running windows xp
Vintook
-Tim
If the 9500-to-9700 thing works, it'll be a great low-cost upgrade that'll
get me through '03; especially since I've already got a taker for my Leadtek
Ti4400. I'll let you guys know how it turns out... ;-)
SB
> -Tim
> > Upgrading from XP1500+ to a 2400+. I want to run the new N2003 with
all
> > details on, full field, 4xaa. I currently have a GF3 TI 200. Should I
> get
> > a GF 4600, ATI 9700 pro or the new FX? My concern with the FX might be
> the
> > sound. My cocern with the ATI is I hear about driver issues. What kind
> of
> > issues in particular? Thanks.
> > running windows xp
The people I hear say ATI has bad drivers are the same people that avoid any
AMD processor because they claim it is incompatible with Windows.
Anyways, as for the new FX. I'd say it's really too early to make a
clear-cut decision about it since drivers are so new. But I have to agree
with a lot of the comments I've already read about it. It seems like a
brute-force attempt to beat ATI. Sapphire has an 9700PRO that is passively
cooled (NO fans), then you have this FX thing with the most extravagant
cooling system I've ever seen. And which one does better in benchmarks so
far? The 9700Pro.
Mike
http://mikebeauchamp.com
> -Tim
> > Upgrading from XP1500+ to a 2400+. I want to run the new N2003 with
all
> > details on, full field, 4xaa. I currently have a GF3 TI 200. Should I
> get
> > a GF 4600, ATI 9700 pro or the new FX? My concern with the FX might be
> the
> > sound. My cocern with the ATI is I hear about driver issues. What kind
> of
> > issues in particular? Thanks.
> > running windows xp
My specs:
AMD XP2400+
Asus A7N8X-DX Motherboard
512MB PC3200 Corsair XMS SDRAM
Leadtek TI4400
---------------------------------------------------
Thanks,
Aaron Markham
RATE MY CAR AT CARDOMAIN.COM!
http://www.cardomain.com/id/amarkham
*RIP Ayrton Senna & Dale Earnhardt*
I frankly would be suprised IF you could get Nr 2003 running with full
effects on any currently available hardware. The first benchmarks I saw
for the FX showed it was about 33% faster than the 9700pro, but that extra
speed didn't translate to 33% higher framerates. Certainly you will need a
beefier video card if you want to run with 4x fsaa but you will also need
as much cpu as you can afford. IF you could afford the FX, I'd take that
extra $100 dollars you'd save getting a 9700pro and purchase a cpu of a
higher spec than 2400+.
Having said that, you don't NEED that much cpu and video card IF you are
willing to turn down some effects or limit the field size. But if you want
it all, you will need as fast as system as possible...don't forget fast RAM
as well.
dave henrie
I'm also interested in the Sapphire Radeon 9500 (especially with the tweaking
possibilities), but Newegg is currently out of stock. 8-(
So, where did you order it from and what price did you get it for?
Thanks,
Bert
> If the 9500-to-9700 thing works, it'll be a great low-cost upgrade that'll
> get me through '03; especially since I've already got a taker for my Leadtek
> Ti4400. I'll let you guys know how it turns out... ;-)
> SB
> > The whole ATI driver issue is a hoax if you ask me. ATI drivers were
> > suspect to problems about 15 months ago and before but since then they've
> > fixed those problems, provide frequent updates, and with the Catalyst
> > drivers, are easily far superior to Nvidia drivers IMO. Go read some of
> the
> > new GF FX reviews on the web that back up that claim. The FSAA and Anios
> > quality and speed are better on the ATI card and the FX has some issues
> with
> > texture corruption on their new FX. Even the CPU limited benchmarks,
> which
> > are a good measure of the effeciency of the drivers, are much better for
> > ATI.
> > -Tim
> > > Upgrading from XP1500+ to a 2400+. I want to run the new N2003 with
> all
> > > details on, full field, 4xaa. I currently have a GF3 TI 200. Should I
> > get
> > > a GF 4600, ATI 9700 pro or the new FX? My concern with the FX might be
> > the
> > > sound. My cocern with the ATI is I hear about driver issues. What kind
> > of
> > > issues in particular? Thanks.
> > > running windows xp
-Tim
> > Upgrading from XP1500+ to a 2400+. I want to run the new N2003 with
> > all details on, full field, 4xaa. I currently have a GF3 TI 200.
> > Should I get a GF 4600, ATI 9700 pro or the new FX? My concern with
> > the FX might be the sound. My cocern with the ATI is I hear about
> > driver issues. What kind of issues in particular? Thanks.
> > running windows xp
> I frankly would be suprised IF you could get Nr 2003 running with full
> effects on any currently available hardware. The first benchmarks I saw
> for the FX showed it was about 33% faster than the 9700pro, but that extra
> speed didn't translate to 33% higher framerates. Certainly you will need
a
> beefier video card if you want to run with 4x fsaa but you will also need
> as much cpu as you can afford. IF you could afford the FX, I'd take that
> extra $100 dollars you'd save getting a 9700pro and purchase a cpu of a
> higher spec than 2400+.
> Having said that, you don't NEED that much cpu and video card IF you
are
> willing to turn down some effects or limit the field size. But if you
want
> it all, you will need as fast as system as possible...don't forget fast
RAM
> as well.
> dave henrie
Looks like the good one with the red pcb, which is *supposedly* the same as
the 9700's. $158 shipped.
Fingers crossed, mine's on the way they say...
Plus, it seems there are pre-modded ones for a bit more ($199) at:
http://www.bulletpc.com/Qstore/p000293.htm
Meanwhile, for some sim-relevant benchmarks of a 9700 Pro vs the Geforce FX,
extremetech has some info at:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,846378,00.asp
"Baseline NASCAR 2002: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 26%"
"NASCAR 2002 with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 44%"
"For NASCAR 2002, ATI carried the day on both test conditions, and in both
cases, was ahead by a very respectable margin."
If you're willing to turn off of the card's features like AA and AF, a
Geforce 4 runs either NR2K2 or the new demo of NR2K3 fine at a high
framerate, but if you want it ALL, ATI's looking pretty good. Their AA
definitely looks better than Nvidia's, particularly at low angles. We'll
see!
SB
> I'm also interested in the Sapphire Radeon 9500 (especially with the
tweaking
> possibilities), but Newegg is currently out of stock. 8-(
> So, where did you order it from and what price did you get it for?
> Thanks,
> Bert
> > Reading the long-awaited FX reviews today spurred the tweaker in me to
order
> > an OEM Sapphire 9500 so that I can try out the Rivatuner Soft 9700
option.
> > May work, may not; so a safe bet for the risk averse would be the 9700
Pro
> > or even the regular 9700, which blows the Ti 4600's away with AA & AF
> > cranked up and can be had for around $225. (As does a 9500 Pro, for
that
> > matter). Looks like the first FX's may be a generation to skip;
especially
> > until the prices drop from $399 and the drivers mature.
> > If the 9500-to-9700 thing works, it'll be a great low-cost upgrade
that'll
> > get me through '03; especially since I've already got a taker for my
Leadtek
> > Ti4400. I'll let you guys know how it turns out... ;-)
> > SB
> > > The whole ATI driver issue is a hoax if you ask me. ATI drivers were
> > > suspect to problems about 15 months ago and before but since then
they've
> > > fixed those problems, provide frequent updates, and with the Catalyst
> > > drivers, are easily far superior to Nvidia drivers IMO. Go read some
of
> > the
> > > new GF FX reviews on the web that back up that claim. The FSAA and
Anios
> > > quality and speed are better on the ATI card and the FX has some
issues
> > with
> > > texture corruption on their new FX. Even the CPU limited benchmarks,
> > which
> > > are a good measure of the effeciency of the drivers, are much better
for
> > > ATI.
> > > -Tim
> > > > Upgrading from XP1500+ to a 2400+. I want to run the new N2003
with
> > all
> > > > details on, full field, 4xaa. I currently have a GF3 TI 200.
Should I
> > > get
> > > > a GF 4600, ATI 9700 pro or the new FX? My concern with the FX might
be
> > > the
> > > > sound. My cocern with the ATI is I hear about driver issues. What
kind
> > > of
> > > > issues in particular? Thanks.
> > > > running windows xp
You can't currently buy a machine capable of running NR2K3 with all
details and eye candy on.
As far as graphics card, you shouldn't consider buying anything less
than the ATI 9700Pro or the nVidia FX. Anything else will simply not
perform as well.
Milhouse
> Upgrading from XP1500+ to a 2400+. I want to run the new N2003 with all
> details on, full field, 4xaa. I currently have a GF3 TI 200. Should I get
> a GF 4600, ATI 9700 pro or the new FX? My concern with the FX might be the
> sound. My cocern with the ATI is I hear about driver issues. What kind of
> issues in particular? Thanks.
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
http://www.theuspits.com
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
--Groucho Marx--
-Tim
> >The whole ATI driver issue is a hoax if you ask me. ATI drivers were
> >suspect to problems about 15 months ago and before but since then they've
> >fixed those problems, provide frequent updates, and with the Catalyst
> >drivers, are easily far superior to Nvidia drivers IMO.
> Nope, not true. I've got three PC's here and have R8500, Voodoo3 and
> GF4. The GF4 easily has the best compatibility of the bunch. EASILY.
> --
> "Paw, I'm powerful hungry!"
-Tim
> >If you're willing to turn off of the card's features like AA and AF, a
> >Geforce 4 runs either NR2K2 or the new demo of NR2K3 fine at a high
> >framerate, but if you want it ALL, ATI's looking pretty good. Their AA
> >definitely looks better than Nvidia's, particularly at low angles.
We'll
> >see!
> Both GF4 and R9700Pro use edge AA so neither does FSAA like the V5
> did. Which means you still get shimmering textures. The benefit I
> found of the V5 AA was reducing the shimmering textures (very
> noticeable in some flight sims) and not the edge AA.
> --
> "Paw, I'm powerful hungry!"
