1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Parhelia Display Quality vs. G550, or Radeon 8500.

Discussion in 'Matrox' started by Frederic W. Erk, Feb 5, 2004.

  1. 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)
     
    Frederic W. Erk, Feb 5, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Frederic W. Erk

    J. Clarke Guest

    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)
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 5, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Frederic W. Erk

    Rick Guest

    "Frederic W. Erk" <> wrote in message news:bvt5po$6n6$...
    > 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
     
    Rick, Feb 5, 2004
    #3
  4. "Rick" <> a écrit dans le message de
    news:bvtvmk$112tek$-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.
     
    Frederic W. Erk, Feb 6, 2004
    #4
  5. Frederic W. Erk

    J. Clarke Guest

    Frederic W. Erk wrote:

    >
    > "Rick" <> a écrit dans le message de
    > news:bvtvmk$112tek$-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)
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 6, 2004
    #5
  6. Frederic W. Erk

    Rick Guest

    "Frederic W. Erk" <> wrote in message news:c00csc$501$...
    >
    > "Rick" <> a écrit dans le message de
    > news:bvtvmk$112tek$-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
     
    Rick, Feb 6, 2004
    #6
  7. Frederic W. Erk

    KJ Guest

    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
    news:bvt5po$6n6$...
    > 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)
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    KJ, Feb 6, 2004
    #7
  8. Frederic W. Erk

    Eric Gisin Guest

    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
    news:c00krp$11nfqv$-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.
    >
     
    Eric Gisin, Feb 6, 2004
    #8
  9. Frederic W. Erk

    Rick Guest

    "Eric Gisin" <> wrote in message news:...
    > 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
    > news:c00krp$11nfqv$-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.
    > >

    >
     
    Rick, Feb 6, 2004
    #9
  10. "J. Clarke" <> a écrit dans le message de
    news:...

    > 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.
     
    Frederic W. Erk, Feb 7, 2004
    #10
  11. Frederic W. Erk

    J. Clarke Guest

    Frederic W. Erk wrote:

    > "J. Clarke" <> a écrit dans le message de
    > news:...
    >
    >> 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.


    If there is such a white paper it is well hidden.

    > - Frederic.


    --
    --John
    Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 7, 2004
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. seani

    Re: G550 TV-out Quality

    seani, Jun 25, 2003, in forum: Matrox
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    627
    seani
    Jun 25, 2003
  2. danijel milosevic

    tft display works only with matrox g550???

    danijel milosevic, Nov 9, 2003, in forum: Matrox
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    463
    danijel milosevic
    Nov 9, 2003
  3. Tony Pacc

    Matrox G550 vs Radeon 8500

    Tony Pacc, Jun 4, 2005, in forum: Matrox
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    1,142
  4. Belloc
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    298
    Kent_Diego
    Aug 11, 2003
  5. Ric
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    275
Loading...

Share This Page