http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthr...readid=33622002

Sooo, all you binder haters and naysayers out there... Who all think im some unfair, biased stooge

Straight from MaximumPC, benchmarks of a beta PArhelia.The system consisted of a P4 2Ghz w/ 512 Megs Ram. They ran the Quake III Benches at 1280x1024 @ 32 bit color, 3DMark 2001 was at 1024x768@32 bit color.


No AA, No anisotropic filtering
Quake 3: 72.1fps
3dmark 2001 SE Game2 High Detail : 56.3 fps
3dmark 2001 SE Game4: 21.1 fps
3DMark 2001 SE Default Score: 7698

16x AA, no anisotropic filtering
Quake 3: Would Not Run
3dmark 2001 SE Game2 High Detail : 47.7 fps
3dmark 2001 SE Game4: 15.0 fps
3DMark 2001 SE Default Score: 6089

No AA, anisotropic filtering On
Quake 3: 56.6fps
3dmark 2001 SE Game2 High Detail : 45.5 fps
3dmark 2001 SE Game4: 10.98 fps
3DMark 2001 SE Default Score: 6526

16x AA, anisotropic filtering On
Quake 3: Would Not Run
3dmark 2001 SE Game2 High Detail : 40.1 fps
3dmark 2001 SE Game4: 8.9 fps
3DMark 2001 SE Default Score: 5241

Now, does this sound like a card that you want to pay 400$ for? or that is even a worthy next-gen product? I dont think so. granted this is on "beta" hardware and dirvers. But R300 in the same condition is already 20% faster than a GF4 ti 4600.

Parhelia-512 july/august 399$
R300 August/Sept 299$

In fact my Radeon 8500 has the same or better performance except for FSAA, and only costs 150$ now.

I rest my case.


__________________
The New-
P4 2.4ghz (533)
512mb 40ns RDram
MSI GF4 Ti 4200 oc295/295

The old-
Athlon 1600+_ECS K7S5A
384mb PC2100 DDR RAM
Radeon 8500 275/275
Windows XP


Last edited by Hellbinder on 06-12-2002 at 10:06 PM