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
Is the Radeon 9700 Pro worth it for NR2003?
Larry asked how the Radeon 9700 Pro performed in NR2003 compared with his Ti4400, given his past bad experiences with ATI drivers. Owners reported good stability with Catalyst drivers, which ATI updated to 3.1 with NR2003 fixes, but Don Burnette found only modest gains since the game was CPU-limited. Larry decided to wait for a price drop.
hardware: PC/graphicsNASCAR Racing 2003 Season
Automated summary.
Larry wrote:
Not in N2003, but this article used N2002
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,740529,00.asp
> 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 ?
I moved on from V5's (3 PC's) to ATI Radeons in the past year, currently
two R8500 and one 9700 PRO
I've yet to come across any serious problems that I can contribute to
the cards or the drivers except some problems running the LFS beta, I
don't run GPL.....:-)
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--
Quoted text (7 lines)
> > 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?Thanks!
However, after some research, I've found that the 9700 Pro has not gone
through a price reduction yet. With nVidia's troubles,it might be a while
before it does.
Odd that a 5 month old card is still selling at the original SRP. New Egg
has them for $338, but that's too much for what I would get out of the
change.
I was expecting around $275 for the RETAIL (I don't do OEM) card.
I'm sure someone on pricewatch somewhere sells it for that, but who the hell
knows what you're going to get yourself into when shopping on Pricewatch!
Larry
"Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
demise of
> > the GeForce FX Ultra, I might go in that direction now.
> >
> > I currently have a Ti4400. Has anyone done a comparison between thetwo?
>
> Not in N2003, but this article used N2002
>
> http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,740529,00.asp
>
> > From past experience, the ATI drivers have always been a sore point withme
> > (and a lot of other people). How are the current drivers, especiallywith
Quoted text (7 lines)
> > > Larry wrote: > > > > Ok, how is this card working out? > > > > With the apparant (though I have not seen officially acknowledged)Quoted text (18 lines)
> > NR2003 ? > > I moved on from V5's (3 PC's) to ATI Radeons in the past year, currently > two R8500 and one 9700 PRO > > I've yet to come across any serious problems that I can contribute to > the cards or the drivers except some problems running the LFS beta, I > don't run GPL.....:-) > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > "goyl at nettx dot no" > > http://www.theuspits.com > > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" > --Groucho Marx--I've used pricewatch quite a few times. Never had a bad experience.
Vintook
"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:2CU1a.22400$[email hidden]...
hell
with
Quoted text (13 lines)
> Thanks! > > However, after some research, I've found that the 9700 Pro has not gone > through a price reduction yet. With nVidia's troubles,it might be a while > before it does. > > Odd that a 5 month old card is still selling at the original SRP. New Egg > has them for $338, but that's too much for what I would get out of the > change. > > I was expecting around $275 for the RETAIL (I don't do OEM) card. > > I'm sure someone on pricewatch somewhere sells it for that, but who theQuoted text (24 lines)
> knows what you're going to get yourself into when shopping on Pricewatch! > > Larry > > "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > Larry wrote: > > > > > > 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? > > > > Not in N2003, but this article used N2002 > > > > http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,740529,00.asp > > > > > From past experience, the ATI drivers have always been a sore pointQuoted text (23 lines)
> me > > > (and a lot of other people). How are the current drivers, especially > with > > > NR2003 ? > > > > I moved on from V5's (3 PC's) to ATI Radeons in the past year, currently > > two R8500 and one 9700 PRO > > > > I've yet to come across any serious problems that I can contribute to > > the cards or the drivers except some problems running the LFS beta, I > > don't run GPL.....:-) > > > > > > 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-- > >This card and it's drivers are really no better or worse than any given
detonator was on my GF3. Cat3/DX9 has worked very well on my system,
P4-2.53 oc to 2.7 P4T533C PC1066. A couple anomalies but not isolated to
the 9700 Pro. Ive heard about some issues that are going to be fixed with
the next cat release but I think something about the Ogl slowdowns and FSAA
in NR6. I think this card works better usiing the D3D rast to this point
though. I paid $350 about 2 months ago retail and have been really happy.
Well as happy as one can get spending $350 on a fn vid card :)
Bear in mind Larry, I said the same thing you did about ATI drivers prior to
this purchase ;)
Ive run most all at1600X1200X32
NR2003 (40fps full field in back near max, 70 spread out)
GTR-2002 (Beeutifus!)
F1-2002 (Never actually tried it)
IL2 (To much card but suweet. Where Forgotten Battles at?)
CFS3 (Not a stutter1 at 5's)
Americas Army (Maxed, excellent for the 300meter kia's)
Mitch
"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:%PT1a.22203$[email hidden]...
> Ok, how is this card working out?
>
> With the apparant (though I have not seen officially acknowledged) demiseof
> 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 withme
> (and a lot of other people). How are the current drivers, especially with
> NR2003 ?
>
> Larry
>
>
Ditto here, with about a half dozen different vendors.
"Vintook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:NXU1a.26752$%[email hidden]...
while
> > before it does.
> >
> > Odd that a 5 month old card is still selling at the original SRP. NewEgg
Pricewatch!
especially
> > with
> > > > NR2003 ?
> > >
> > > I moved on from V5's (3 PC's) to ATI Radeons in the past year,currently
Quoted text (10 lines)
> I've used pricewatch quite a few times. Never had a bad experience. > > Vintook > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:2CU1a.22400$[email hidden]... > > Thanks! > > > > However, after some research, I've found that the 9700 Pro has not gone > > through a price reduction yet. With nVidia's troubles,it might be aQuoted text (8 lines)
> > has them for $338, but that's too much for what I would get out of the > > change. > > > > I was expecting around $275 for the RETAIL (I don't do OEM) card. > > > > I'm sure someone on pricewatch somewhere sells it for that, but who the > hell > > knows what you're going to get yourself into when shopping onQuoted text (26 lines)
> > > > Larry > > > > "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > Larry wrote: > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > Not in N2003, but this article used N2002 > > > > > > http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,740529,00.asp > > > > > > > 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,Quoted text (19 lines)
> > > two R8500 and one 9700 PRO > > > > > > I've yet to come across any serious problems that I can contribute to > > > the cards or the drivers except some problems running the LFS beta, I > > > don't run GPL.....:-) > > > > > > > > > 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-- > > > > > >Goy,
Can you make a quick comparison between the 8500 and the 9700Pro, in terms of
performance and/or framerates?
I presently have the 8500LE (like you, after having a Voodoo5), and am considering
replacing it with a 9700Pro (or 9500 Pro). Can you provide any hard numbers such
as difference in frame rates, or in 3DMark scores? I'd like to hear subjective
opinions (image quality, etc) too.
Thanks!
Bert
Goy Larsen wrote:
Quoted text (32 lines)
> Larry wrote: > > > > 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? > > Not in N2003, but this article used N2002 > > http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,740529,00.asp > > > 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 ? > > I moved on from V5's (3 PC's) to ATI Radeons in the past year, currently > two R8500 and one 9700 PRO > > I've yet to come across any serious problems that I can contribute to > the cards or the drivers except some problems running the LFS beta, I > don't run GPL.....:-) > > 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--Goy,
Can you make a quick comparison between the 8500 and the 9700Pro, in terms of
performance and/or framerates?
I presently have the 8500LE (like you, after having a Voodoo5), and am considering
replacing it with a 9700Pro (or 9500 Pro). Can you provide any hard numbers such
as difference in frame rates, or in 3DMark scores? I'd like to hear subjective
opinions (image quality, etc) too.
Thanks!
Bert
Quoted text (30 lines)
> > 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? > Not in N2003, but this article used N2002 > http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,740529,00.asp > > 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 ? > I moved on from V5's (3 PC's) to ATI Radeons in the past year, currently > two R8500 and one 9700 PRO > I've yet to come across any serious problems that I can contribute to > the cards or the drivers except some problems running the LFS beta, I > don't run GPL.....:-) > 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--
BRH wrote:
I'm afraid that of my 3 PC's only my gaming PC has ever had NR2003
installed, and that was after I bought the 9700
The last 3DMark score I did before switching cards was a 9900 or so with
a heavily OC'ed R8500LE (310/310) on an XP2600+, non OC'ed it would be
around 8500 ?, currently at 14500 or so, not OC'ed
I haven't really looked at FPS and stuff yet as I've barely had the time
to install N2003 and run a few laps, too busy enjoying myself to worry
about the Gfx bit :-)
I went a bit overboard with my vid card this time around, normally I
would have waited for the price to drop a little and then buy the 9500
PRO, but had a buyer on my R8500 and my supplier only had the 9700 PRO
in stock right there and then, so I figured, what the hell, for once I'm
going to have the fastest vid there is :-)
Visual quality.....without comparing side by side it's hard to say
really, especially since I've raised the resolution 2 notches and piled
on 4xAA and 8X Aniso
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--
Quoted text (10 lines)
> > Goy, > > Can you make a quick comparison between the 8500 and the 9700Pro, in terms of > performance and/or framerates? > > I presently have the 8500LE (like you, after having a Voodoo5), and am considering > replacing it with a 9700Pro (or 9500 Pro). Can you provide any hard numbers such > as difference in frame rates, or in 3DMark scores? I'd like to hear subjective > opinions (image quality, etc) too.
"Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Goy, (if you have time)
I have a P4 1.8 GHz, 512 Meg RAM running Win XP Pro.
My current videocard is a GF 3 Ti 500 w 64 Meg.
I have been thinking about getting the 9700 Pro for my machine since the GF
Fx has had bad reviews due to sound issues of the new GF Fx)
Would I see that much of a difference with my cpu ?
Thanks in advance.
Elrikk
Quoted text (15 lines)
> > I went a bit overboard with my vid card this time around, normally I > would have waited for the price to drop a little and then buy the 9500 > PRO, but had a buyer on my R8500 and my supplier only had the 9700 PRO > in stock right there and then, so I figured, what the hell, for once I'm > going to have the fastest vid there is :-) > > Visual quality.....without comparing side by side it's hard to say > really, especially since I've raised the resolution 2 notches and piled > on 4xAA and 8X Aniso > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > "goyl at nettx dot no"ATI just released new drivers today. Catalyst 3.1 that officially support
16bit FSAA now and corrected a few issues in NR2003.
-Tim
"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:%PT1a.22203$[email hidden]...
> Ok, how is this card working out?
>
> With the apparant (though I have not seen officially acknowledged) demiseof
> 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 withme
> (and a lot of other people). How are the current drivers, especially with
> NR2003 ?
>
> Larry
>
>
Just an FYI for you. I just bought the FIC 9700 pro oem from newegg and
love it. I have had no problems and it came with everything, PowerDVD, S
video cable, and a RCA cable , just in a white box. I built a new system so
I can't tell you how it worked out on the A7M266, but on my Nforce2 Leadtek
mobo with a XP2100 it kicks some serious rear end. When I installed NR2002
the 3d config program set everything but 3d sound to max including a full 24
sounds played. I finally have the NR2002/NR2003 looking like the screen
shots I have seen posted. :)
MadDAWG
I had a GF3 on a Xp1800 and just built a XP2100 with an ATI 9700 pro and oh
joy. Not only should you see a frame rate increase, but the quality should
go up as well. Keep in mind that the Nvidia cards before a GF4 have a
hardware bug that screws up 32 bit color so getting rid of we help the looks
as well.
MadDAWG
Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:%PT1a.22203$[email hidden]...
> Ok, how is this card working out?
>
> With the apparant (though I have not seen officially acknowledged) demiseof
> 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 withme
> (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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
demise
> of
> > the GeForce FX Ultra, I might go in that direction now.
> >
> > I currently have a Ti4400. Has anyone done a comparison between thetwo?
> >
> > 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, especiallywith
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 15,000with
> 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 alittle.
> With the Ti4400, my framerates were more consistant, ie they did notchange
> a hell of a lot at different areas of the track. My framerates with the9700
of
> the track. The front stretch with the solar flare is where it is thelowest.
> This is with no overclocking of the vid card yet, and no fsaa oranisotropic
> 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 soldmy
> 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 Ireally
> 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.
Quoted text (7 lines)
> > > Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:%PT1a.22203$[email hidden]... > > Ok, how is this card working out? > > > > With the apparant (though I have not seen officially acknowledged)Quoted text (10 lines)
> > 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 CQuoted text (10 lines)
> 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
elrikk wrote:
Who knows, to some extent I'm sure you'd see that, especially in the
higher resolutions and with AA and Aniso enabled, and the AA of these
new Ati card are a fair step up from the AA in the GF3
Other than that N2003 seems to be very dependent on the CPU, one of the
guys at "The Pits" has an Athlon 1300 and a R9000, and since he sees
little or difference going from 1600x1200 to 800x600, we can only assume
his system is CPU limited, at 1300 Mhz :-)
John Simmons has an Athlon 1800 or something I believe, with a 9700 PRO,
guess you could compare to his system
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
"goyl at nettx dot no"
"The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels"
--Groucho Marx--
Quoted text (11 lines)
> > Goy, (if you have time) > > I have a P4 1.8 GHz, 512 Meg RAM running Win XP Pro. > > My current videocard is a GF 3 Ti 500 w 64 Meg. > > I have been thinking about getting the 9700 Pro for my machine since the GF > Fx has had bad reviews due to sound issues of the new GF Fx) > > Would I see that much of a difference with my cpu ?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?
Larry
"MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Just an FYI for you. I just bought the FIC 9700 pro oem from newegg and
> love it. I have had no problems and it came with everything, PowerDVD, S
> video cable, and a RCA cable , just in a white box. I built a new systemso
> I can't tell you how it worked out on the A7M266, but on my Nforce2Leadtek
> mobo with a XP2100 it kicks some serious rear end. When I installedNR2002
> the 3d config program set everything but 3d sound to max including a full24
> sounds played. I finally have the NR2002/NR2003 looking like the screen
> shots I have seen posted. :)
>
> MadDAWG
>
>
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:19:49 -0500, "Joe M."
>RAM. I'm considering a 2100+ since it's a cheap upgrade and probably good
>for 5-10 fps.
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 drugs are illegal-what
the hell is a computer)
Don,
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
"Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
demise
> of
> > the GeForce FX Ultra, I might go in that direction now.
> >
> > I currently have a Ti4400. Has anyone done a comparison between thetwo?
> >
> > 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, especiallywith
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 15,000with
> 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 alittle.
> With the Ti4400, my framerates were more consistant, ie they did notchange
> a hell of a lot at different areas of the track. My framerates with the9700
of
> the track. The front stretch with the solar flare is where it is thelowest.
> This is with no overclocking of the vid card yet, and no fsaa oranisotropic
> 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 soldmy
> 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 Ireally
Quoted text (7 lines)
> > > Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:%PT1a.22203$[email hidden]... > > Ok, how is this card working out? > > > > With the apparant (though I have not seen officially acknowledged)Quoted text (10 lines)
> > 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 CQuoted text (10 lines)
> 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 areaQuoted text (8 lines)
> like it though. > > It also runs MS CFS3 very well for me. > > Don Burnette > > >You know, GeForce cards are so BAD at FSAA performance anyway that I would
hope that ATI does much better :)
Larry
"Joe M." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
with
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 thefirst
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, dependingupon
> > 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 thearea
fps.
> > So far I am pleased with the card, although I am not sure theperformance
> > 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 seeif
and
> 16xAnis; that's where most have reported the huge performance benefitsover
> high end GF4 cards. In traditional benches (3D Mark, etc) and gameswithout
> 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 howcpu
> 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 andconsistent
Quoted text (17 lines)
> "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:%PT1a.22203$[email hidden]... > > > 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 pointQuoted text (11 lines)
> > 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 ProQuoted text (18 lines)
> > 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. CarsQuoted text (9 lines)
> 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 inQuoted text (10 lines)
> > 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 6xFSAAQuoted text (11 lines)
> 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. > > > > >I know that the oem cards use to use the chips that didn't make the grade,
but supposedly as long as it has the ATI logo on the fan and a catch phrase
like "built by ATI partner" or something like that its suppose to be the
full thing. I checked the clock speeds, which is were the oem cards would
deferrer, and it matches the 9700 pro spec. You probably still need to do
the homework when looking at the oem cards, but there are good ones out
there. I wouldn't get to hung up on bandwidth numbers since they are all
theoretical, so each company may figure them a little different. What you'll
want to watch is core and memory speeds.
MadDAWG
Don, I think you are cpu limited with those settings. Try turning up anios
to 16x and 4xFSAA and see if it effects your framerates. If you are cpu
limited, those settings should be basically free.
-Tim
"Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
demise
> of
> > the GeForce FX Ultra, I might go in that direction now.
> >
> > I currently have a Ti4400. Has anyone done a comparison between thetwo?
> >
> > 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, especiallywith
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 15,000with
> 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 alittle.
> With the Ti4400, my framerates were more consistant, ie they did notchange
> a hell of a lot at different areas of the track. My framerates with the9700
of
> the track. The front stretch with the solar flare is where it is thelowest.
> This is with no overclocking of the vid card yet, and no fsaa oranisotropic
> 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 soldmy
> 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 Ireally
Quoted text (7 lines)
> > > Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:%PT1a.22203$[email hidden]... > > Ok, how is this card working out? > > > > With the apparant (though I have not seen officially acknowledged)Quoted text (10 lines)
> > 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 CQuoted text (10 lines)
> 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 areaQuoted text (8 lines)
> like it though. > > It also runs MS CFS3 very well for me. > > Don Burnette > > >
Larry wrote:
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--
Quoted text (9 lines)
> > 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?"ssrat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:19:49 -0500, "Joe M."
> >RAM. I'm considering a 2100+ since it's a cheap upgrade and probablygood
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 drugs 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.
Quoted text (11 lines)
> >for 5-10 fps. > > If you want a 2100 try ECONO PC--$79.00 > Go to www.pricewatch.com and look at cpus's, they shouuld be 2-3rd on > the list. > They want you to get a Volano5 pack with it which gives them their > profit. > I ordered from them on wed, next day they called and said are you > really really sure all you want is the cpu? > Hell if you don't want to sell at that price don't underbid on > pricewatch <G>.(they shipped)Glad it helped Larry.
--
Don Burnette
"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:38a2a.27894$[email hidden]...
> Don,
>
> 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
>
> "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
> >
> >
> > Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> > news:%PT1a.22203$[email hidden]...
> > > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
I'll give it a try Tim , thanks.
--
Don Burnette
"Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Don, I think you are cpu limited with those settings. Try turning up
anios
> to 16x and 4xFSAA and see if it effects your framerates. If you are cpu
> limited, those settings should be basically free.
>
> -Tim
>
> "Don Burnette" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
> >
> >
> > Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> > news:%PT1a.22203$[email hidden]...
> > > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Cool :)
Nice bundle with the Herc card too.
Larry
"Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
>
> Larry wrote:
> >
> > These third-party 9700 Pro's, are they just re-boxed ATI cards, or arethe
> > 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 ofbandwidth.
Quoted text (20 lines)
> > 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--
Larry wrote:
>
> Cool :)
>
> Nice bundle with the Herc card too.
I've no idea.....:-), haven't even looked at the CD's that came with the
card yet...:-)
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--
Has anyone elsed noticed that the huge pricing plataue between AMD and Intel
proccessors has eroded to nearly nothing these days?
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
"Joe M." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
of
> 'em for RAID striping and mirroring. DVD burner? Why not! I'm ahardware
> junky like the rest of 'em.
>
> --
> Joe M.
>
>
Quoted text (30 lines)
> "ssrat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:19:49 -0500, "Joe M." > > >RAM. I'm considering a 2100+ since it's a cheap upgrade and probably > good > > >for 5-10 fps. > > > > If you want a 2100 try ECONO PC--$79.00 > > Go to www.pricewatch.com and look at cpus's, they shouuld be 2-3rd on > > the list. > > They want you to get a Volano5 pack with it which gives them their > > profit. > > I ordered from them on wed, next day they called and said are you > > really really sure all you want is the cpu? > > Hell if you don't want to sell at that price don't underbid on > > pricewatch <G>.(they shipped) > > Although that's a great price, I'll stick with newegg. Cannot beat their > combo of price/service. Thanks for the price alert anyway, much > appreciated. > > > Of course this only applies if you don't live in IL (that's their > > base) > > Time to save for a full upgrade- AMD Barton,Nforce 2 board, DDR, and > > a larger harddrive.. oh yeah and another case, oh plus a 9700 (or > > whatevers the best in 6mths- who the hell said drugs are illegal-what > > the hell is a computer) > > I'm with you. Drooling over the Asus A7N8X. Slap in 1 GB RAM (2x512 for > dual channel). Just read a bit about 10,000 rpm Serial HD's. Throw in 4"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Nuz2a.33263$[email hidden]...
> Has anyone elsed noticed that the huge pricing plataue between AMD andIntel
> proccessors has eroded to nearly nothing these days?
>
> I also saw on TSS Monday, I think, that the AMD Athlon 3000+ was listingat
> 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, AMDand
> 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.
I like AMD too, but my current machine was built with a high-end system
board and an Intel P4 2.53Ghz. It's the first Intel system I've built in
years.
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
"Joe M." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
the
so
> comfortable with AMD hardware (having used AMD for the last 16 monthsafter
> having Intel inside for the previous 10+ years) that I may have
> subconsciously avoided Intel pricing so I wouldn't be tempted tocross-over
