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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|
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 |