 | |
Parhelia 128/256 Mgs. Memory Performance Difference?
Matrox Videocards Matrox Videocards Discussions (alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#1
 
| |||
| |||
|
Parhelia 128/256 Mgs. Memory Performance Difference? -
08-22-2004
, 01:11 PM
#2
| |||
| |||
|
|
I'm considering purchasing the Parhelia, probably on ebay, and had a couple of questions that I hoped could be answered here: What kind of performance difference are we looking at when comparing the 128 mg board with the 256 mg board? Currently I'm running a P3 with 1.5 gigs of ram on a motherboard- Asus CUV4X- with AGP 4X- would it be a waste to use the Parhelia with this board? Thank you. |
Parhelia is so expensive that you can get a new motherboard, CPU *and*
graphics card that significantly outperforms the Parhelia for the same price
or less. The only reasons to get a Parhelia is if you either need
triple-head 3D, or use two displays with occasional playing old 3D games.
As for speed, the retail models are clocked faster than OEM models, and the
128 MB models are clocked faster than the 256 MB models.
Thus, the retail 128R model is the fastest. Unless you need to load up more
textures than the 128 MB board can hold, the 256 MB board will be slower.
Regards,
--
*Art
#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
nubis <nubiss (AT) iwonnn (DOT) nett> wrote: I'm considering purchasing the Parhelia, probably on ebay, and had a couple of questions that I hoped could be answered here: What kind of performance difference are we looking at when comparing the 128 mg board with the 256 mg board? Currently I'm running a P3 with 1.5 gigs of ram on a motherboard- Asus CUV4X- with AGP 4X- would it be a waste to use the Parhelia with this board? Thank you. No, it would be a good match for your CPU/MB. The problem is that the Parhelia is so expensive that you can get a new motherboard, CPU *and* graphics card that significantly outperforms the Parhelia for the same price or less. The only reasons to get a Parhelia is if you either need triple-head 3D, or use two displays with occasional playing old 3D games. As for speed, the retail models are clocked faster than OEM models, and the 128 MB models are clocked faster than the 256 MB models. Thus, the retail 128R model is the fastest. Unless you need to load up more textures than the 128 MB board can hold, the 256 MB board will be slower. Regards, |
Parhelia aces that department, but then again so do most of the Matrox
cards. Which other cards were you referring to when you said that I
can get a graphics card that outperforms the Parhelia? I've
considered the ATI cards, 9800 pro, but I'm not convinced I will get
the same 2d quality with ATI that I would with Matrox. Reading the
following review got me very interested in the Parhelia:
http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/matrox...ia/index.shtml
#4
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:45:28 -0400, "Arthur Hagen" art (AT) broomstick (DOT) com> wrote: nubis <nubiss (AT) iwonnn (DOT) nett> wrote: I'm considering purchasing the Parhelia, probably on ebay, and had a couple of questions that I hoped could be answered here: What kind of performance difference are we looking at when comparing the 128 mg board with the 256 mg board? Currently I'm running a P3 with 1.5 gigs of ram on a motherboard- Asus CUV4X- with AGP 4X- would it be a waste to use the Parhelia with this board? Thank you. No, it would be a good match for your CPU/MB. The problem is that the Parhelia is so expensive that you can get a new motherboard, CPU *and* graphics card that significantly outperforms the Parhelia for the same price or less. The only reasons to get a Parhelia is if you either need triple-head 3D, or use two displays with occasional playing old 3D games. As for speed, the retail models are clocked faster than OEM models, and the 128 MB models are clocked faster than the 256 MB models. Thus, the retail 128R model is the fastest. Unless you need to load up more textures than the 128 MB board can hold, the 256 MB board will be slower. Regards, Thank you for the reply. I'm really interested in 2d and I know the Parhelia aces that department, but then again so do most of the Matrox cards. Which other cards were you referring to when you said that I can get a graphics card that outperforms the Parhelia? I've considered the ATI cards, 9800 pro, but I'm not convinced I will get the same 2d quality with ATI that I would with Matrox. Reading the following review got me very interested in the Parhelia: http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/matrox...ia/index.shtml |
I too was considering one, but decided I did not need the extras, so I
bought a P650 instead. Very pleased with it so far.
--
Doug Ramage
[watch spam trap]
#5
| |||
| |||
|
|
"nubis" <nubiss (AT) iwonnn (DOT) nett> wrote in message news:gm8ii0tbr774n6c5fpfrqaj6vq8fjo2cev (AT) 4ax (DOT) com... On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:45:28 -0400, "Arthur Hagen" art (AT) broomstick (DOT) com> wrote: nubis <nubiss (AT) iwonnn (DOT) nett> wrote: I'm considering purchasing the Parhelia, probably on ebay, and had a couple of questions that I hoped could be answered here: What kind of performance difference are we looking at when comparing the 128 mg board with the 256 mg board? Currently I'm running a P3 with 1.5 gigs of ram on a motherboard- Asus CUV4X- with AGP 4X- would it be a waste to use the Parhelia with this board? Thank you. No, it would be a good match for your CPU/MB. The problem is that the Parhelia is so expensive that you can get a new motherboard, CPU *and* graphics card that significantly outperforms the Parhelia for the same price or less. The only reasons to get a Parhelia is if you either need triple-head 3D, or use two displays with occasional playing old 3D games. As for speed, the retail models are clocked faster than OEM models, and the 128 MB models are clocked faster than the 256 MB models. Thus, the retail 128R model is the fastest. Unless you need to load up more textures than the 128 MB board can hold, the 256 MB board will be slower. Regards, Thank you for the reply. I'm really interested in 2d and I know the Parhelia aces that department, but then again so do most of the Matrox cards. Which other cards were you referring to when you said that I can get a graphics card that outperforms the Parhelia? I've considered the ATI cards, 9800 pro, but I'm not convinced I will get the same 2d quality with ATI that I would with Matrox. Reading the following review got me very interested in the Parhelia: http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/matrox...ia/index.shtml What do you need a Parhelia for? I too was considering one, but decided I did not need the extras, so I bought a P650 instead. Very pleased with it so far. |
#6
| |||
| |||
|
|
As for speed, the retail models are clocked faster than OEM models, and the 128 MB models are clocked faster than the 256 MB models. Thus, the retail 128R model is the fastest. Unless you need to load up more textures than the 128 MB board can hold, the 256 MB board will be slower. |
Cheers
ss.
#7
| |||
| |||
|
|
I too was considering one, but decided I did not need the extras, so I bought a P650 instead. Very pleased with it so far. Does the P650 have DVI? |
P650 cam with analogue cables and converters, I had to buy the DVI cables
separately.
Andy
#8
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Arthur Hagen" <art (AT) broomstick (DOT) com> wrote As for speed, the retail models are clocked faster than OEM models, and the 128 MB models are clocked faster than the 256 MB models. Thus, the retail 128R model is the fastest. Unless you need to load up more textures than the 128 MB board can hold, the 256 MB board will be slower. Where did you get this info? Have you got a link? |
references on the web. The 128R runs at 220MHz with 550MHz RAM speed, while
the OEM and 256MB models run at 200MHz with 500MHz RAM speed.
Do your own search.
--
*Art
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.