rec.autos.simulators

by **Morris Jone** » Tue, 04 Feb 2003 08:26:21

So far very dissapointed in the 9700Pro, running the same settings in NR2002
and NR2003(everything on and maxed out in both) demo the FPS is avg. 8-10
less than the Ti4600 in opengl or d3d.
Why? using the latest drivers I could find. 6.14.01.6255
I thought this card was suppose to faster than the Ti4600.
Not looking good, on to more testing, but I'm not going to lower my settings
when the Ti4600 ran it fine with them.
1280x960x32 opengl and D3D. and the Ti4600 seems much faster in D3D in the

by **redTe** » Tue, 04 Feb 2003 08:52:57

> So far very dissapointed in the 9700Pro, running the same settings in
NR2002
> and NR2003(everything on and maxed out in both) demo the FPS is avg. 8-10
> less than the Ti4600 in opengl or d3d.
> Why? using the latest drivers I could find. 6.14.01.6255
> I thought this card was suppose to faster than the Ti4600.
> Not looking good, on to more testing, but I'm not going to lower my
settings
> when the Ti4600 ran it fine with them.
> 1280x960x32 opengl and D3D. and the Ti4600 seems much faster in D3D in the

CATALYST 3.0 drivers.
If you find it slower, then something else is wrong with your system. The
ATI should be flying.
You don't mention your other components.

by **Morris Jone** » Tue, 04 Feb 2003 09:03:38

where do I get the 3.0 drivers?

Thanks,

P.S> rest of system

P4 2.53
1gig PC800
120gig hD
audigy 2

> > So far very dissapointed in the 9700Pro, running the same settings in
> NR2002
> > and NR2003(everything on and maxed out in both) demo the FPS is avg.
8-10
> > less than the Ti4600 in opengl or d3d.
> > Why? using the latest drivers I could find. 6.14.01.6255
> > I thought this card was suppose to faster than the Ti4600.
> > Not looking good, on to more testing, but I'm not going to lower my
> settings
> > when the Ti4600 ran it fine with them.
> > 1280x960x32 opengl and D3D. and the Ti4600 seems much faster in D3D in
the

> CATALYST 3.0 drivers.
> If you find it slower, then something else is wrong with your system. The
> ATI should be flying.
> You don't mention your other components.

by **Morris Jone** » Tue, 04 Feb 2003 09:05:47

Just found out I'm already using the 3.0's,

> So far very dissapointed in the 9700Pro, running the same settings in
NR2002
> and NR2003(everything on and maxed out in both) demo the FPS is avg. 8-10
> less than the Ti4600 in opengl or d3d.
> Why? using the latest drivers I could find. 6.14.01.6255
> I thought this card was suppose to faster than the Ti4600.
> Not looking good, on to more testing, but I'm not going to lower my
settings
> when the Ti4600 ran it fine with them.
> 1280x960x32 opengl and D3D. and the Ti4600 seems much faster in D3D in the

by **GTX_SlotCa** » Tue, 04 Feb 2003 09:24:45

Go through your settings and make sure things like 16x anisotropic aren't
set on. Otherwise, there has to be remnants of your 4600 drivers still
*** around. Did you install standard vga drivers before switching cards
or did you just install the ATI drivers right over the 4600 drivers? If you
did it right and are still having a problem, you'll need to find a way to
clean every bit of the 4600 drivers out of your system, including the
registry.

--
Slot

Tweaks & Reviews
www.slottweak.com

> So far very dissapointed in the 9700Pro, running the same settings in
NR2002
> and NR2003(everything on and maxed out in both) demo the FPS is avg. 8-10
> less than the Ti4600 in opengl or d3d.
> Why? using the latest drivers I could find. 6.14.01.6255
> I thought this card was suppose to faster than the Ti4600.
> Not looking good, on to more testing, but I'm not going to lower my
settings
> when the Ti4600 ran it fine with them.
> 1280x960x32 opengl and D3D. and the Ti4600 seems much faster in D3D in the

by **Jay Taylo** » Tue, 04 Feb 2003 09:39:55

I recently tested out a 9700 pro, and compared it to the 4600 I've been
using for months. My system is a P4 2.53, with 1gig of PC1066 RDRAM.
Anyway I found that the 9700 was about 10fps slower then the GeForce in
OpenGL, however it was about 5-8 fps faster then the GF in D3D, which was
about the same FPS I was getting in Open GL on my geforce. I also tried
disabling a bunch of things to see if I could get much of a FPS increase,
and I really couldn't up the frame rate at all.

What I was running by default was 1600x1200x16 with 2x FSAA on, however on
the 9700 I was running 32 bit instead of 16 bit color, because I saw no
performance difference. What I found was that I could turn on some
anisotropic filtering, and get no lose of performance. Matter of fact I
could run 4x FSAA, and 8x AF with little or no performance hit, these
settings would have brought my Geforce 4 to its knees. The game looked 10x
better on the 9700 with these settings and ran as well in D3D, as I was able
to run the Geforce in OpenGL. So while you might not be able to get much
of a frame rate increase with the 9700 you shoukd be able to turn on alot
more candy with out any lose.

I did notice a much bigger performance increase in other games I tried, like
BF1942, and Ghost Recon. For some reason these types of games saw a big
increase in frame rate with the 9700 pro, as aposed to NR2003 which saw
different results.

Jay Taylor

> Go through your settings and make sure things like 16x anisotropic aren't
> set on. Otherwise, there has to be remnants of your 4600 drivers still
>*** around. Did you install standard vga drivers before switching
cards
> or did you just install the ATI drivers right over the 4600 drivers? If
you
> did it right and are still having a problem, you'll need to find a way to
> clean every bit of the 4600 drivers out of your system, including the
> registry.

> --
> Slot

> Tweaks & Reviews
> www.slottweak.com

> > So far very dissapointed in the 9700Pro, running the same settings in
> NR2002
> > and NR2003(everything on and maxed out in both) demo the FPS is avg.
8-10
> > less than the Ti4600 in opengl or d3d.
> > Why? using the latest drivers I could find. 6.14.01.6255
> > I thought this card was suppose to faster than the Ti4600.
> > Not looking good, on to more testing, but I'm not going to lower my
> settings
> > when the Ti4600 ran it fine with them.
> > 1280x960x32 opengl and D3D. and the Ti4600 seems much faster in D3D in
the

by **Doug Elliso** » Tue, 04 Feb 2003 09:51:19

> So far very dissapointed in the 9700Pro, running the same settings in
NR2002
> and NR2003(everything on and maxed out in both) demo the FPS is avg. 8-10
> less than the Ti4600 in opengl or d3d.
> Why? using the latest drivers I could find. 6.14.01.6255
> I thought this card was suppose to faster than the Ti4600.
> Not looking good, on to more testing, but I'm not going to lower my
settings
> when the Ti4600 ran it fine with them.
> 1280x960x32 opengl and D3D. and the Ti4600 seems much faster in D3D in the

Have you reinstalled windows since the change of card?

Anything like a CPU, Mobo, GFX card, Sound card - a change really requires a
reinstall of windows to eliminate any inapropriate drivers

Doug

by **Marc Collin** » Tue, 04 Feb 2003 10:22:23

Ridiculous.

by **Marc Collin** » Tue, 04 Feb 2003 10:26:06

Great explanation.

I also had a similar interesting experience going from a GeForce2 GTS 64MB
to a 128 MB GeForce 4 8xAGP (Asus v9280). In some games, the fps rose quite
a bit. In GPL and NR2002, the fps was about the same, but I could run in 32
bit with no impact and a few other little goodies also seemed to have no
effect, so basically, you got a bit better looks, but no higher fps.

NR2003 can bring my system to it's knees just by enabling shadows.

P4 2.0, 512 MB Rambus, etc.

Marc

> I recently tested out a 9700 pro, and compared it to the 4600 I've been
> using for months. My system is a P4 2.53, with 1gig of PC1066 RDRAM.
> Anyway I found that the 9700 was about 10fps slower then the GeForce in
> OpenGL, however it was about 5-8 fps faster then the GF in D3D, which was
> about the same FPS I was getting in Open GL on my geforce. I also tried
> disabling a bunch of things to see if I could get much of a FPS increase,
> and I really couldn't up the frame rate at all.

> What I was running by default was 1600x1200x16 with 2x FSAA on, however
on
> the 9700 I was running 32 bit instead of 16 bit color, because I saw no
> performance difference. What I found was that I could turn on some
> anisotropic filtering, and get no lose of performance. Matter of fact I
> could run 4x FSAA, and 8x AF with little or no performance hit, these
> settings would have brought my Geforce 4 to its knees. The game looked
10x
> better on the 9700 with these settings and ran as well in D3D, as I was
able
> to run the Geforce in OpenGL. So while you might not be able to get much
> of a frame rate increase with the 9700 you shoukd be able to turn on alot
> more candy with out any lose.

> I did notice a much bigger performance increase in other games I tried,
like
> BF1942, and Ghost Recon. For some reason these types of games saw a big
> increase in frame rate with the 9700 pro, as aposed to NR2003 which saw
> different results.

> Jay Taylor

> > Go through your settings and make sure things like 16x anisotropic
aren't
> > set on. Otherwise, there has to be remnants of your 4600 drivers still
> >*** around. Did you install standard vga drivers before switching
> cards
> > or did you just install the ATI drivers right over the 4600 drivers? If
> you
> > did it right and are still having a problem, you'll need to find a way
to
> > clean every bit of the 4600 drivers out of your system, including the
> > registry.

> > --
> > Slot

> > Tweaks & Reviews
> > www.slottweak.com

> > > So far very dissapointed in the 9700Pro, running the same settings in
> > NR2002
> > > and NR2003(everything on and maxed out in both) demo the FPS is avg.
> 8-10
> > > less than the Ti4600 in opengl or d3d.
> > > Why? using the latest drivers I could find. 6.14.01.6255
> > > I thought this card was suppose to faster than the Ti4600.
> > > Not looking good, on to more testing, but I'm not going to lower my
> > settings
> > > when the Ti4600 ran it fine with them.
> > > 1280x960x32 opengl and D3D. and the Ti4600 seems much faster in D3D in
> the

by **Doug Elliso** » Tue, 04 Feb 2003 10:48:52

> > Anything like a CPU, Mobo, GFX card, Sound card - a change really
requires
> a
> > reinstall of windows to eliminate any inapropriate drivers

> Ridiculous.

$5 says that if he hasnt reinstalled his OS by now - he'll have a perormance
improvement when he does

Doug

by **Doug Elliso** » Tue, 04 Feb 2003 10:50:22

> > > Anything like a CPU, Mobo, GFX card, Sound card - a change really
> requires
> > a
> > > reinstall of windows to eliminate any inapropriate drivers

> > Ridiculous.

> $5 says that if he hasnt reinstalled his OS by now - he'll have a
perormance
> improvement when he does

Infact - I point you to the post "Ti4600 to a 9700Pro my story" thread just
a few up from this...

"So I figure I gained about 10-15% performance by reformatting and
re-installing Windows on a fresh install, so there probably was some left
over driver instances causing the slowdowns."

He has quantitive values to demonstrate this

Doug

by **TDRacin** » Tue, 04 Feb 2003 13:08:00

Only when a system is poorly maintained. But operated correctly, you won't find a 10-15% performance gain.

> > > > Anything like a CPU, Mobo, GFX card, Sound card - a change really
> > requires
> > > a
> > > > reinstall of windows to eliminate any inapropriate drivers

> > > Ridiculous.

> > $5 says that if he hasnt reinstalled his OS by now - he'll have a
> perormance
> > improvement when he does

> Infact - I point you to the post "Ti4600 to a 9700Pro my story" thread just
> a few up from this...

> "So I figure I gained about 10-15% performance by reformatting and
> re-installing Windows on a fresh install, so there probably was some left
> over driver instances causing the slowdowns."

> He has quantitive values to demonstrate this

> Doug

by **Gene Penma** » Tue, 04 Feb 2003 13:04:23

A reinstall of windows will almost always speed things up.

It sounds like the ATI and Nvidia cards are on par, but when it comes down
to the crunch with features like FSAA and 32 bit colour, where the Nvidia
would bog down the ATI just powers on. I'm seriously considering getting a
9700pro....trying to convince that part of the brain saying 'you've bought
enough already you almighty fool'. I've got a crappy gf3 ti200 at the moment
so it no doubt will blow my socks off.., please someone convince me not to
buy a new card!

massivechicken

> > > > Anything like a CPU, Mobo, GFX card, Sound card - a change really
> > requires
> > > a
> > > > reinstall of windows to eliminate any inapropriate drivers

> > > Ridiculous.

> > $5 says that if he hasnt reinstalled his OS by now - he'll have a
> perormance
> > improvement when he does

> Infact - I point you to the post "Ti4600 to a 9700Pro my story" thread
just
> a few up from this...

> "So I figure I gained about 10-15% performance by reformatting and
> re-installing Windows on a fresh install, so there probably was some left
> over driver instances causing the slowdowns."

> He has quantitive values to demonstrate this

> Doug

by **Glen Pittma** » Tue, 04 Feb 2003 13:22:25

Care to tell me what you think was poorly maintained on my system Tim? When
you follow the directions that are available for removing all drivers for
the Ti4600, and then install the ATI 9700Pro according to the available
instructions, I don't see where that is being poorly maintained....

If you are considering maybe defrag, or other "housecleaning issues" then
save your breathe. Defrag is automatically run on my system every other
week, and not the wimpy Windows version either. Diskkeeper is about the
best I have found, and the most reliable.

So either explain your statement, or choose better wording please.

Glen Pittman

won't find a 10-15% performance gain.

> > > > > Anything like a CPU, Mobo, GFX card, Sound card - a change really
> > > requires
> > > > a
> > > > > reinstall of windows to eliminate any inapropriate drivers

> > > > Ridiculous.

> > > $5 says that if he hasnt reinstalled his OS by now - he'll have a
> > perormance
> > > improvement when he does

> > Infact - I point you to the post "Ti4600 to a 9700Pro my story" thread
just
> > a few up from this...

> > "So I figure I gained about 10-15% performance by reformatting and
> > re-installing Windows on a fresh install, so there probably was some
left
> > over driver instances causing the slowdowns."

> > He has quantitive values to demonstrate this

> > Doug

by **Doug Elliso** » Tue, 04 Feb 2003 20:29:43

: Only when a system is poorly maintained. But operated correctly, you
won't find a 10-15% performance gain.

When the OS is by Microsoft - it's poorly maintained from the day you
install it

Doug

rec.autos.simulators

9700Pro Slower Ti4600

9700Pro Slower Ti4600

9700Pro Slower Ti4600

9700Pro Slower Ti4600

9700Pro Slower Ti4600

9700Pro Slower Ti4600

9700Pro Slower Ti4600

9700Pro Slower Ti4600

9700Pro Slower Ti4600

9700Pro Slower Ti4600

9700Pro Slower Ti4600

9700Pro Slower Ti4600

9700Pro Slower Ti4600

9700Pro Slower Ti4600

9700Pro Slower Ti4600

9700Pro Slower Ti4600