Motherboard Forums


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes

Parhelia Display Quality vs. G550, or Radeon 8500.

 
 
Frederic W. Erk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2004, 10:27 AM
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)



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2004, 01:59 PM
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)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2004, 05:48 PM
"Frederic W. Erk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:bvt5po$6n6$(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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


 
Reply With Quote
 
Frederic W. Erk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-06-2004, 03:46 PM

"Rick" <(E-Mail Removed)> a écrit dans le message de
news:bvtvmk$112tek$(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.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.


 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-06-2004, 04:19 PM
Frederic W. Erk wrote:

>
> "Rick" <(E-Mail Removed)> a écrit dans le message de
> news:bvtvmk$112tek$(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.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)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-06-2004, 06:02 PM
"Frederic W. Erk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:c00csc$501$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Rick" <(E-Mail Removed)> a écrit dans le message de
> news:bvtvmk$112tek$(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.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


 
Reply With Quote
 
KJ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-06-2004, 08:24 PM
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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bvt5po$6n6$(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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)
>
>
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Eric Gisin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-06-2004, 10:17 PM
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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:c00krp$11nfqv$(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de...
>
> 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.
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Rick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-06-2004, 11:26 PM
"Eric Gisin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:c00krp$11nfqv$(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de...
> >
> > 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.
> >

>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Frederic W. Erk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2004, 11:25 AM
"J. Clarke" <(E-Mail Removed)> a écrit dans le message de
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> 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.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Build quality and screen quality differences on Dell laptops? Tiny Tim Dell 5 12-06-2006 07:33 PM
Reliability, components quality, overall quality & cooling? Why (not) dell? Nondisputandum Dell 5 12-27-2003 01:44 PM
Display quality with ATI Radeon 9800 David Wilkinson ATI 17 09-06-2003 10:02 PM
Parhelia Triple display monitor Rich Matrox 2 07-27-2003 09:25 PM
A7N8X-Deluxe and Matrox Parhelia Video Card Greg Asus 0 07-18-2003 03:55 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:32 PM.


Welcome!
Welcome to Motherboard Point
 

Advertisment