mainly would be using it for NR2003, the demo runs
ok with everything maxed out and 1600x1200 avg. 25
but thats only 11 cars on the track, I'm use to running the whole field in
NR2002.
P4 2.53
1gig PC800
Ti4600
Audigy 2
XP
P4 2.53
1gig PC800
Ti4600
Audigy 2
XP
--
Donald Wilshe
888 588-9207
Martel Brothers Performance, Worlds Largest On-Line Auto Parts Mfg Catalog
Library
www.martelbros.com
Other Interest:
www.ivga.com
www.games-advertising.com
www.whra.com
In 1600x1200, you should notice quite a jump going from the 4600 to the
9700. Possibly almost double the frame rate. Put your 4600 in 1024x768 and
that should give you some idea of how fast a 9700 would be in 1600x1200. I
wouldn't worry about the FX - it's expensive, very noisy and not
particularly fast.
Jason
However, the 9700 series can have very difficult to cure stutter problems in
some rare occasions (on my system it stutters in IL2 when I play online). If
you could test it first, you'd be safer.
Achim
Well, since your current card is pretty stout, I would wait to see
waht the new ATI card (due out in April or May?) has to offer, and
compare that one with the FX, and then make a choice between the two
of those.
Currently, the FX is supposed to only 5-10% faster than the 9700 Pro,
but the Pro is 10-30% cheaper than the FX will be when it hits the
street.
--
See ya in the pits,
Dean
I have a terrible memory. In fact my memory's so bad I can't remember how
long it's been since I've forgotten anything.
Marc
> >In 1600x1200, you should notice quite a jump going from the 4600 to the
> >9700. Possibly almost double the frame rate. Put your 4600 in 1024x768
and
> >that should give you some idea of how fast a 9700 would be in 1600x1200.
I
> >wouldn't worry about the FX - it's expensive, very noisy and not
> >particularly fast.
> I'm really disappointed in the FX previews I've read so far. I
> suppose a 9700 will be in my future as well. Feh.
> Jason
Probably not looking to do a vidcard upgrade until the 3gHz cpu's
become the standard and I can build a new system.
Jason
> The one without the fan is DEFINITELY in my future (as soon as the price
> comes down a bit). Sapphire 9700 Pro Utlimate. Check it out. I can't
> stand how noisy computers are these days and this will help a lot.
The Sapphire card was released a couple of days after I received my
9700PRO, but such is life :-)
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
http://www.theuspits.com
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
--Groucho Marx--
> --
> See ya in the pits,
> Dean
> I have a terrible memory. In fact my memory's so bad I can't remember how
> long it's been since I've forgotten anything.
> > Would I gain anything buy going to the 9700??or wait on the FX
> > mainly would be using it for NR2003, the demo runs
> > ok with everything maxed out and 1600x1200 avg. 25
> > but thats only 11 cars on the track, I'm use to running the whole field
in
> > NR2002.
> > P4 2.53
> > 1gig PC800
> > Ti4600
> > Audigy 2
> > XP
I think within weeks (if not at the same time) nVidia releases the
long-delayed FX boards ATI is gonna pee all over their parade with the next
version of their board.
Next quarter looks to be interesting.
And we should also see the prices on the current 9700 pro drop considerably
when this all starts to pan out. Sometimes it's better to be second-fastest
:)
Larry
> > P4 2.53
> > 1gig PC800
> > Ti4600
> > Audigy 2
> > XP
> Well, since your current card is pretty stout, I would wait to see
> waht the new ATI card (due out in April or May?) has to offer, and
> compare that one with the FX, and then make a choice between the two
> of those.
> Currently, the FX is supposed to only 5-10% faster than the 9700 Pro,
> but the Pro is 10-30% cheaper than the FX will be when it hits the
> street.