Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Graphic Card Question

Reply
Thread Tools

Graphic Card Question

 
 
Paolo Pizzi
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2003
Michael Quack wrote:

> My advice was to test and see with two identical setups
> with just different graphic cards


Backtracking Mr. Quack?

Remember what you claimed:

> Matrox cards are the optimum


Pure bullshit, coming from someone as clueless
as you about photography as well as computers.

> After seeing the difference it is easy to decide.


So, basically you are admitting you don't know
what you're talking about.

> I am convinced that first hand experience will
> prove my point


Like I said, you don't REALLY know, do you?
Thanks quack, for proving yourself what you
really are: an idiot.

>> And for gaming they're as pathetic as they can be.

>
> Never said anything different. But gaming wasn't the
> initial concern, as it might have escaped you.


Really? Read and this time try to actually UNDERSTAND
the question that triggered all these answers:

> So, PRESUMING these are all great for games and 3D
> and whatever, which one(s) would ALSO be REALLY
> good for PS?


Try to concentrate on that ALSO. Maybe you'll get it.
Maybe not...


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Faolan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2003
In the writings of , the <(E-Mail Removed)>
scrolls contained these prophetic words:

> The recommendations I'm seeing now are things like GeForce 5800 and 5900 series
> or ATI Radeon 9700 and 9800 with the 9600 Pro as a MINIMUM...
>

Have a read of this rather interesting article on Gfx cards, only does
ATI Vs Nvidia though...

http://makeashorterlink.com/?E59C51E96
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mike Latondresse
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2003
Michael Quack <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

>
> No wise suggestion. My advice was to test and see with
> two identical setups with just different graphic cards
> to get a first hand experience.


Michael what monitor are you using as your main one?
 
Reply With Quote
 
dperez@juno_nospam.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-10-2003
HMPH! Michael you're raining on my parade!!! Although it doesn't surprise me
too much that you can't have the optimal PS card AND the optimal video editing
card AND the optimal gaming card AND ALL OF THEM BE REASONABLY PRICED!

BUT, if I HAVE TO, I can set up a dedicated machine for editing. I'd rather not
since there is so much overlap between the things Photoshop, video editing, and
games need (fast processor; tons of memory; huge amount of disk space; extremely
good, fast, accurate, high contrast graphics)...

I went over and looked at the article on the ATI vs NVIDIA. I was happy until
the very end - one has better color THE OTHER IS SHARPER... Good grief!

So, It looks like I will have to do the best I can at finding a hacksaw that I
can hammer with...
 
Reply With Quote
 
Michael Quack
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-10-2003
In article <Xns944C9F568EABDshawca@24.69.255.211>,
Mike Latondresse says...

> > No wise suggestion. My advice was to test and see with
> > two identical setups with just different graphic cards
> > to get a first hand experience.

>
> Michael what monitor are you using as your main one?


I have several machines. I use Eizo Trinitron, Sony Trinitron,
CTX (Mitsubishi Diamondtron tube), MAG Trinitron screens.

CRT exclusively. There is no affordable LCD that meets my
requirements.

Two weeks ago I built a double Xeon machine based on the Asus
PC-DL deluxe with 2 Gigs memory, little over 500 GB harddisks
in S-ATA (starting from a 10.000 rpm WD Raptor), Matrox G550 DH
firing two CTX 19" CRT tubes @ 1600x1200, calibrated with
the colorvision spyder.

Hard drives will be augmented by a S-ATA Raid on an ICP Vortex
controller and the graphical subsystem will soon be replaced
by Matrox Parhelia firing two Quatographic or Barco CRT screens,
just have to compare them in real life before I decide. You
better do that with monitors that are more pricey than your machine.

The system is capable of loading, processing and writing back
30 MB/sec of image data, which is needed for large batch actions
that used to take days before.

--
Michael Quack <(E-Mail Removed)>

http://www.photoquack.de/glamour/1.htm
http://www.photoquack.de/fashion/1.htm
 
Reply With Quote
 
Michael Quack
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-10-2003
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
dperez@juno_nospam.com says...

> HMPH! Michael you're raining on my parade!!!


Sorry, that's the way the cookie crumbles....

> BUT, if I HAVE TO, I can set up a dedicated machine for editing.


I heartily recommend to do so. No office software, not
even internet and certainly no gaming on this machine.
Nothing except for the image browsing, image editing,
video editing and audio editing software of your choice
plus maybe a few selected tools. If you don't have a
real good backup concept, no network either. The data
might mean your business. You lose them -> you are dead.

> I'd rather not since there is so much overlap between
> the things Photoshop, video editing, and games need


Agreed for Photoshop and video editing, but the various
libraries installed for gaming might slow down your
system or make it even unstable.

> I went over and looked at the article on the ATI vs
> NVIDIA. I was happy until the very end - one has
> better color THE OTHER IS SHARPER... Good grief!


And if you don't need 3D (there is *NO* 3D in Photoshop)
the Matrox Parhelia gives you perfect color *and*
sharpness.

> So, It looks like I will have to do the best I can
> at finding a hacksaw that I can hammer with...


Budget is unfortunately occasionally the main motive.
I rather postpone an investment than deciding for
second grade quality. After all I want my clients
to pay first class money for first class work.

--
Michael Quack <(E-Mail Removed)>

http://www.photoquack.de/glamour/1.htm
http://www.photoquack.de/fashion/1.htm
 
Reply With Quote
 
Michael Quack
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-11-2003
In article <3RlBb.35577$(E-Mail Removed)> ,
Paolo Pizzi says...

> > My advice was to test and see with two identical setups
> > with just different graphic cards

>
> Backtracking Mr. Quack?


Not at all.

> Remember what you claimed:
>
> > Matrox cards are the optimum


Right. I am confident that anybody testing the way I
suggested will inevitably come to this conclusion.

> Pure bullshit, coming from someone as clueless
> as you about photography as well as computers.


Up to here this is just foul language without any
clue or argument what your expertise may be, and
not even a hint what might be in error with my
statement - in your opinion.

While I am being paid well for both my expertise in
photography and computers, we happen to have not the
slightest hint as what your experience or expertise
may be. Everybody can visit my website to see my imagery,
everybody is free to test a setup as suggested and
inspect my statements in real life.

But what about the percentage of reality in your
postings? Not to mention that you had to resort to
name calling, jokes with my name and outright insults
in absence of any well founded argument?

> > After seeing the difference it is easy to decide.

>
> So, basically you are admitting you don't know
> what you're talking about.


No. I am saying that I know what I say so well, that
I don't have to fear anybody putting me to the test and
see for themselves in real life what I am talking about.

> > I am convinced that first hand experience will
> > prove my point

>
> Like I said, you don't REALLY know, do you?


Read my lips: I *do know* from frequent first hand
professional experience in photography and computers.

> Thanks quack, for proving yourself what you
> really are: an idiot.


Not at all. Giving people a chance to inspect what
I say with their own eyes and thus prove my position to
them is unbeatable. You don't even have an argument
or even a small hint as to what may be in error
in my statement. Just foul language and insults.
Pretty lame, and extremely juvenile.

--
Michael Quack <(E-Mail Removed)>

http://www.photoquack.de/glamour/1.htm
http://www.photoquack.de/fashion/1.htm
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paolo Pizzi
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-11-2003
Michael Quack wrote:

> Not at all. Giving people a chance to inspect what
> I say with their own eyes and thus prove my position to
> them is unbeatable.


You're right, your work speaks for itself.

> You don't even have an argument


I do, but you just can't get it...

> or even a small hint as to what may be in error


I told you how badly your ridiculous claim was
in error, but once again it went right over your
head. No surprise here.

> Just foul language and insults.
> Pretty lame, and extremely juvenile.


You mean lame and extremely juvenile as claiming
that all Nikon users are morons and that the F5
is crap?

Remember who started, quack...


 
Reply With Quote
 
Paolo Pizzi
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-11-2003
dperez@juno_nospam.com wrote:

> HMPH! Michael you're raining on my parade!!!


Don't let him. He's full of it.

The 2D quality of the Parhelia is comparable to that of the G4xxxs.
The current-generation of G5xxxs simply trounce this obsolete
(spring 2002) product, in both 3D (by a HUGE margin) and 2D
(by a significant margin.)

Read the following:

"With respect to 3D performance, the Parhelia leaves us with mixed
feelings. In contrast to the mediocre performance in the standard
benchmarks, it turned up some really good results in the tests for
quality, even though they sometimes represent only a very small
lead over NVIDIA's GeForce 4 Ti."

http://tinyurl.com/ypx7
"We are disappointed. If Matrox had fully perfected the performance
of the Parhelia-512 before rushing to the market and came with a card
that competed well with NVIDIA we would all benefit from the competition
giving lower prices and further pushing the quality and performance of
graphics cards, but with this performance NVIDIA has nothing to worry
about."

http://tinyurl.com/ypwz

" (...) as soon as the benchmarks hit the web things did not seem all that
fine
again as the new Matrox entrant had trouble shining in terms of performance
against NVIDIA's GeForce4 Ti, let alone what was in store from ATI a few
more month down the line."
"220MHz is relatively slow in comparison to many other boards out there"

http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/matrox/parhelia/

"Despite the largest number of transistors in the chip the Parhelia looks
quite modest"
"The performance of vertex shaders with the promised 4 pipelines is too low.
I think
that only one of them really works. It's possible that lack of the DirectX
9.0, and
therefore, the version 2.0 could cause locking of 3-4 pipelines."

http://www.digit-life.com/articles/parhelia/

"Matrox's card isn't competitive with anything on the current market.
Even previous generation cards outperform it."

http://tinyurl.com/ypwy

Here's some REAL TESTS:

http://www.hardwaremania.com/reviews...arhelia8.shtml

Parhelia flunks all 3D tests and it's rated slightly better than Ti4200-4600
in
2D graphics. Too bad Ti4200-4600 are NOT current-generation GeForce
cards...

Note that the Parhelia was compared in the above reviews to the GeForce
Ti4200-4600, which are OOP cards not of the current GF generation. The
GF 5600-5900 simply trounce Parhelia in virtually EVERY area, including
2D images. Also note that according to several reviews, Parhelia has big
problems dealing with DirectX 9.0.

Want more confirmation that Parhelia really sucks in comparison with
Ti5600-5900? Read this sample from usenet:

"The 2D quality of the Parhelia is comparable to that of the G4xxs."
"If advanced 3D isn't needed, I would stick with a G4xx, simply
because the Parhelia demands more of the system."

http://tinyurl.com/ypwx

"It seems that the Parhelias hardware is very fussy about the system
configuration of the workstations it will work with correctly.
Mine was a system it didn't like! Worked fine in my sons "game"
machine. But I needed it to work in my Video Editing workstation.
If you do a search in the Matrox forums using the word "banding"
you will see that Matrox accept that this is a hardware bug, but will
not agree to do anything about it because it only effects a "small"
number of users. So I sold the Parhelia, and have gone back to the
G400 MAX."

http://tinyurl.com/ypxz

Google for more. The music is the same.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Michael Quack
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-11-2003
In article <u1UBb.69654$(E-Mail Removed) >,
Paolo Pizzi says...

> "With respect to 3D performance, (...)


There is *NO* 3D in Photoshop, remember?

> http://tinyurl.com/ypx7


You forgot to quote this:
"Soon, we will be bringing you an evaluation of the
Parhelia's 2D features and performance,(...)"

Oops. You were off topic again, comparing apples
and oranges as usual?

> http://tinyurl.com/ypwz


"The Matrox Parhelia-512 is going for image quality as opposed
outright speed, but then output quality depends on not only your
vision but more importantly your monitor. Thus even if the output
from this Matrox Parhelia-512 graphics card is the best in the
world running it with a limited LCD monitor or poor quality CRT
monitor reduces it to the level of any other graphics card."

And note that they are referring to 3D speed, stuff nobody needs
for Photoshop or video editing.


> http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/matrox/parhelia/


They are testing 3D game benchmarks. I think you don't
want to understand about the value of 10 bit color,
extremely precise multi-monitor setups, the sharpest
signal on the market, best video out on the market
and many other professional features of the Parhelia.

Yes, if you keep looking at gaming benchmarks, the
Parhelia must look like inferior to you. But don't
overlook what they write in their conclusion:

"Naturally, where Matrox scores big is their usual
haunt, which is of their display output. The 2D quality
is very good on Parhelia, among the best I've personally
seen. Also, if multi-monitor support is something that's
important for you then Matrox has both the most flexibility
in the display output options and exceptionally good
multi-monitor configurations and software tools."

Which is exactly what I say, and which is exactly what
makes the Parhelia perfect for Photoshop and video editing.

> http://www.digit-life.com/articles/parhelia/


They are talking "briefly of 2D" and then test 3D gaming
again. But I think this escaped you:

"There are also a lot of components controlling stability of
the card. The developers have done their best to prevent any
pickups which can be caused by such a complicated layout (as
you remember, the first high-speed cards on the GeForce2 Ultra
looked terrible: ripples were well noticeable on the screen)."

Which results in a rocksolid image even at the highest
resolutions. Stuff graphics professionals love on multi
monitor setups with CRTs of 19 - 22".


> http://tinyurl.com/ypwy


"Here's some real tests [mostly gamer oriented though ]"

Unsurprising with your rail of thought.
And again you miss the key sentence:

"Just wanted to drop a note that if you were planning on
buying a Parhelia...DON'T buy it for the performance. Buy
it for its secondary features."

> Here's some REAL TESTS:
>
> http://www.hardwaremania.com/reviews...arhelia8.shtml


And again all those tests prove my point:
" As a summary, Parhelia is good enough to satisfy the 3D
needs of Matrox fans. It is great news that Matrox is now
in 3D world without leaving its analog image and product
quality. Also currently there are no GPU’s that feature
Triple-Head, Glyph AA, Hardware Displacement Mapping,
GigaColor, 16X Fragment AA like Parhelia.
In addition to 2D quality, Parhelia has the best 3D image
quality. Parhelia has the best anisotropic filtering results
I have ever seen. The speed may not be satisfactory for some
people but when you consider the image quality, it is highly
acceptable."
All of the URLs you list say exactly what I say.
And aside of that, 29 fps 3D with all the extras of
the Parhelia and "the best 3D image quality" are
plenty. Remember, tv standard is 30 fps in NTSC, and
the qualitatively higher European tv standard PAL
is even only 25 fps for smooth movements.

> Note that the Parhelia was compared in the above
> reviews to the GeForce Ti4200-4600,


And note that it was compared in gaming benchmarks
which are absolutely irrelevant for the Photoshop
performance. Note that only few said anything about
image quality on either card, or mentioned the color
profiling possiblities or the multi screen setup.
But when they did, there was nothing but praise for
the Parhelia.

> Also note that according to several reviews, Parhelia
> has big problems dealing with DirectX 9.0.


Which is again irrelevant for Photoshop.

> Read this sample from usenet:


Since me and you are writing on the Usenet right now
ourselves, you can hopefully make out what that means
for the *possible* expertise of the uncredited cited
persons. But let's take a look:

> "The 2D quality of the Parhelia is comparable to that
> of the G4xxs."


Which is perfect 2D. Plus the Gigacolor feature and
the triple head feature plus....

> "If advanced 3D isn't needed, I would stick with a G4xx,
> simply because the Parhelia demands more of the system."


Now that's what I call an expert. Don't buy high end
because it is demanding? Wow.


> http://tinyurl.com/ypwx


Yes, great URL. The OP talks about an ATI Radeon 9500,
and then this:
"it was immediately clear that the G400 Max is _MUCH_
better in terms of 2D quality (sharper, less artifacts,
more vivid colors) at higher resolutions"

Incredible that you post links to that in order to
prove that Matrox cards are crap. And this is exactly
what I suggested - test with two cards.

-> "immediately clear". Right. Case closed.


> Google for more. The music is the same.


It is, and all your samples prove my point that the
Parhelia is the single best card for Photoshop and
Video editing, especially with big screens, multi
monitor setups, video out, color critical applications.

It is not at all a top performer in 3D gaming, but
it is still very usable at that as well, with a number
of techniques not found in any other GPU and of
course the best image quality in 3D cards ever seen.

Speed in 3D is not everything.

--
Michael Quack <(E-Mail Removed)>

http://www.photoquack.de/glamour/1.htm
http://www.photoquack.de/fashion/1.htm
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

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
Graphic card question mrcpea Computer Information 3 08-19-2011 06:21 PM
Re: GRAPHIC CARD QUESTION Mike Easter Computer Support 21 09-24-2009 07:22 PM
Is it possible to mouseover a GRAPHIC . . . that launches another (freestanding) GRAPHIC (ie. when flash is _not_ available)? 50 SOMETHING GAL HTML 3 12-10-2006 01:10 AM
looking for MCSE+I graphic for business card Rob MCSE 3 09-22-2004 02:31 AM
GeForce 4 graphic card Merlin Computer Support 2 09-06-2003 01:29 AM



Advertisments