Upgrade time

Upgrading from XP1500+ to a 2400+. I want to run the new N2003 with all details on, full field, 4xaa. I currently have a GF3 TI 200. Should I get a GF 4600, ATI 9700 pro or the new FX? My concern with the FX might be the sound. My cocern with the ATI is I hear about driver issues. What kind of issues in particular? Thanks. running windows xp

ATI's drivers are alot better now, they are putting out new sets about every month with focus being on the 9700 series. As for the FX.... From what I've seen of early benchmarks that came out today it is slower than the 9700pro with FSAA and Aniso turned on. If I were buying a vid card today I would get the 9700pro. It's faster than the FX and $100 cheaper. Vintook "Sondog" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:KPiZ9.61736$[email hidden]... > Upgrading from XP1500+ to a 2400+. I want to run the new N2003 with all > details on, full field, 4xaa. I currently have a GF3 TI 200. Should Iget > a GF 4600, ATI 9700 pro or the new FX? My concern with the FX might bethe > sound. My cocern with the ATI is I hear about driver issues. What kindof > issues in particular? Thanks. > > running windows xp > >

The whole ATI driver issue is a hoax if you ask me. ATI drivers were suspect to problems about 15 months ago and before but since then they've fixed those problems, provide frequent updates, and with the Catalyst drivers, are easily far superior to Nvidia drivers IMO. Go read some of the new GF FX reviews on the web that back up that claim. The FSAA and Anios quality and speed are better on the ATI card and the FX has some issues with texture corruption on their new FX. Even the CPU limited benchmarks, which are a good measure of the effeciency of the drivers, are much better for ATI. -Tim "Sondog" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:KPiZ9.61736$[email hidden]... > Upgrading from XP1500+ to a 2400+. I want to run the new N2003 with all > details on, full field, 4xaa. I currently have a GF3 TI 200. Should Iget > a GF 4600, ATI 9700 pro or the new FX? My concern with the FX might bethe > sound. My cocern with the ATI is I hear about driver issues. What kindof > issues in particular? Thanks. > > running windows xp > >

Agreed.. The people I hear say ATI has bad drivers are the same people that avoid any AMD processor because they claim it is incompatible with Windows. Anyways, as for the new FX. I'd say it's really too early to make a clear-cut decision about it since drivers are so new. But I have to agree with a lot of the comments I've already read about it. It seems like a brute-force attempt to beat ATI. Sapphire has an 9700PRO that is passively cooled (NO fans), then you have this FX thing with the most extravagant cooling system I've ever seen. And which one does better in benchmarks so far? The 9700Pro. Mike http://mikebeauchamp.com "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:x%jZ9.57429$rM2.41201@rwcrnsc53... > The whole ATI driver issue is a hoax if you ask me. ATI drivers were > suspect to problems about 15 months ago and before but since then they've > fixed those problems, provide frequent updates, and with the Catalyst > drivers, are easily far superior to Nvidia drivers IMO. Go read some ofthe > new GF FX reviews on the web that back up that claim. The FSAA and Anios > quality and speed are better on the ATI card and the FX has some issueswith > texture corruption on their new FX. Even the CPU limited benchmarks,which

Quoted text (8 lines)

> are a good measure of the effeciency of the drivers, are much better for > ATI. > > -Tim > > "Sondog" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:KPiZ9.61736$[email hidden]... > > Upgrading from XP1500+ to a 2400+. I want to run the new N2003 with

all

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > details on, full field, 4xaa. I currently have a GF3 TI 200. Should I > get > > a GF 4600, ATI 9700 pro or the new FX? My concern with the FX might be > the > > sound. My cocern with the ATI is I hear about driver issues. What kind > of > > issues in particular? Thanks. > > > > running windows xp > > > > > >

Reading the long-awaited FX reviews today spurred the tweaker in me to order an OEM Sapphire 9500 so that I can try out the Rivatuner Soft 9700 option. May work, may not; so a safe bet for the risk averse would be the 9700 Pro or even the regular 9700, which blows the Ti 4600's away with AA & AF cranked up and can be had for around $225. (As does a 9500 Pro, for that matter). Looks like the first FX's may be a generation to skip; especially until the prices drop from $399 and the drivers mature. If the 9500-to-9700 thing works, it'll be a great low-cost upgrade that'll get me through '03; especially since I've already got a taker for my Leadtek Ti4400. I'll let you guys know how it turns out... ;-) SB "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:x%jZ9.57429$rM2.41201@rwcrnsc53... > The whole ATI driver issue is a hoax if you ask me. ATI drivers were > suspect to problems about 15 months ago and before but since then they've > fixed those problems, provide frequent updates, and with the Catalyst > drivers, are easily far superior to Nvidia drivers IMO. Go read some ofthe > new GF FX reviews on the web that back up that claim. The FSAA and Anios > quality and speed are better on the ATI card and the FX has some issueswith > texture corruption on their new FX. Even the CPU limited benchmarks,which

Quoted text (8 lines)

> are a good measure of the effeciency of the drivers, are much better for > ATI. > > -Tim > > "Sondog" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:KPiZ9.61736$[email hidden]... > > Upgrading from XP1500+ to a 2400+. I want to run the new N2003 with

all

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > details on, full field, 4xaa. I currently have a GF3 TI 200. Should I > get > > a GF 4600, ATI 9700 pro or the new FX? My concern with the FX might be > the > > sound. My cocern with the ATI is I hear about driver issues. What kind > of > > issues in particular? Thanks. > > > > running windows xp > > > > > >

My karting teamate and I built identical systems for N2003 a couple weeks ago. The only difference is I kept my old GeForce4 TI4400 and he bought the new Radeon 9700 Pro. He averages about 15-20fps more than I do in the N2003 demo. After hearing about the bad reviews on the new FX and I might just go ahead a get a Radeon 9700 Pro myelf. My specs: AMD XP2400+ Asus A7N8X-DX Motherboard 512MB PC3200 Corsair XMS SDRAM Leadtek TI4400 --------------------------------------------------- Thanks, Aaron Markham RATE MY CAR AT CARDOMAIN.COM! http://www.cardomain.com/id/amarkham *RIP Ayrton Senna & Dale Earnhardt* "Sondog" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:KPiZ9.61736$[email hidden]... > Upgrading from XP1500+ to a 2400+. I want to run the new N2003 with all > details on, full field, 4xaa. I currently have a GF3 TI 200. Should Iget > a GF 4600, ATI 9700 pro or the new FX? My concern with the FX might bethe > sound. My cocern with the ATI is I hear about driver issues. What kindof > issues in particular? Thanks. > > running windows xp > >

"Sondog" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:KPiZ9.61736$[email hidden]:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Upgrading from XP1500+ to a 2400+. I want to run the new N2003 with > all details on, full field, 4xaa. I currently have a GF3 TI 200. > Should I get a GF 4600, ATI 9700 pro or the new FX? My concern with > the FX might be the sound. My cocern with the ATI is I hear about > driver issues. What kind of issues in particular? Thanks. > > running windows xp > >

I frankly would be suprised IF you could get Nr 2003 running with full effects on any currently available hardware. The first benchmarks I saw for the FX showed it was about 33% faster than the 9700pro, but that extra speed didn't translate to 33% higher framerates. Certainly you will need a beefier video card if you want to run with 4x fsaa but you will also need as much cpu as you can afford. IF you could afford the FX, I'd take that extra $100 dollars you'd save getting a 9700pro and purchase a cpu of a higher spec than 2400+. Having said that, you don't NEED that much cpu and video card IF you are willing to turn down some effects or limit the field size. But if you want it all, you will need as fast as system as possible...don't forget fast RAM as well. dave henrie

Steve, I'm also interested in the Sapphire Radeon 9500 (especially with the tweaking possibilities), but Newegg is currently out of stock. 8-( So, where did you order it from and what price did you get it for? Thanks, Bert Steve Blankenship wrote:

Quoted text (48 lines)

> Reading the long-awaited FX reviews today spurred the tweaker in me to order > an OEM Sapphire 9500 so that I can try out the Rivatuner Soft 9700 option. > May work, may not; so a safe bet for the risk averse would be the 9700 Pro > or even the regular 9700, which blows the Ti 4600's away with AA & AF > cranked up and can be had for around $225. (As does a 9500 Pro, for that > matter). Looks like the first FX's may be a generation to skip; especially > until the prices drop from $399 and the drivers mature. > > If the 9500-to-9700 thing works, it'll be a great low-cost upgrade that'll > get me through '03; especially since I've already got a taker for my Leadtek > Ti4400. I'll let you guys know how it turns out... ;-) > > SB > > "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:x%jZ9.57429$rM2.41201@rwcrnsc53... > > The whole ATI driver issue is a hoax if you ask me. ATI drivers were > > suspect to problems about 15 months ago and before but since then they've > > fixed those problems, provide frequent updates, and with the Catalyst > > drivers, are easily far superior to Nvidia drivers IMO. Go read some of > the > > new GF FX reviews on the web that back up that claim. The FSAA and Anios > > quality and speed are better on the ATI card and the FX has some issues > with > > texture corruption on their new FX. Even the CPU limited benchmarks, > which > > are a good measure of the effeciency of the drivers, are much better for > > ATI. > > > > -Tim > > > > "Sondog" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:KPiZ9.61736$[email hidden]... > > > Upgrading from XP1500+ to a 2400+. I want to run the new N2003 with > all > > > details on, full field, 4xaa. I currently have a GF3 TI 200. Should I > > get > > > a GF 4600, ATI 9700 pro or the new FX? My concern with the FX might be > > the > > > sound. My cocern with the ATI is I hear about driver issues. What kind > > of > > > issues in particular? Thanks. > > > > > > running windows xp > > > > > > > > > >

Steve, I'm also interested in the Sapphire Radeon 9500 (especially with the tweaking possibilities), but Newegg is currently out of stock. 8-( So, where did you order it from and what price did you get it for? Thanks, Bert

Quoted text (46 lines)

> Reading the long-awaited FX reviews today spurred the tweaker in me to order > an OEM Sapphire 9500 so that I can try out the Rivatuner Soft 9700 option. > May work, may not; so a safe bet for the risk averse would be the 9700 Pro > or even the regular 9700, which blows the Ti 4600's away with AA & AF > cranked up and can be had for around $225. (As does a 9500 Pro, for that > matter). Looks like the first FX's may be a generation to skip; especially > until the prices drop from $399 and the drivers mature. > If the 9500-to-9700 thing works, it'll be a great low-cost upgrade that'll > get me through '03; especially since I've already got a taker for my Leadtek > Ti4400. I'll let you guys know how it turns out... ;-) > SB > > The whole ATI driver issue is a hoax if you ask me. ATI drivers were > > suspect to problems about 15 months ago and before but since then they've > > fixed those problems, provide frequent updates, and with the Catalyst > > drivers, are easily far superior to Nvidia drivers IMO. Go read some of > the > > new GF FX reviews on the web that back up that claim. The FSAA and Anios > > quality and speed are better on the ATI card and the FX has some issues > with > > texture corruption on their new FX. Even the CPU limited benchmarks, > which > > are a good measure of the effeciency of the drivers, are much better for > > ATI. > > -Tim > > > Upgrading from XP1500+ to a 2400+. I want to run the new N2003 with > all > > > details on, full field, 4xaa. I currently have a GF3 TI 200. Should I > > get > > > a GF 4600, ATI 9700 pro or the new FX? My concern with the FX might be > > the > > > sound. My cocern with the ATI is I hear about driver issues. What kind > > of > > > issues in particular? Thanks. > > > running windows xp

Agreed. Even with my XP 2800+ and R9700Pro with NR2002 with 4xFSAA and 16xAnios I have to lower the number of cars and details visable in the rear view mirror. -Tim "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> "Sondog" <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:KPiZ9.61736$[email hidden]: > > > Upgrading from XP1500+ to a 2400+. I want to run the new N2003 with > > all details on, full field, 4xaa. I currently have a GF3 TI 200. > > Should I get a GF 4600, ATI 9700 pro or the new FX? My concern with > > the FX might be the sound. My cocern with the ATI is I hear about > > driver issues. What kind of issues in particular? Thanks. > > > > running windows xp > > > > > > I frankly would be suprised IF you could get Nr 2003 running with full > effects on any currently available hardware. The first benchmarks I saw > for the FX showed it was about 33% faster than the 9700pro, but that extra > speed didn't translate to 33% higher framerates. Certainly you will need

a > beefier video card if you want to run with 4x fsaa but you will also need > as much cpu as you can afford. IF you could afford the FX, I'd take that > extra $100 dollars you'd save getting a 9700pro and purchase a cpu of a > higher spec than 2400+. > Having said that, you don't NEED that much cpu and video card IF youare > willing to turn down some effects or limit the field size. But if youwant > it all, you will need as fast as system as possible...don't forget fastRAM > as well. > dave henrie

https://www.gameve.com/store/gameve_viewitem.asp?idproduct=719 Looks like the good one with the red pcb, which is *supposedly* the same as the 9700's. $158 shipped. Fingers crossed, mine's on the way they say... Plus, it seems there are pre-modded ones for a bit more ($199) at: http://www.bulletpc.com/Qstore/p000293.htm Meanwhile, for some sim-relevant benchmarks of a 9700 Pro vs the Geforce FX, extremetech has some info at: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,846378,00.asp "Baseline NASCAR 2002: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 26%" "NASCAR 2002 with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 44%" "For NASCAR 2002, ATI carried the day on both test conditions, and in both cases, was ahead by a very respectable margin." If you're willing to turn off of the card's features like AA and AF, a Geforce 4 runs either NR2K2 or the new demo of NR2K3 fine at a high framerate, but if you want it ALL, ATI's looking pretty good. Their AA definitely looks better than Nvidia's, particularly at low angles. We'll see! SB "BRH @attbi.com>" <"bertrh<no-spam> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Steve, > > I'm also interested in the Sapphire Radeon 9500 (especially with thetweaking

Quoted text (12 lines)

> possibilities), but Newegg is currently out of stock. 8-( > > So, where did you order it from and what price did you get it for? > > Thanks, > Bert > > > > Steve Blankenship wrote: > > > Reading the long-awaited FX reviews today spurred the tweaker in me to

order > > an OEM Sapphire 9500 so that I can try out the Rivatuner Soft 9700option. > > May work, may not; so a safe bet for the risk averse would be the 9700Pro > > or even the regular 9700, which blows the Ti 4600's away with AA & AF > > cranked up and can be had for around $225. (As does a 9500 Pro, forthat > > matter). Looks like the first FX's may be a generation to skip;especially > > until the prices drop from $399 and the drivers mature. > > > > If the 9500-to-9700 thing works, it'll be a great low-cost upgradethat'll > > get me through '03; especially since I've already got a taker for myLeadtek

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Ti4400. I'll let you guys know how it turns out... ;-) > > > > SB > > > > "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:x%jZ9.57429$rM2.41201@rwcrnsc53... > > > The whole ATI driver issue is a hoax if you ask me. ATI drivers were > > > suspect to problems about 15 months ago and before but since then

they've > > > fixed those problems, provide frequent updates, and with the Catalyst > > > drivers, are easily far superior to Nvidia drivers IMO. Go read someof > > the > > > new GF FX reviews on the web that back up that claim. The FSAA andAnios > > > quality and speed are better on the ATI card and the FX has someissues > > with > > > texture corruption on their new FX. Even the CPU limited benchmarks, > > which > > > are a good measure of the effeciency of the drivers, are much betterfor

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > ATI. > > > > > > -Tim > > > > > > "Sondog" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:KPiZ9.61736$[email hidden]... > > > > Upgrading from XP1500+ to a 2400+. I want to run the new N2003

with > > all > > > > details on, full field, 4xaa. I currently have a GF3 TI 200.Should I > > > get > > > > a GF 4600, ATI 9700 pro or the new FX? My concern with the FX mightbe > > > the > > > > sound. My cocern with the ATI is I hear about driver issues. Whatkind

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > of > > > > issues in particular? Thanks. > > > > > > > > running windows xp > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

In article <KPiZ9.61736$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Upgrading from XP1500+ to a 2400+. I want to run the new N2003 with all > details on, full field, 4xaa. I currently have a GF3 TI 200. Should I get > a GF 4600, ATI 9700 pro or the new FX? My concern with the FX might be the > sound. My cocern with the ATI is I hear about driver issues. What kind of > issues in particular? Thanks. > > running windows xp

You can't currently buy a machine capable of running NR2K3 with all details and eye candy on. As far as graphics card, you shouldn't consider buying anything less than the ATI 9700Pro or the nVidia FX. Anything else will simply not perform as well.

All I've got to say is regarding the CPU - consider saving yourself a bit of change and getting a 2100+ TBredB from NewEgg. Mine is one of the "weaker" ones and it's still an instant overclock to 2700+ speeds out of the box. 2.5GHz (actual clock speed, not rating!) isn't unheard of with good air cooling, but does appear to be the exception and not the norm. Milhouse "Sondog" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:KPiZ9.61736$[email hidden]... > Upgrading from XP1500+ to a 2400+. I want to run the new N2003 with all > details on, full field, 4xaa. I currently have a GF3 TI 200. Should Iget > a GF 4600, ATI 9700 pro or the new FX? My concern with the FX might bethe > sound. My cocern with the ATI is I hear about driver issues. What kindof > issues in particular? Thanks. > > running windows xp > >

Sondog wrote: > > Upgrading from XP1500+ to a 2400+. I want to run the new N2003 with all > details on, full field, 4xaa. I currently have a GF3 TI 200. Should I get > a GF 4600, ATI 9700 pro or the new FX? My concern with the FX might be the > sound. My cocern with the ATI is I hear about driver issues. What kind of > issues in particular? Thanks. I wouldn't worry about ATI's drivers, they're about as good as anyone else's, although that's not saying too much...... Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

What is your Radeon not compatible with? -Tim "Hoss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 00:18:37 GMT, "Tim Miser" > <[email hidden]> reckoned: > > >The whole ATI driver issue is a hoax if you ask me. ATI drivers were > >suspect to problems about 15 months ago and before but since then they've > >fixed those problems, provide frequent updates, and with the Catalyst > >drivers, are easily far superior to Nvidia drivers IMO. > > Nope, not true. I've got three PC's here and have R8500, Voodoo3 and > GF4. The GF4 easily has the best compatibility of the bunch. EASILY. > -- > "Paw, I'm powerful hungry!"

Aniostropic filter gets rid of shimmering textures in flight sims on the R9700Pro. Both may use edge AA but the methods are not even close to the same since the Radeon 9700's FSAA is far superior to the GF 4 FSAA. -Tim "Hoss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 23:41:40 -0500, "Steve Blankenship" > <[email hidden]> reckoned: > > > >If you're willing to turn off of the card's features like AA and AF, a > >Geforce 4 runs either NR2K2 or the new demo of NR2K3 fine at a high > >framerate, but if you want it ALL, ATI's looking pretty good. Their AA > >definitely looks better than Nvidia's, particularly at low angles.

We'll

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >see! > > Both GF4 and R9700Pro use edge AA so neither does FSAA like the V5 > did. Which means you still get shimmering textures. The benefit I > found of the V5 AA was reducing the shimmering textures (very > noticeable in some flight sims) and not the edge AA. > -- > "Paw, I'm powerful hungry!"

I'll be following your exploits carefully here Steve, I'm on the same path as you. I just want to make sure I've got as good of information that I can put my hands on before I make this plunge. I'm amazed that some enterprising mail order firm hasn't started selling "pre-tested" 9500 ---> 9700 Pro cards for a premium charge. Please keep us posted... we're rooting for you man! John Cauthen "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > https://www.gameve.com/store/gameve_viewitem.asp?idproduct=719 > > Looks like the good one with the red pcb, which is *supposedly* the sameas

Quoted text (8 lines)

> the 9700's. $158 shipped. > > Fingers crossed, mine's on the way they say... > > Plus, it seems there are pre-modded ones for a bit more ($199) at: > http://www.bulletpc.com/Qstore/p000293.htm > > Meanwhile, for some sim-relevant benchmarks of a 9700 Pro vs the Geforce

FX,

Quoted text (58 lines)

> extremetech has some info at: > > http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,846378,00.asp > > "Baseline NASCAR 2002: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 26%" > "NASCAR 2002 with FSAA & AF: Radeon 9700 Pro ahead by 44%" > "For NASCAR 2002, ATI carried the day on both test conditions, and in both > cases, was ahead by a very respectable margin." > > If you're willing to turn off of the card's features like AA and AF, a > Geforce 4 runs either NR2K2 or the new demo of NR2K3 fine at a high > framerate, but if you want it ALL, ATI's looking pretty good. Their AA > definitely looks better than Nvidia's, particularly at low angles. We'll > see! > > SB > > "BRH @attbi.com>" <"bertrh<no-spam> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Steve, > > > > I'm also interested in the Sapphire Radeon 9500 (especially with the > tweaking > > possibilities), but Newegg is currently out of stock. 8-( > > > > So, where did you order it from and what price did you get it for? > > > > Thanks, > > Bert > > > > > > > > Steve Blankenship wrote: > > > > > Reading the long-awaited FX reviews today spurred the tweaker in me to > order > > > an OEM Sapphire 9500 so that I can try out the Rivatuner Soft 9700 > option. > > > May work, may not; so a safe bet for the risk averse would be the 9700 > Pro > > > or even the regular 9700, which blows the Ti 4600's away with AA & AF > > > cranked up and can be had for around $225. (As does a 9500 Pro, for > that > > > matter). Looks like the first FX's may be a generation to skip; > especially > > > until the prices drop from $399 and the drivers mature. > > > > > > If the 9500-to-9700 thing works, it'll be a great low-cost upgrade > that'll > > > get me through '03; especially since I've already got a taker for my > Leadtek > > > Ti4400. I'll let you guys know how it turns out... ;-) > > > > > > SB > > > > > > "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:x%jZ9.57429$rM2.41201@rwcrnsc53... > > > > The whole ATI driver issue is a hoax if you ask me. ATI drivers

were > > > > suspect to problems about 15 months ago and before but since then > they've > > > > fixed those problems, provide frequent updates, and with theCatalyst > > > > drivers, are easily far superior to Nvidia drivers IMO. Go readsome

Quoted text (8 lines)

> of > > > the > > > > new GF FX reviews on the web that back up that claim. The FSAA and > Anios > > > > quality and speed are better on the ATI card and the FX has some > issues > > > with > > > > texture corruption on their new FX. Even the CPU limited

benchmarks,

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > > which > > > > are a good measure of the effeciency of the drivers, are much better > for > > > > ATI. > > > > > > > > -Tim > > > > > > > > "Sondog" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:KPiZ9.61736$[email hidden]... > > > > > Upgrading from XP1500+ to a 2400+. I want to run the new N2003 > with > > > all > > > > > details on, full field, 4xaa. I currently have a GF3 TI 200. > Should I > > > > get > > > > > a GF 4600, ATI 9700 pro or the new FX? My concern with the FX

might > be > > > > the > > > > > sound. My cocern with the ATI is I hear about driver issues.What

Quoted text (12 lines)

> kind > > > > of > > > > > issues in particular? Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > running windows xp > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

"John Cauthen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:b17c23$5qc1$[email hidden]... <snip> <I'm amazed that some enterprising mail order firm hasn't started selling "pre-tested" 9500 --->9700 Pro cards for a premium charge.> They have! There was a link in my post... ;-) < Please keep us posted... we're rooting for you man!> Much appreciated; I hope to please! (mentioned link) > Plus, it seems there are pre-modded ones for a bit more ($199) at:http://www.bulletpc.com/Qstore/p000293.htm Note: they're only about $25 less than a regular 9700, which is a pretty safe bet to run at Pro speed anyway, and they'll all be cheaper in a couple of months or so when the ATI 9900's ascend to the top of their food chain. Some of us just like to tempt fate... ;-)

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

Quoted text (7 lines)

> "John Cauthen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:b17c23$5qc1$[email hidden]... > <snip> > <I'm amazed that some enterprising mail order firm hasn't started selling > "pre-tested" 9500 --->9700 Pro cards for a premium charge.> > > They have! There was a link in my post... ;-)

Whoops, I missed that... thanks for the below link. I see that one is a hardware mod, I wonder how long it will be before we see one that's been software mod tested only? I would think that would be less of a hassle for the entrepenuer...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> < Please keep us posted... we're rooting for you man!> > > Much appreciated; I hope to please! > > (mentioned link) > > Plus, it seems there are pre-modded ones for a bit more ($199) at: > http://www.bulletpc.com/Qstore/p000293.htm > > Note: they're only about $25 less than a regular 9700, which is a pretty > safe bet to run at Pro speed anyway, and they'll all be cheaper in a

couple > of months or so when the ATI 9900's ascend to the top of their food chain. > Some of us just like to tempt fate... ;-) I'm one of those who isn't afraid to tempt fate. I'm on a winning streak with my modding and overclocking experiences of late, and I'm feeling just sassy enough to take on the challenge of an untested Sapphire 9500 ;-) I'll still wait on your results - my cash flow leaves me no other choice at the moment! John

Don't want to be a pessimist, but a coworker tried 2 sapphire 9500s, and got the "checkerboard" effect on both, using software mod only. On the brightside, they did have lots of headroom for overclocking. He has returned both and has a 9500Pro on order. Best of luck. Ken John Cauthen wrote:

Quoted text (47 lines)

> "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >>"John Cauthen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>news:b17c23$5qc1$[email hidden]... >><snip> >><I'm amazed that some enterprising mail order firm hasn't started selling >>"pre-tested" 9500 --->9700 Pro cards for a premium charge.> >> >>They have! There was a link in my post... ;-) > > > Whoops, I missed that... thanks for the below link. I see that one is a > hardware mod, I wonder how long it will be before we see one that's been > software mod tested only? I would think that would be less of a hassle for > the entrepenuer... > > >>< Please keep us posted... we're rooting for you man!> >> >>Much appreciated; I hope to please! >> >>(mentioned link) >> >>>Plus, it seems there are pre-modded ones for a bit more ($199) at: >> >>http://www.bulletpc.com/Qstore/p000293.htm >> >>Note: they're only about $25 less than a regular 9700, which is a pretty >>safe bet to run at Pro speed anyway, and they'll all be cheaper in a > > couple > >>of months or so when the ATI 9900's ascend to the top of their food chain. >>Some of us just like to tempt fate... ;-) > > > I'm one of those who isn't afraid to tempt fate. I'm on a winning streak > with my modding and overclocking experiences of late, and I'm feeling just > sassy enough to take on the challenge of an untested Sapphire 9500 ;-) I'll > still wait on your results - my cash flow leaves me no other choice at the > moment! > > John > > >

"Ken MacKay" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Don't want to be a pessimist, but a coworker tried 2 sapphire 9500s, andgot the > "checkerboard" effect on both, using software mod only. On the brightside,they > did have lots of headroom for overclocking. He has returned both and has a > 9500Pro on order. Best of luck. > Ken No problem Ken... this is the kind of feedback I need to be hearing. I think this 70% success rate number some have put forth also includes those exhibiting the checkboard effect. To me that's not a "success". John > > John Cauthen wrote: > > "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote inmessage > > news:[email hidden]... > > > >>"John Cauthen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >>news:b17c23$5qc1$[email hidden]... > >><snip> > >><I'm amazed that some enterprising mail order firm hasn't startedselling

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >>"pre-tested" 9500 --->9700 Pro cards for a premium charge.> > >> > >>They have! There was a link in my post... ;-) > > > > > > Whoops, I missed that... thanks for the below link. I see that one is a > > hardware mod, I wonder how long it will be before we see one that's been > > software mod tested only? I would think that would be less of a hassle

for

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > the entrepenuer... > > > > > >>< Please keep us posted... we're rooting for you man!> > >> > >>Much appreciated; I hope to please! > >> > >>(mentioned link) > >> > >>>Plus, it seems there are pre-modded ones for a bit more ($199) at: > >> > >>http://www.bulletpc.com/Qstore/p000293.htm > >> > >>Note: they're only about $25 less than a regular 9700, which is a pretty > >>safe bet to run at Pro speed anyway, and they'll all be cheaper in a > > > > couple > > > >>of months or so when the ATI 9900's ascend to the top of their food

chain. > >>Some of us just like to tempt fate... ;-) > > > > > > I'm one of those who isn't afraid to tempt fate. I'm on a winningstreak > > with my modding and overclocking experiences of late, and I'm feelingjust > > sassy enough to take on the challenge of an untested Sapphire 9500 ;-)I'll > > still wait on your results - my cash flow leaves me no other choice atthe

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > moment! > > > > John > > > > > > >

John Cauthen wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > "Ken MacKay" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Don't want to be a pessimist, but a coworker tried 2 sapphire 9500s, and > got the > > "checkerboard" effect on both, using software mod only. On the brightside, > they > > did have lots of headroom for overclocking. He has returned both and has a > > 9500Pro on order. Best of luck. > > Ken > > No problem Ken... this is the kind of feedback I need to be hearing. I > think this 70% success rate number some have put forth also includes those > exhibiting the checkboard effect. To me that's not a "success".

That's the problem isn't it, some people post a message about having done this successfully if their PC completes one run of 3DMark2001 afterwards so they can provide a score, my R8500LE would run 3DM at 325/325 with tons of artifacts all over the place and lock up as soon as I fired up N2002, but I could have posted a 3DM score so in their eyes my card ran successfully at 325/325 Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

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

Quoted text (15 lines)

> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:12:51 -0800, "Tim Miser" > <[email hidden]> reckoned: > > >What is your Radeon not compatible with? > > > >-Tim > > Ok, ot completely incompatible but there are games it shows glitches > in. Two I can think of right now are the 2D cockpits in EAW and > transparency overlays in Heavy Gear 2. And don't say, 'so what, they > are old games" like one dork did today in the flight sim group. I'm > telling you as fact and not opinion, Nvidia has better drivers and not > ATI. I wonder what you based your opinion on though? > -- > "Paw, I'm powerful hungry!"

Same as you, I base me opinions on my own experiences and I have not experienced those glitches. Don't have HG2 but do have EAW but haven't fired it up in a long time. Maybe I'll do so and let you know if I have similar issues. Both Nvidia and ATI make good drivers. Both could very well have issues with some old games and new games. That's just the nature of this hobby. -Tim

Then why is it that Nvidia is able to launch new drivers 4 months down the road that magically add 30% increase to framerates? This seems to be a common occurrence for all Nvidia product cycles. Is it because they have a great driver team? Or is it because it takes them 4 months to finally make drivers that perform to the cards abilities? It is the latter. Why is it that Nvidia requires users to constantly shift between different driver versions in order to play different games? The nvidia driver shuffle has been going on since the TNT2 days. That's not good drivers. It amazes me how some people will defend them as having the best drivers when they subject their customers to those problems and brainwash them into thinking it is a 'good thing'. -Tim "Hoss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (24 lines)

> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:26:40 -0800, "Tim Miser" > <[email hidden]> reckoned: > > > >Same as you, I base me opinions on my own experiences and I have not > >experienced those glitches. Don't have HG2 but do have EAW but haven't > >fired it up in a long time. Maybe I'll do so and let you know if I have > >similar issues. > > > >Both Nvidia and ATI make good drivers. Both could very well have issues > >with some old games and new games. That's just the nature of this hobby. > > > >-Tim > > > > > > Yes, but I know which has the best compatibility because I have both > an R8500 and GF4 here . I used to have a R8500 in this PC I'm on now > and am well aware of what ATI drivers are like. There is another PC > here right now with an R8500LE in it so I am still aware of what the > ATI latest drivers are like. You said the ATI drivers are *better* > than Nvidia's which I know for a fact is not true. > -- > "Paw, I'm powerful hungry!"

"Hoss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:49:52 -0800, "Tim Miser" > <[email hidden]> reckoned: > > >Then why is it that Nvidia is able to launch new drivers 4 months downthe > >road that magically add 30% increase to framerates? This seems to be a > >common occurrence for all Nvidia product cycles. Is it because they havea > >great driver team? Or is it because it takes them 4 months to finallymake > >drivers that perform to the cards abilities? It is the latter. > > > >Why is it that Nvidia requires users to constantly shift betweendifferent > >driver versions in order to play different games? The nvidia drivershuffle > >has been going on since the TNT2 days. That's not good drivers. > > > >It amazes me how some people will defend them as having the best drivers > >when they subject their customers to those problems and brainwash theminto > >thinking it is a 'good thing'. > > > >-Tim > > None of what you say is true so you go fuck a lamp post. Like I said.... Brainwash. -Tim P.S.-Watch your mouth pal.

I had nothing but lockups with an ATI 8500 64. Recently purchased a AIW 9700 pro and all games work fine. The FX promises only a 10% performance boost. The AIW 9700 is DX9 ready and screams with my P41.6a. If you want to wait for the FX you may also save some money as the FX chip should be less expensive. If you love to race the 9700 is the best card on the market today and being DX9 ready should be adequate for a year or two. "Sondog" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:KPiZ9.61736$[email hidden]... > Upgrading from XP1500+ to a 2400+. I want to run the new N2003 with all > details on, full field, 4xaa. I currently have a GF3 TI 200. Should Iget > a GF 4600, ATI 9700 pro or the new FX? My concern with the FX might bethe > sound. My cocern with the ATI is I hear about driver issues. What kindof > issues in particular? Thanks. > > running windows xp > >

Can't speak for others, but welcome to MY killfile... "Hoss" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:35:14 GMT, "Tim Miser" > <[email hidden]> reckoned: > > > > >Like I said.... Brainwash. > > Screw you, didn't I tell you already that I have a Radeon 8500 here? > Considering that, how can I possibly be brainwashed into buying only > one companies hardware? > > >P.S.-Watch your mouth pal. > > > > Or? > -- > "Paw, I'm powerful hungry!"