
trademark - had been "sacrificed" to some extent. It is also possible that
beyond the rough technical measurements, the display quality of the

Parhelia
is subjectively more impressive than the one achieved by other graphic

cards
from NVidia or ATI, e.g. Radeon 8500.

I look forward to reading from Matrox users about that issue, especially
regarding the G550 versus the Parhelia.

- Frederic W. Erk

http://www.tecchannel.de/hardware/907/32.html (content in German)






  #8  
Old February 6th 04, 11:17 PM
Eric Gisin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Do you have more information on FCC requirements? Is it the same for all dot
clocks?

I know digital audio needs filtering to prevent aliasing, is this the same?

"Rick" wrote in message
...

Yes. There's no such thing as a "pristine" video signal. FCC rules
require output filters on all consumer video cards -- regardless of
manufacturer -- which attenuate the same set of frequencies.


  #9  
Old February 7th 04, 12:26 AM
Rick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Eric Gisin" wrote in message ...
Do you have more information on FCC requirements? Is it the same for all dot
clocks?


It's the same for any device that might potentially cause RF
interference. At lower resolutions/clock speeds output filters
clip virtually no signal at all, but that's not the case at higher
resolutions/clock speeds.

I know digital audio needs filtering to prevent aliasing, is this the same?


No, aliasing is a different animal. In that case filters are used
to eliminate audio distortion, not RF interference.

Rick

"Rick" wrote in message
...

Yes. There's no such thing as a "pristine" video signal. FCC rules
require output filters on all consumer video cards -- regardless of
manufacturer -- which attenuate the same set of frequencies.




  #10  
Old February 7th 04, 12:25 PM
Frederic W. Erk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"J. Clarke" a écrit dans le message de
...

If there is it should be measurable in some objective way. So where are

the
measurements?


If my memory serves me right, you should find on Matrox website a section
dedicated to Parhelia white papers, including comparative performance versus
ATI Radeon 8500 and GeForce 4 Ti 4400. I would be very interested to know
more about those tests.

- Frederic.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NeroVision 3 fails to dispaly images of live cable Channels with Radeon 8500 DV jayant Ati Videocards 0 December 30th 04 12:39 PM
Display corruption using a Radeon 9600 Pro under WinXP. Help! Colin Wightman Ati Videocards 5 February 24th 04 09:54 PM
radeon /monitor off :( display is only on tv iKe Ati Videocards 1 January 29th 04 10:41 PM
Asus P4P800 Deluxe et ATI Radeon 8500 Ken Fox Ati Videocards 1 December 15th 03 07:30 PM
radeon 8500 with via kt333, stability problems? simo Ati Videocards 4 November 11th 03 11:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.