With the apparant (though I have not seen officially acknowledged) demise of
the GeForce FX Ultra, I might go in that direction now.
I currently have a Ti4400. Has anyone done a comparison between the two?
From past experience, the ATI drivers have always been a sore point with me
(and a lot of other people). How are the current drivers, especially with
NR2003 ?
Larry
> Ok, how is this card working out?
> With the apparant (though I have not seen officially acknowledged) demise of
> the GeForce FX Ultra, I might go in that direction now.
> I currently have a Ti4400. Has anyone done a comparison between the two?
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,740529,00.asp
I moved on from V5's (3 PC's) to ATI Radeons in the past year, currently
two R8500 and one 9700 PRO
I've yet to come across any serious problems that I can contribute to
the cards or the drivers except some problems running the LFS beta, I
don't run GPL.....:-)
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
"goyl at nettx dot no"
http://www.theuspits.com
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
--Groucho Marx--
However, after some research, I've found that the 9700 Pro has not gone
through a price reduction yet. With nVidia's troubles,it might be a while
before it does.
Odd that a 5 month old card is still selling at the original SRP. New Egg
has them for $338, but that's too much for what I would get out of the
change.
I was expecting around $275 for the RETAIL (I don't do OEM) card.
I'm sure someone on pricewatch somewhere sells it for that, but who the hell
knows what you're going to get yourself into when shopping on Pricewatch!
Larry
> > Ok, how is this card working out?
> > With the apparant (though I have not seen officially acknowledged)
demise of
> > the GeForce FX Ultra, I might go in that direction now.
> > I currently have a Ti4400. Has anyone done a comparison between the
two?
> Not in N2003, but this article used N2002
> http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,740529,00.asp
> > From past experience, the ATI drivers have always been a sore point with
me
> > (and a lot of other people). How are the current drivers, especially
with
> > NR2003 ?
> I moved on from V5's (3 PC's) to ATI Radeons in the past year, currently
> two R8500 and one 9700 PRO
> I've yet to come across any serious problems that I can contribute to
> the cards or the drivers except some problems running the LFS beta, I
> don't run GPL.....:-)
> Beers and cheers
> (uncle) Goy
> "goyl at nettx dot no"
> http://www.theuspits.com
> "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
> --Groucho Marx--
Vintook
> However, after some research, I've found that the 9700 Pro has not gone
> through a price reduction yet. With nVidia's troubles,it might be a while
> before it does.
> Odd that a 5 month old card is still selling at the original SRP. New Egg
> has them for $338, but that's too much for what I would get out of the
> change.
> I was expecting around $275 for the RETAIL (I don't do OEM) card.
> I'm sure someone on pricewatch somewhere sells it for that, but who the
hell
> knows what you're going to get yourself into when shopping on Pricewatch!
> Larry
> > > Ok, how is this card working out?
> > > With the apparant (though I have not seen officially acknowledged)
> demise of
> > > the GeForce FX Ultra, I might go in that direction now.
> > > I currently have a Ti4400. Has anyone done a comparison between the
> two?
> > Not in N2003, but this article used N2002
> > http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,740529,00.asp
> > > From past experience, the ATI drivers have always been a sore point
with
> me
> > > (and a lot of other people). How are the current drivers, especially
> with
> > > NR2003 ?
> > I moved on from V5's (3 PC's) to ATI Radeons in the past year, currently
> > two R8500 and one 9700 PRO
> > I've yet to come across any serious problems that I can contribute to
> > the cards or the drivers except some problems running the LFS beta, I
> > don't run GPL.....:-)
> > Beers and cheers
> > (uncle) Goy
> > "goyl at nettx dot no"
> > http://www.theuspits.com
> > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
> > --Groucho Marx--
Bear in mind Larry, I said the same thing you did about ATI drivers prior to
this purchase ;)
Ive run most all at1600X1200X32
NR2003 (40fps full field in back near max, 70 spread out)
GTR-2002 (Beeutifus!)
F1-2002 (Never actually tried it)
IL2 (To much card but suweet. Where Forgotten Battles at?)
CFS3 (Not a stutter1 at 5's)
Americas Army (Maxed, excellent for the 300meter kia's)
Mitch
> Vintook
> > Thanks!
> > However, after some research, I've found that the 9700 Pro has not gone
> > through a price reduction yet. With nVidia's troubles,it might be a
while
> > before it does.
> > Odd that a 5 month old card is still selling at the original SRP. New
Egg
> > has them for $338, but that's too much for what I would get out of the
> > change.
> > I was expecting around $275 for the RETAIL (I don't do OEM) card.
> > I'm sure someone on pricewatch somewhere sells it for that, but who the
> hell
> > knows what you're going to get yourself into when shopping on
Pricewatch!
> > Larry
> > > > Ok, how is this card working out?
> > > > With the apparant (though I have not seen officially acknowledged)
> > demise of
> > > > the GeForce FX Ultra, I might go in that direction now.
> > > > I currently have a Ti4400. Has anyone done a comparison between the
> > two?
> > > Not in N2003, but this article used N2002
> > > http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,740529,00.asp
> > > > From past experience, the ATI drivers have always been a sore point
> with
> > me
> > > > (and a lot of other people). How are the current drivers,
especially
> > with
> > > > NR2003 ?
> > > I moved on from V5's (3 PC's) to ATI Radeons in the past year,
currently
> > > two R8500 and one 9700 PRO
> > > I've yet to come across any serious problems that I can contribute to
> > > the cards or the drivers except some problems running the LFS beta, I
> > > don't run GPL.....:-)
> > > Beers and cheers
> > > (uncle) Goy
> > > "goyl at nettx dot no"
> > > http://www.theuspits.com
> > > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
> > > --Groucho Marx--
Can you make a quick comparison between the 8500 and the 9700Pro, in terms of
performance and/or framerates?
I presently have the 8500LE (like you, after having a Voodoo5), and am considering
replacing it with a 9700Pro (or 9500 Pro). Can you provide any hard numbers such
as difference in frame rates, or in 3DMark scores? I'd like to hear subjective
opinions (image quality, etc) too.
Thanks!
Bert
> > Ok, how is this card working out?
> > With the apparant (though I have not seen officially acknowledged) demise of
> > the GeForce FX Ultra, I might go in that direction now.
> > I currently have a Ti4400. Has anyone done a comparison between the two?
> Not in N2003, but this article used N2002
> http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,740529,00.asp
> > From past experience, the ATI drivers have always been a sore point with me
> > (and a lot of other people). How are the current drivers, especially with
> > NR2003 ?
> I moved on from V5's (3 PC's) to ATI Radeons in the past year, currently
> two R8500 and one 9700 PRO
> I've yet to come across any serious problems that I can contribute to
> the cards or the drivers except some problems running the LFS beta, I
> don't run GPL.....:-)
> Beers and cheers
> (uncle) Goy
> "goyl at nettx dot no"
> http://www.theuspits.com
> "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
> --Groucho Marx--
> Goy,
> Can you make a quick comparison between the 8500 and the 9700Pro, in terms of
> performance and/or framerates?
> I presently have the 8500LE (like you, after having a Voodoo5), and am considering
> replacing it with a 9700Pro (or 9500 Pro). Can you provide any hard numbers such
> as difference in frame rates, or in 3DMark scores? I'd like to hear subjective
> opinions (image quality, etc) too.
The last 3DMark score I did before switching cards was a 9900 or so with
a heavily OC'ed R8500LE (310/310) on an XP2600+, non OC'ed it would be
around 8500 ?, currently at 14500 or so, not OC'ed
I haven't really looked at FPS and stuff yet as I've barely had the time
to install N2003 and run a few laps, too busy enjoying myself to worry
about the Gfx bit :-)
I went a bit overboard with my vid card this time around, normally I
would have waited for the price to drop a little and then buy the 9500
PRO, but had a buyer on my R8500 and my supplier only had the 9700 PRO
in stock right there and then, so I figured, what the hell, for once I'm
going to have the fastest vid there is :-)
Visual quality.....without comparing side by side it's hard to say
really, especially since I've raised the resolution 2 notches and piled
on 4xAA and 8X Aniso
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
"goyl at nettx dot no"
http://www.racesimcentral.net/
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
--Groucho Marx--
Goy, (if you have time)
I have a P4 1.8 GHz, 512 Meg RAM running Win XP Pro.
My current videocard is a GF 3 Ti 500 w 64 Meg.
I have been thinking about getting the 9700 Pro for my machine since the GF
Fx has had bad reviews due to sound issues of the new GF Fx)
Would I see that much of a difference with my cpu ?
Thanks in advance.
Elrikk
-Tim
MadDAWG
MadDAWG
Hey Larry,
I just upgraded from my Gainward GeForce4 Ti44400 to the ATI 9700 Pro over
the weekend.
I wanted to start with a clean slate for it, so I reformatted my C partition
in XP Pro after putting the new card in, but before booting for the first
time.
My cpu/mb is an Athlon XP 2400+ and an Asus A78NX Deluxe motherboard.
I can give you some basic comparisons.
First, my 3d mark 2001se score went from 13,000 to a little over 15,000 with
the 9700 Pro card.
In N2003, I did not see what I would call a huge framerate jump. I do at
certain portions of the track, and don't at others. Let me explain a little.
With the Ti4400, my framerates were more consistant, ie they did not change
a hell of a lot at different areas of the track. My framerates with the 9700
Pro do.
What testing I did was at Lowe's night. I have all graphics options on
exept for the last group of shadows - shadows from structures. Cars drawn
ahead are 20, behind 5. Track drawn 60%, overall track detail medium, car
detail high, mirror medium. Full field of ai drivers.
Running N2003 in 1280x1024x32 in D3D.
My framerates with the 4400 were running around 45-70 fps, depending upon
the area of the track and the number of cars around me.
The 9700 Pro goes from around 45 to around 105 fps, depending on the area of
the track. The front stretch with the solar flare is where it is the lowest.
This is with no overclocking of the vid card yet, and no fsaa or anisotropic
yet.
I have heard it runs fsaa much better with less performance hit than the
Nvidia card, I have just not had time to check that out yet.
I did run it for a little while in 1600x1200, without a large hit in fps.
So far I am pleased with the card, although I am not sure the performance
gain over the 4400 card justified the over 300 dollar price. I have sold my
Ti4400 though which helps offset some of that expense. Migh want to wait
till ATI's next release which I hear is due sometime in March, and see if
the 9700 Pro's price drops some. It is a very nice card, and so far I really
like it though.
It also runs MS CFS3 very well for me.
Don Burnette
> > Ok, how is this card working out?
> > With the apparant (though I have not seen officially acknowledged)
demise
> of
> > the GeForce FX Ultra, I might go in that direction now.
> > I currently have a Ti4400. Has anyone done a comparison between the
two?
> > From past experience, the ATI drivers have always been a sore point with
> me
> > (and a lot of other people). How are the current drivers, especially
with
> > NR2003 ?
> > Larry
> Hey Larry,
> I just upgraded from my Gainward GeForce4 Ti44400 to the ATI 9700 Pro over
> the weekend.
> I wanted to start with a clean slate for it, so I reformatted my C
partition
> in XP Pro after putting the new card in, but before booting for the first
> time.
> My cpu/mb is an Athlon XP 2400+ and an Asus A78NX Deluxe motherboard.
> I can give you some basic comparisons.
> First, my 3d mark 2001se score went from 13,000 to a little over 15,000
with
> the 9700 Pro card.
> In N2003, I did not see what I would call a huge framerate jump. I do at
> certain portions of the track, and don't at others. Let me explain a
little.
> With the Ti4400, my framerates were more consistant, ie they did not
change
> a hell of a lot at different areas of the track. My framerates with the
9700
> Pro do.
> What testing I did was at Lowe's night. I have all graphics options on
> exept for the last group of shadows - shadows from structures. Cars drawn
> ahead are 20, behind 5. Track drawn 60%, overall track detail medium, car
> detail high, mirror medium. Full field of ai drivers.
> Running N2003 in 1280x1024x32 in D3D.
> My framerates with the 4400 were running around 45-70 fps, depending upon
> the area of the track and the number of cars around me.
> The 9700 Pro goes from around 45 to around 105 fps, depending on the area
of
> the track. The front stretch with the solar flare is where it is the
lowest.
> This is with no overclocking of the vid card yet, and no fsaa or
anisotropic
> yet.
> I have heard it runs fsaa much better with less performance hit than the
> Nvidia card, I have just not had time to check that out yet.
> I did run it for a little while in 1600x1200, without a large hit in fps.
> So far I am pleased with the card, although I am not sure the performance
> gain over the 4400 card justified the over 300 dollar price. I have sold
my
> Ti4400 though which helps offset some of that expense. Migh want to wait
> till ATI's next release which I hear is due sometime in March, and see if
> the 9700 Pro's price drops some. It is a very nice card, and so far I
really
> like it though.
> It also runs MS CFS3 very well for me.
I really think you need to test the card across more games using 6xFSAA and
16xAnis; that's where most have reported the huge performance benefits over
high end GF4 cards. In traditional benches (3D Mark, etc) and games without
FSAA the 9700 Pro isn't worth the money. It only shines with FSAA/Anis.
I'm surprised at how well my GF4 Ti 4400 handles FSAA in N2003 (and how cpu
limited I am). I can turn FSAA up to 4xS with almost no performance loss.
I run back of the pack, all graphics on except shadows, graphics mid, draw
distance 35% (not a visible difference to me from 50%+), full field of AI,
42 viewable in front and 10 behind and I get a very drivable and consistent
28+ fps at 1280x1024x32-bit with 4SxFSAA. This is with an AMD 1600/512MB
RAM. I'm considering a 2100+ since it's a cheap upgrade and probably good
for 5-10 fps.
--
Joe M.
> Goy, (if you have time)
> I have a P4 1.8 GHz, 512 Meg RAM running Win XP Pro.
> My current videocard is a GF 3 Ti 500 w 64 Meg.
> I have been thinking about getting the 9700 Pro for my machine since the GF
> Fx has had bad reviews due to sound issues of the new GF Fx)
> Would I see that much of a difference with my cpu ?
Other than that N2003 seems to be very dependent on the CPU, one of the
guys at "The Pits" has an Athlon 1300 and a R9000, and since he sees
little or difference going from 1600x1200 to 800x600, we can only assume
his system is CPU limited, at 1300 Mhz :-)
John Simmons has an Athlon 1800 or something I believe, with a 9700 PRO,
guess you could compare to his system
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
"goyl at nettx dot no"
"The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels"
--Groucho Marx--
