Are the all the exact same spec as the original ATI 9700 Pro ?
I noted one thing interesting about the Hercules version. Everyone else
quotes 20GB of bandwidth, while Hercules only quotes 18.5GB of bandwidth.
Is the Hercules version neutered in some way?
Larry
Perfect!
This is EXACTLY the type of information I needed to decide on this.
Thanks :)
Given your details, I do believe it is prudent in my case to wait until
either a major price drop, or the next generation comes out. The increase
would be nice, but like you said, not enough to warrant the cost.
I'll spend the money on one of those new Western Digital 10,000 RPM
Serial-ATA IDE Enterprise-Class drives instead :)
http://www.westerndigital.com/company/releases/PressRelease.asp?release={DB0
97012-1643-4CF1-B7F7-7573035C067C}
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?
> > 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.
> Don Burnette
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?
> > > 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.
> Don,
> 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.
MadDAWG
-Tim
> > 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.
> Don Burnette
If you want a 2100 try ECONO PC--$79.00
Go to www.pricewatch.com and look at cpus's, they shouuld be 2-3rd on
the list.
They want you to get a Volano5 pack with it which gives them their
profit.
I ordered from them on wed, next day they called and said are you
really really sure all you want is the cpu?
Hell if you don't want to sell at that price don't underbid on
pricewatch <G>.(they shipped)
Of course this only applies if you don't live in IL (that's their
base)
Time to save for a full upgrade- AMD Barton,Nforce 2 board, DDR, and
a larger harddrive.. oh yeah and another case, oh plus a 9700 (or
whatevers the best in 6mths- who the hell said *** are illegal-what
the hell is a computer)
> These third-party 9700 Pro's, are they just re-boxed ATI cards, or are the
> actually _built_ by the company in question?
> Are the all the exact same spec as the original ATI 9700 Pro ?
> I noted one thing interesting about the Hercules version. Everyone else
> quotes 20GB of bandwidth, while Hercules only quotes 18.5GB of bandwidth.
> Is the Hercules version neutered in some way?
It's clocked at the correct speeds and all and I seem to be hitting the
regular marks in 3DMark2001, I'd say it's the same as all the others
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--
Although that's a great price, I'll stick with newegg. Cannot beat their
combo of price/service. Thanks for the price alert anyway, much
appreciated.
I'm with you. Drooling over the Asus A7N8X. Slap in 1 GB RAM (2x512 for
dual channel). Just read a bit about 10,000 rpm Serial HD's. Throw in 4 of
'em for RAID striping and mirroring. DVD burner? Why not! I'm a hardware
junky like the rest of 'em.
--
Joe M.
--
Don Burnette
http://www.westerndigital.com/company/releases/PressRelease.asp?release={DB0
> 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?
> > > 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.
> > Don Burnette
--
Don Burnette
> -Tim
> > > 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.
> > Don Burnette
Nice bundle with the Herc card too.
Larry
> > These third-party 9700 Pro's, are they just re-boxed ATI cards, or are
the
> > actually _built_ by the company in question?
> > Are the all the exact same spec as the original ATI 9700 Pro ?
> > I noted one thing interesting about the Hercules version. Everyone else
> > quotes 20GB of bandwidth, while Hercules only quotes 18.5GB of
bandwidth.
> > Is the Hercules version neutered in some way?
> I don't *think* they are, I have a Hercules card, despite having had
> issues with several Hercules cards in the past I've been very happy with
> my Hercules R8500's and went with Herc again, the Hercules cards have
> heatsink on the memory modules as well, which I believe only the
> Sapphire Ultimate Edition have aside from them
> It's clocked at the correct speeds and all and I seem to be hitting the
> regular marks in 3DMark2001, I'd say it's the same as all the others
> 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--
> Cool :)
> Nice bundle with the Herc card too.
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--
I also saw on TSS Monday, I think, that the AMD Athlon 3000+ was listing at
over $600 and basically the same price as the Intel P4 3.0Ghz.
What the hell happened all of a sudden? AMD's strong point used to be the
MAJOR price differences from Intel. It's not there any more.
If you look at the various processor price charts that float around, AMD and
Intel are running neck and neck for like-performance processors.
Just something I've noticed :)
Larry
> > If you want a 2100 try ECONO PC--$79.00
> > Go to www.pricewatch.com and look at cpus's, they shouuld be 2-3rd on
> > the list.
> > They want you to get a Volano5 pack with it which gives them their
> > profit.
> > I ordered from them on wed, next day they called and said are you
> > really really sure all you want is the cpu?
> > Hell if you don't want to sell at that price don't underbid on
> > pricewatch <G>.(they shipped)
> Although that's a great price, I'll stick with newegg. Cannot beat their
> combo of price/service. Thanks for the price alert anyway, much
> appreciated.
> > Of course this only applies if you don't live in IL (that's their
> > base)
> > Time to save for a full upgrade- AMD Barton,Nforce 2 board, DDR, and
> > a larger harddrive.. oh yeah and another case, oh plus a 9700 (or
> > whatevers the best in 6mths- who the hell said *** are illegal-what
> > the hell is a computer)
> I'm with you. Drooling over the Asus A7N8X. Slap in 1 GB RAM (2x512 for
> dual channel). Just read a bit about 10,000 rpm Serial HD's. Throw in 4
of
> 'em for RAID striping and mirroring. DVD burner? Why not! I'm a
hardware
> junky like the rest of 'em.
> --
> Joe M.
Thanks Larry, I've been oblivious to the price convergence. I think I'm so
comfortable with AMD hardware (having used AMD for the last 16 months after
having Intel inside for the previous 10+ years) that I may have
subconsciously avoided Intel pricing so I wouldn't be tempted to cross-over
and have to figure out what MB/MB Chipset/RAM Type works best with Intel.
Thanks so much for making my simple life much more complicated. ;0)
--
Joe M.
Why did I use Intel?
Well, first off AMD was in vaporware mode, and none of their announced stuff
was actually available.
Second, the price difference wasn't a factor any more.
I'll tell you this much. Compared to the muscle and sweat needed to mount
an AMD processor/heatsink sometimes, and the noise some of them generate,
the P4 mounting mechanism was a dream to deal with for a change.
Larry
> > I also saw on TSS Monday, I think, that the AMD Athlon 3000+ was listing
> at
> > over $600 and basically the same price as the Intel P4 3.0Ghz.
> > What the hell happened all of a sudden? AMD's strong point used to be
the
> > MAJOR price differences from Intel. It's not there any more.
> > If you look at the various processor price charts that float around, AMD
> and
> > Intel are running neck and neck for like-performance processors.
> > Just something I've noticed :)
> > Larry
> Thanks Larry, I've been oblivious to the price convergence. I think I'm
so
> comfortable with AMD hardware (having used AMD for the last 16 months
after
> having Intel inside for the previous 10+ years) that I may have
> subconsciously avoided Intel pricing so I wouldn't be tempted to
cross-over
> and have to figure out what MB/MB Chipset/RAM Type works best with Intel.
> Thanks so much for making my simple life much more complicated. ;0)
> --
> Joe M.
