9700 Owners with NR2003 Demo

How is it working with the demo? And what are your other system specs? Opengl vs. D3D? What resolution? with everything turned on?

Works great! Asus A7N8X Deluxe AMD 2700+ 512MB Dual DDR ATI 9700 Pro Adaptec 19160 SCSI Controller Seagate 73GB SCSI HD Sony SCSI CD-RW I prefer the look of OpenGL to D3D and performance wise I don't see much difference. Resolution 1856 x 1392 32 bit (@ 2048 x 1536 my monitor only supports 60Hz) ~40fps All options but dynamic shadows on. I find that dynamic shadows make a really bit performance hit, and produce very little eye candy for the value. But that's just my opinion... Mike "Morris Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> How is it working with the demo? > And what are your other system specs? > Opengl vs. D3D? > What resolution? > with everything turned on? > > >

Being a Nvidia adept, I was totally impressed by how the N2003 demo looked on one of my friends' PC with a 9700: the colors were great, no jaggies, better framerates, even in XP. I have a Ti4400 and run in Win98Se (WinXP runs like molasse) and got worse fps with comparable settings. -- Philippe "Philster" Sergerie "Morris Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > How is it working with the demo? > And what are your other system specs? > Opengl vs. D3D? > What resolution? > with everything turned on? > > >

No shit, with a system like that.... :) -- Philippe "Philster" Sergerie "Michael Basden" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:DtF_9.185146$[email hidden]... > Works great! > > Asus A7N8X Deluxe > AMD 2700+ > 512MB Dual DDR > ATI 9700 Pro > Adaptec 19160 SCSI Controller > Seagate 73GB SCSI HD > Sony SCSI CD-RW > > I prefer the look of OpenGL to D3D and performance wise I don't see much > difference. > > Resolution 1856 x 1392 32 bit (@ 2048 x 1536 my monitor only supports 60Hz) > ~40fps > > All options but dynamic shadows on. I find that dynamic shadows make a > really bit performance hit, and produce very little eye candy for the value. > But that's just my opinion... > > Mike > > > "Morris Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > How is it working with the demo? > > And what are your other system specs? > > Opengl vs. D3D? > > What resolution? > > with everything turned on? > > > > > > > >

Works perfectly in D3D, very fast and excellent image quality. I ran it at 1600x1200x32 with everything maxxed in the graphics options except In-Car shadows off, plus 8xAniso and 4xFSAA, everything in drivers maxxed for quality. Achim "Morris Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > How is it working with the demo? > And what are your other system specs? > Opengl vs. D3D? > What resolution? > with everything turned on?

> Works perfectly in D3D, very fast and excellent image quality. I ran it at > 1600x1200x32 with everything maxxed in the graphics options except In-Car > shadows off, plus 8xAniso and 4xFSAA, everything in drivers maxxed for > quality. My PC runs it at 2048x1536x48 with 256x Aniso and 128xFSAA with everything **MAXed** and it's perfectly smooth. Honest.

On Sat, 1 Feb 2003 11:25:47 +0100, "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Works perfectly in D3D, very fast and excellent image quality. I ran it at >1600x1200x32 with everything maxxed in the graphics options except In-Car >shadows off, plus 8xAniso and 4xFSAA, everything in drivers maxxed for >quality. What CPU/RAM configuration are you using, Achim? Jason

And your time machine also seems to work quite well ;-) Achim "Redmist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:5uN_9.38092$[email hidden]... ... > My PC runs it at 2048x1536x48 with 256x Aniso and 128xFSAA with everything > **MAXed** and it's perfectly smooth. Honest.

That's an XP2700 with 512MB RAM on an A7N8X Dlx, running at FSB175. Achim "Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... ... > What CPU/RAM configuration are you using, Achim? > > Jason

>"Redmist" <[email hidden]> wrote > My PC runs it at 2048x1536x48 with 256x Aniso and 128xFSAA with everything > **MAXed** and it's perfectly smooth. Honest. Ahhhhh, another penis-length contest :) -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- http://ymenard.cjb.net/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:PMg%9.372$[email hidden]: >>"Redmist" <[email hidden]> wrote >> My PC runs it at 2048x1536x48 with 256x Aniso and 128xFSAA with >> everything **MAXed** and it's perfectly smooth. Honest. > > Ahhhhh, another penis-length contest :) It was a poignant post, though because I've found that people often make these claims like "I've got everything maxed, 1600x1200, full Aniso and FSAA. Smooth as silk!" But frankly I've come to regard those claims with a heavy dose of skepticism. I think one man's "smooth as silk" is another man's "slideshow". :-)

> It was a poignant post, though because I've found that people often make > these claims like "I've got everything maxed, 1600x1200, full Aniso and > FSAA. Smooth as silk!" But frankly I've come to regard those claims with > a heavy dose of skepticism. I think one man's "smooth as silk" is another > man's "slideshow". :-) Yep, that's exactly what I was getting at. I'm so tired of the "I've got everything maxed!" posts...... I'm also stunned at people who are prepared to halve their frame rates just so they can have some crappy, blurry AA turned on.

You barked up the wrong tree. I reported my experience to allow others to get a more complete picture of a piece of hardware they might be interested in buying. You must have been reading my postings for years in this NG. Do I really give the impression of being someone who'd be bragging about their computer?? Achim "Redmist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:aDl%9.39231$[email hidden]... ... > Yep, that's exactly what I was getting at. I'm so tired of the "I've got > everything maxed!" posts...... I'm also stunned at people who areprepared > to halve their frame rates just so they can have some crappy, blurry AA > turned on.

> You barked up the wrong tree. > > I reported my experience to allow others to get a more complete picture ofa > piece of hardware they might be interested in buying. > > You must have been reading my postings for years in this NG. Do I really > give the impression of being someone who'd be bragging about their > computer?? Sorry, dude. As I said, I've just seen that "Maxed settings, 1600x1200 4xAA blah, blah" a few too many times....no offense.

"Redmist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:fCp%9.39382$[email hidden]... > > You barked up the wrong tree. > > > > I reported my experience to allow others to get a more complete pictureof

Quoted text (8 lines)

> a > > piece of hardware they might be interested in buying. > > > > You must have been reading my postings for years in this NG. Do I really > > give the impression of being someone who'd be bragging about their > > computer?? > > Sorry, dude. As I said, I've just seen that "Maxed settings, 1600x1200

4xAA > blah, blah" a few too many times....no offense. I have used the phrase myself in a couple of recent posts, relating a new ATI card's capabilities vs my Ti 4400. Figured the info might be of interest to anyone in the market for a similar video card, and you can't really show the differences between the cards unless you dial up all the eye candy. I also stated I never play games that way for FPS reasons, and included FRAPS framerate numbers and testing methodology with the results. Which is a good rule of thumb; back up observations with data. That said, with a fast CPU and a 9700Pro card, you pretty much CAN max everything out in most existing games and still get butter-smooth FPS. But as the NR2003 demo shows, the next-gen games will still be able to make the fastest hardware cry uncle. Thus was it ever... ;-) SB

Joachim Trensz wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > You barked up the wrong tree. > > I reported my experience to allow others to get a more complete picture of a > piece of hardware they might be interested in buying. > > You must have been reading my postings for years in this NG. Do I really > give the impression of being someone who'd be bragging about their > computer??

Yes, all the time 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--

AAMOF, with a fast CPU and a 9700 Pro you can set everything to the highest quality settings in N2003, except the in-car shadows, which cause a tremendous fps hit on the Radeon, almost more than on the GF4-4600 because you end up with pretty similar fps on both cards. I wonder whether this is because the shadows require GPU power rather than bandwidth. The reason why the 9700 is so fast is, as I understand it, its memory bandwidth. If those in-car shadows aren't a memory bandwidth hog but require loads of GPU power, N2003 could be a program where the Geforce FX shines. Well, we'll know that soon enough. Achim "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... .. > But as the NR2003 demo shows, the next-gen games > will still be able to make the fastest hardware cry uncle

May the Norwegian IRS require everyone to submit their tax declarations in Finnish exclusively during the next 20 years and tell everyone in the country it was your fault! <g> Achim "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... ... > Yes, all the time

The GFarceFX will only shine on the store shelf, where it's louder than a vacuum self will sit. Vintook "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b1m8rt$153all$[email hidden]... > AAMOF, with a fast CPU and a 9700 Pro you can set everything to thehighest

Quoted text (7 lines)

> quality settings in N2003, except the in-car shadows, which cause a > tremendous fps hit on the Radeon, almost more than on the GF4-4600 because > you end up with pretty similar fps on both cards. > > I wonder whether this is because the shadows require GPU power rather than > bandwidth. The reason why the 9700 is so fast is, as I understand it, its > memory bandwidth. If those in-car shadows aren't a memory bandwidth hog

but

Quoted text (12 lines)

> require loads of GPU power, N2003 could be a program where the Geforce FX > shines. Well, we'll know that soon enough. > > Achim > > "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > .. > > But as the NR2003 demo shows, the next-gen games > > will still be able to make the fastest hardware cry uncle > >

Your guess is as good as mine on this one <g> Achim "Vintook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:6Lx%9.23590$[email hidden]... > The GFarceFX will only shine on the store shelf, > where it's louder than a vacuum self will sit.

Joachim Trensz wrote: > > May the Norwegian IRS require everyone to submit their tax declarations in > Finnish exclusively during the next 20 years and tell everyone in the > country it was your fault! <g> Ugh, don't talk to me about IRS, as a business owner (small time) I deal with them more than I really care to 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 would have thought Nvidia had better tech people than gainward. Why didn't Nvidia think of it????? Vintook "Dalek" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 17:34:58 GMT, "Vintook" <[email hidden]> > reckoned: > > >The GFarceFX will only shine on the store shelf, where it's louder than a > >vacuum self will sit. > > > >Vintook > > That's the stock GFX. Gainward has already announcd that their cooling > solution that will come on the card only puts out 7db. Probably at > 100m.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >The GFarceFX will only shine on the store shelf, where it's louder than a > >vacuum self will sit. > > > >Vintook > > That's the stock GFX. Gainward has already announcd that their cooling > solution that will come on the card only puts out 7db. Probably at > 100m.

but why would you believe them?

"Dalek" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 16:19:19 -0500, "frederickson" <[email hidden]> > reckoned: > > > >but why would you believe them? > > > > > > Why do you think I said, "probably at 100m"?

He didn't get it. You know, probably American and unwilling to accept the metric system (like me). He thought it was a reference to the price: 100m=$100,000. ;0) -- Joe M.