rec.autos.simulators

by **GLege** » Sun, 04 May 2003 14:18:05

I just purchased an ATI Radeon 9800 to replace an Nvidia Ti4400.
I formatted the c drive, and reinstalled windows xp.
I'm getting worse performance than with the Nvidia card.
I haven't used any of the benchmark programs, but I play alot of Nascar 2k3,
and
the framerate is much less than with the Ti4400.
I was getting anywhere from 60 to 100 fps. Now I'm getting anywhere from 30
to 60 fps.
I tried turning down the different graphics, and the resolution

I'm new to the ATI cards, and I'm wondering if I missed some settings in
bios, or for the card?
In the ATI control panel, I have it set on performance, with the anti
aliasing and anisotroping set to the minimum. There has to be something
that I'm missing, after all, this ATI card is supposed to smoke the 4400.

Specs:

Pentium 4 2.0a northwood
Asus P4B266 mobo
768 mb ram
ATI 3.2 catalyst drivers
Audigy 2.0
Directx 9.0a
WinXP

Another issue I'm seeing is when I go to the advanced settings in display
properties, where you make changes to the direct 3d, or opengl settings, I
click on apply, and my screen goes blank, then nothing but garbled graphics,
and I have to hard boot.

TIA

by **Achi** » Sun, 04 May 2003 19:53:10

...

Might be a case of old Nvidia driver remnants colliding with the ATI
stuff. I've always found this quite hard to believe, but many insist it
happens.

Use D3D for N2k3 if you don't use it already. Make sure to uncheck the
'Application preference' checkbutton of the FSAA and Aniso features, and
check that Vsync is set to 'Always off', to be sure they're set to what
you want them to be set to. N2k3 may enable Vsync, or select too much
Aniso or FSAA without you noticing it. 4xFSAA and 8xAniso are good values
(you can see in N2k3's rendxxx.ini files what N2k3 selects).

--
Achim

** Mail sent to this address is automatically deleted **

by **Don Burnett** » Sun, 04 May 2003 21:27:14

> I just purchased an ATI Radeon 9800 to replace an Nvidia Ti4400.
> I formatted the c drive, and reinstalled windows xp.
> I'm getting worse performance than with the Nvidia card.
> I haven't used any of the benchmark programs, but I play alot of
> Nascar 2k3, and
> the framerate is much less than with the Ti4400.
> I was getting anywhere from 60 to 100 fps. Now I'm getting anywhere
> from 30 to 60 fps.
> I tried turning down the different graphics, and the resolution

> I'm new to the ATI cards, and I'm wondering if I missed some settings
> in bios, or for the card?
> In the ATI control panel, I have it set on performance, with the anti
> aliasing and anisotroping set to the minimum. There has to be
> something that I'm missing, after all, this ATI card is supposed to
> smoke the 4400.

> Specs:

> Pentium 4 2.0a northwood
> Asus P4B266 mobo
> 768 mb ram
> ATI 3.2 catalyst drivers
> Audigy 2.0
> Directx 9.0a
> WinXP

> Another issue I'm seeing is when I go to the advanced settings in
> display properties, where you make changes to the direct 3d, or
> opengl settings, I click on apply, and my screen goes blank, then
> nothing but garbled graphics, and I have to hard boot.

> TIA

I updgraded from a Ti4400 to a 9700 Pro and saw considerable increased
performance.
Do you have vsynch disabled?
On my XP2400+, my 9700 Pro gives me framerates of 60-70+, running
1280x960x32, 4X AA and 8X anisitropic.
Something is amiss if your screen goes blank and then you get garbled
graphics.
Did you install the cat 3.2 drivers first, reboot, then install the ATI
control panel, then reboot?
If not, try uninstalling the control panel, then uninstall the cat3.2
drivers, then reinstall in the above order.

--
Don Burnette

remove clothes when replying via email

by **Vint..** » Mon, 05 May 2003 01:32:02

Did you even bother to really read his post? Go back and read it again.

You might actually find that he did a complete reinstall of XP(it's in the
second line of his post).........

Vintook

> ...
> > I'm getting worse performance than with the Nvidia card.
> ...
> > click on apply, and my screen goes blank,
> > then nothing but garbled graphics,

> Might be a case of old Nvidia driver remnants colliding with the ATI
> stuff. I've always found this quite hard to believe, but many insist it
> happens.

> Use D3D for N2k3 if you don't use it already. Make sure to uncheck the
> 'Application preference' checkbutton of the FSAA and Aniso features, and
> check that Vsync is set to 'Always off', to be sure they're set to what
> you want them to be set to. N2k3 may enable Vsync, or select too much
> Aniso or FSAA without you noticing it. 4xFSAA and 8xAniso are good values
> (you can see in N2k3's rendxxx.ini files what N2k3 selects).

> --
> Achim

> ** Mail sent to this address is automatically deleted **

by **Larr** » Mon, 05 May 2003 03:47:16

I don't know what the problem is (it's ATI, so it's most likely a driver
issue), but the Radeon 9800 Pro has not been getting the best of reviews due
it's performance issues.

This is very disappointing. With nVidia's very weak release of their new
cards, the Radeon 9800 was also going to replace my Ti4400, but now I'm in a
holding pattern until this mess gets all worked out.

Larry

by **El Seno** » Mon, 05 May 2003 03:58:36

> In the ATI control panel, I have it set on performance, with the
anti
> aliasing and anisotroping set to the minimum. There has to be
something
> that I'm missing, after all, this ATI card is supposed to smoke the

4400.

Is AGP set to 4x or 8x in the Smartgard panel? For some reason it
defaulted to 1x when I first installed my ATI card.

Also, are all updates for WindowsXP installed?

-Mike

by **John Simmon** » Mon, 05 May 2003 06:06:48

Larry, when I first got my 9700 Pro, I spent many a days on the
Rage3D web site ironing out little gotchas.

by **Steve Smit** » Mon, 05 May 2003 20:15:28

From what I read, the 9800 isn't as fast as the 9700.

> > I just purchased an ATI Radeon 9800 to replace an Nvidia Ti4400.
> > I formatted the c drive, and reinstalled windows xp.
> > I'm getting worse performance than with the Nvidia card.
> > I haven't used any of the benchmark programs, but I play alot of
> > Nascar 2k3, and
> > the framerate is much less than with the Ti4400.
> > I was getting anywhere from 60 to 100 fps. Now I'm getting anywhere
> > from 30 to 60 fps.
> > I tried turning down the different graphics, and the resolution

> > I'm new to the ATI cards, and I'm wondering if I missed some settings
> > in bios, or for the card?
> > In the ATI control panel, I have it set on performance, with the anti
> > aliasing and anisotroping set to the minimum. There has to be
> > something that I'm missing, after all, this ATI card is supposed to
> > smoke the 4400.

> > Specs:

> > Pentium 4 2.0a northwood
> > Asus P4B266 mobo
> > 768 mb ram
> > ATI 3.2 catalyst drivers
> > Audigy 2.0
> > Directx 9.0a
> > WinXP

> > Another issue I'm seeing is when I go to the advanced settings in
> > display properties, where you make changes to the direct 3d, or
> > opengl settings, I click on apply, and my screen goes blank, then
> > nothing but garbled graphics, and I have to hard boot.

> > TIA

> I updgraded from a Ti4400 to a 9700 Pro and saw considerable increased
> performance.
> Do you have vsynch disabled?
> On my XP2400+, my 9700 Pro gives me framerates of 60-70+, running
> 1280x960x32, 4X AA and 8X anisitropic.
> Something is amiss if your screen goes blank and then you get garbled
> graphics.
> Did you install the cat 3.2 drivers first, reboot, then install the ATI
> control panel, then reboot?
> If not, try uninstalling the control panel, then uninstall the cat3.2
> drivers, then reinstall in the above order.

> --
> Don Burnette

> remove clothes when replying via email

by **Goy Larse** » Mon, 05 May 2003 23:58:39

> From what I read, the 9800 isn't as fast as the 9700.

Which only goes to show that you shouldn't believe everything you
read....:-)

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030306/radeon9800pro-33.html
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1794

There is however some reports that the 9600 PRO is somewhat slower than
the 9500 PRO it replaces due to the simpler architecture of the 9600
PRO, some people have likened it to an overclocked 9500 non PRO

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--

by **grrrpoo** » Tue, 06 May 2003 00:24:03

Got a link to your info?

All the major review sites I've seen show the 9800 (with its higher core/mem
speeds and more efficient AA) beating the 9700 every time.

www.anandtech.com
www.hardocp.com
www.tomshardware.com

to name but 3 - 9800 reviews were recentish, should be easy to find em from
the from the main pages.

by **Dave Henri** » Tue, 06 May 2003 00:45:19

I think you will find that in SOME instances, the 9700pro will win out.
BUT...as we progress into more complex graphic calls with the vertex
shading stuff, then the 9800pro will probably slow down a little bit less
than the 9700pro.
dave henrie

btw...I saw a recent PCWorld mag. In the new products section they had a
short story about the 9800 not quite beating the new Nvidia products. Then
in the editorial section one of the writers stated the new ATI was stomping
Nvidia. :)
Bottom line, the MORE features you enable, the more the difference
between the 97 and 98's will be noticable.
dh

by **Larr** » Tue, 06 May 2003 01:54:51

And that's what basically prevented me from getting the 97 Pro :)

I know the 97 Pro is all but ironed out now. However, If I'm dumping
$300-$400 on a video card, I want the latest, greatest thing that will last
at least 4 weeks before being replaced with something better LOL!

That's why I waited for the 98 Pro, and why I'm also disappointed with the
issues it is widely known as having.

I know it's drivers. Their hardware is first-rate. ATI has gotten a LOT
better with it's driver situation but they just still aren't there yet.

Frankly, I don't know what the hell to do so I'm just sticking with the
Ti4400 which, frankly, doesn't really need replacing anyway. I'm pulling
anywhere from 40 to 100 fps full tilt so it's kind of a 'want' thing, not a
'need' thing.

Larry

> > I don't know what the problem is (it's ATI, so it's most likely a driver
> > issue), but the Radeon 9800 Pro has not been getting the best of reviews
due
> > it's performance issues.

> > This is very disappointing. With nVidia's very weak release of their
new
> > cards, the Radeon 9800 was also going to replace my Ti4400, but now I'm
in a
> > holding pattern until this mess gets all worked out.

> Larry, when I first got my 9700 Pro, I spent many a days on the
> Rage3D web site ironing out little gotchas.

by **Steve Smit** » Tue, 06 May 2003 02:52:27

Yes, obviously, I meant the 9800 PRO v. the 9700 PRO.

> > From what I read, the 9800 isn't as fast as the 9700.

> Which only goes to show that you shouldn't believe everything you
> read....:-)

> http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030306/radeon9800pro-33.html
> http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1794

> There is however some reports that the 9600 PRO is somewhat slower than
> the 9500 PRO it replaces due to the simpler architecture of the 9600
> PRO, some people have likened it to an overclocked 9500 non PRO

> 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--

by **Joachim Trens** » Tue, 06 May 2003 06:00:21

Well so what, in this case one item of advice I gave didn't apply, all the
others do.

Achim

by **Joachim Trens** » Tue, 06 May 2003 06:01:33

Where did you read that Steve? Someone else recently reported having read
this here in this NG but never told us where, and I'd really like to read
that article or review as well.

Achim

rec.autos.simulators

Radeon 9800 Poor performance

Radeon 9800 Poor performance

Radeon 9800 Poor performance

Radeon 9800 Poor performance

Radeon 9800 Poor performance

Radeon 9800 Poor performance

Radeon 9800 Poor performance

Radeon 9800 Poor performance

Radeon 9800 Poor performance

Radeon 9800 Poor performance

Radeon 9800 Poor performance

Radeon 9800 Poor performance

Radeon 9800 Poor performance

Radeon 9800 Poor performance

Radeon 9800 Poor performance

Radeon 9800 Poor performance