What game is hungry?

I will be buying a 9700 soon (upgrading from a Ti500) and am looking for a few demos or games that really stress video and cpu. I'm a pretty avid PC gamer but at this time I'm hard pressed to point to any one game that stands out above the rest to push ones system. Sure any game at 16x12x32bit with 4xAA will be pretty slow but it use to be most games at 10x7x16bit with noAA would be in the teens to 20s fps-wise really stressing even the best systems. It's almost as though hardware has passed games in the race for power. Perhaps developers misjudged the rate of hardware improvements? Anyway, Comanche 4 would be my best first choice of a horsepower hungry game..I guess. Anyone have an opinion to what's a good game to make my card/system wanna puke its guts out? P.S. Heck, now that I think about it, I'm second guessing myself on why should I upgrade since my system runs what I play just fine (for the most part). Guess I'm simply digging the fact that the new ATI can do AA so well with hardly any performance hit.

Damn typo's. Pardon me. Destroy wrote:

Quoted text (23 lines)

> I will be buying a 9700 soon (upgrading from a Ti500) and am looking for > a few demos or games that really stress video and cpu. I'm a pretty avid > PC gamer but at this time I'm hard pressed to point to any one game > that stands out above the rest to push ones system. > > Sure any game at 16x12x32bit with 4xAA will be pretty slow but it use to > be most games at 10x7x16bit with noAA would be in the teens to 20s > fps-wise really stressing even the best systems. > > It's almost as though hardware has passed games in the race for power. > Perhaps developers misjudged the rate of hardware improvements? > > Anyway, Comanche 4 would be my best first choice of a horsepower hungry > game..I guess. > > Anyone have an opinion to what's a good game to make my card/system > wanna puke its guts out? > > P.S. Heck, now that I think about it, I'm second guessing myself on why > should I upgrade since my system runs what I play just fine (for the > most part). Guess I'm simply digging the fact that the new ATI can do AA > so well with hardly any performance hit. >

I think you may find, at lower resolutions, there isn't much difference between the 9700 and the ti 500. However, as you climb the resolution scale and increase the FSAA the 9700 will keep steaming along while the ti will burp and fart and in general slow down like an old 3dfx board. :) let us know how things go...make sure you fully remove all software traces of the Nvidia card before installing the ATI. Good luck. dave henrie

Try the ATI forums at www.3drage.com They can answer such questions better since you are intending on running a ATI card. Also you better get over there anyways because you'll gonna need a lot of help getting that ATI card to run. Been there done that, and I don't wanna go back! Mike "Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (28 lines)

> Damn typo's. Pardon me. > > Destroy wrote: > > > I will be buying a 9700 soon (upgrading from a Ti500) and am looking for > > a few demos or games that really stress video and cpu. I'm a pretty avid > > PC gamer but at this time I'm hard pressed to point to any one game > > that stands out above the rest to push ones system. > > > > Sure any game at 16x12x32bit with 4xAA will be pretty slow but it use to > > be most games at 10x7x16bit with noAA would be in the teens to 20s > > fps-wise really stressing even the best systems. > > > > It's almost as though hardware has passed games in the race for power. > > Perhaps developers misjudged the rate of hardware improvements? > > > > Anyway, Comanche 4 would be my best first choice of a horsepower hungry > > game..I guess. > > > > Anyone have an opinion to what's a good game to make my card/system > > wanna puke its guts out? > > > > P.S. Heck, now that I think about it, I'm second guessing myself on why > > should I upgrade since my system runs what I play just fine (for the > > most part). Guess I'm simply digging the fact that the new ATI can do AA > > so well with hardly any performance hit. > > >

Mafia will probably be a challenge for your card. Next up.. Morrowind would be a nice test too. Pluvious On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 22:13:22 -0500, Destroy <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (22 lines)

>I will be buying a 9700 soon (upgrading from a Ti500) and am looking for >a few demos or games that really stress video and cpu. I'm a pretty avid >PC gamer but at this time I'm hard pressed to point to any one game >that stands out above the rest to push ones system. > >Sure any game at 16x12x32bit with 4xAA will be pretty slow but it use to >be most games at 10x7x16bit with noAA would be in the teens to 20s >fps-wise really stressing even the best systems. > >It's almost as though hardware has passed games in the race for power. >Perhaps developers misjudged the rate of hardware improvements? > >Anyway, Comanche 4 would be my best first choice of a horsepower hungry >game..I guess. > >Anyone have an opinion to what's a good game to make my card/system >wanna puke its guts out? > >P.S. Heck, now that I think about it, I'm second guessing myself on why >should I upgrade since my system runs what I play just fine (for the >most part). Guess I'm simply digging the fact that the new ATI can do AA >so well with hardly any performance hit.

Correction: www.rage3d.com "Mike Lamb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:T6vk9.3208$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Try the ATI forums at www.3drage.com > They can answer such questions better since you are intending on running a > ATI card. > Also you better get over there anyways because you'll gonna need a lot of > help getting that ATI card to run. Been there done that, and I don't wanna > go back! > > Mike > > > "Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Damn typo's. Pardon me. > > > > Destroy wrote: > > > > > I will be buying a 9700 soon (upgrading from a Ti500) and am looking

for > > > a few demos or games that really stress video and cpu. I'm a prettyavid > > > PC gamer but at this time I'm hard pressed to point to any one game > > > that stands out above the rest to push ones system. > > > > > > Sure any game at 16x12x32bit with 4xAA will be pretty slow but it useto

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > be most games at 10x7x16bit with noAA would be in the teens to 20s > > > fps-wise really stressing even the best systems. > > > > > > It's almost as though hardware has passed games in the race for power. > > > Perhaps developers misjudged the rate of hardware improvements? > > > > > > Anyway, Comanche 4 would be my best first choice of a horsepower

hungry > > > game..I guess. > > > > > > Anyone have an opinion to what's a good game to make my card/system > > > wanna puke its guts out? > > > > > > P.S. Heck, now that I think about it, I'm second guessing myself onwhy > > > should I upgrade since my system runs what I play just fine (for the > > > most part). Guess I'm simply digging the fact that the new ATI can doAA > > > so well with hardly any performance hit. > > > > > > >

Try Rally Trophy & NR2002 with all the bells & whistles. Also I wasn't expecting a big jump with MSFS2002 but wow! Went from the upper teens with no FSAA to the mid 30's in frame rate with 4xFSAA and 16x ansio and one resolution notch higher! I thought that FS2002 was cpu limited but not as much as I thought with my XP 2000+. -Tim "Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (23 lines)

> I will be buying a 9700 soon (upgrading from a Ti500) and am looking for > a few demos or games that really stress video and cpu. I'm a pretty avid > PC gamer but at this time I'm hard pressed to point to any one game > that stands out above the rest to push ones system. > > Sure any game at 16x12x32bit with 4xAA will be pretty slow but it use to > be most games at 10x7x16bit with noAA would be in the teens to 20s > fps-wise really stressing even the best systems. > > It's almost as though hardware has passed games in the race for power. > Perhaps developers misjudged the rate of hardware improvements? > > Anyway, Comanche 4 would be my best first choice of a horsepower hungry > game..I guess. > > Anyone have an opinion to what's a good game to make my card/system > wanna puke its guts out? > > P.S. Heck, now that I think about it, I'm second guessing myself on why > should I upgrade since my system runs what I play just fine (for the > most part). Guess I'm simply digging the fact that the new ATI can do AA > so well with hardly any performance hit. >

MOHAA, Omaha Beach. That will stress both CPU and Vid card

Mike Lamb wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Try the ATI forums at www.3drage.com > They can answer such questions better since you are intending on running a > ATI card. > Also you better get over there anyways because you'll gonna need a lot of > help getting that ATI card to run. Been there done that, and I don't wanna > go back! >

Plenty of people running a 9700 without problems, so if you had problems my bet is the one causing them is sitting on your chair. If not why don't you yourself turn to the ATI group and get help. Regards Bruno

I got the feeling that the problems he was referring to were on previous cards not the 9700. I too had issues with an older ATI products, but from what I hear they have greatly improved allot since then. I'm waiting awhile before trying the 9700 to make sure all things are god. Not to mention letting the price drop as well. MadDAWG

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Plenty of people running a 9700 without problems, so if you had problems > my bet is the one causing them is sitting on your chair. > > If not why don't you yourself turn to the ATI group and get help. > > Regards > > Bruno >

Bought mine at a computer fair then sold it on eBay a week later for $15 more than I paid for it. Worst video card I've ever owned, and I've owned a lot of them. The drivers suck ass, and there was a ghosting problem on three different monitors I tried. Buh, bye... CFster

On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:34:03 GMT, "CFster" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Bought mine at a computer fair then sold it on eBay a week later for $15 >more than I paid for it. Worst video card I've ever owned, and I've owned a >lot of them. The drivers suck ass, and there was a ghosting problem on three >different monitors I tried. Ghosting problem here too. I'll try a BNC connection later and see if that fixes it. Too early for me to comment on the drivers though since I just picked up the card today.

MadDawg was right, I had other ATI cards, inparticularly 8500s. I went through 3 of'em. 1st was DOA, worked with the 2nd for 3 months trying to get it to work correctly without crashing. I RMA'ed it. 3ts one, the RMA replacement would mysteriously go blank on me. And yes I lived at rage3d for several months trying to find answers to my problems. (All this doesn't even consider the poj Fury card I had a couple years before.) So it's my fault eh? The guy in the chair? That's a typical ATI response I've at rage3d to whoever can't get an ATI to work.. Mike <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ucBk9.30559$[email hidden]... > Mike Lamb wrote: > > Try the ATI forums at www.3drage.com > > They can answer such questions better since you are intending on runninga > > ATI card. > > Also you better get over there anyways because you'll gonna need a lotof > > help getting that ATI card to run. Been there done that, and I don'twanna

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > go back! > > > Plenty of people running a 9700 without problems, so if you had problems > my bet is the one causing them is sitting on your chair. > > If not why don't you yourself turn to the ATI group and get help. > > Regards > > Bruno >

Mike Lamb wrote: > So it's my fault eh? The guy in the chair? That's a typical > ATI response I've at rage3d to whoever can't get an ATI to work.. > Since this thread is about 9700 I'd say it's certainly your fault for thinking its the same with 9700 just because you had problems with 8500 cards. If the 9700 cards are so bad could you please point out just one review mentioning any problems apart from AGPx8 which originates in motherboards not being 100% compatible with the Intel 3.0 AGP standard and not really a 9700 problem. Regards Bruno

"Mike Lamb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YXCk9.3236$[email hidden]... > So it's my fault eh? The guy in the chair? That's a typical > ATI response I've at rage3d to whoever can't get an ATI to work.. You gotta wonder though don't you? 3 cards in a short period of time? Maybe there is some kind of power/short circuit issue with your MB/Power supply causing the video card to fail?? In all my life I've had maybe 50 video cards and only had 1 video card go bad and that was a V5 after I pryed off the heatsinks! If it's just bad luck man, I would avoid airplanes. -Tim

You know, now that I think about it, I've probably had 20 or so video cards in my life and I don't ever remember a single one going bad. Heck, I've still got most of them out in a box in my garage. That includes my present Radeon 8500LE, which I love to death - I haven't had the least bit of trouble with it and it is a great performer, especially when you consider how much I paid for it a few months ago. "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> "Mike Lamb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:YXCk9.3236$[email hidden]... > > So it's my fault eh? The guy in the chair? That's a typical > > ATI response I've at rage3d to whoever can't get an ATI to work.. > > You gotta wonder though don't you? 3 cards in a short period of time? > Maybe there is some kind of power/short circuit issue with your MB/Power > supply causing the video card to fail?? In all my life I've had maybe 50 > video cards and only had 1 video card go bad and that was a V5 after I

pryed > off the heatsinks! If it's just bad luck man, I would avoid airplanes. > > -Tim > > >

> Ghosting problem here too. I'll try a BNC connection later and see if > that fixes it. > Too early for me to comment on the drivers though since I just picked > up the card today. Well, I'll tell you I had no luck with mine trying BNC connectors. I think it has something to do with the dual RAMDACS generating their signals at a slightly different frequency and causing interference. Some cards do it, some don't. I also suspect the fact that it has to get power directly from the power supply has something to do it. Maybe if you're case power supply is substandard then it's not putting out a "clean" power signal. That was pure conjecture on my part - I've just never had this problem with a video card before. And it turns out after perusing Rage3D's forums that a bunch of other people are having the same problem. They're coming up with all kinds of solutions over there - move your monitor, move your power cords, replace your power supply etc. Well I tried all of those things and more with no luck. If it indeed turns out to be a problem with the dual RAMDACS (i've heard rumours), then I'll be pissed. I mean, every video card out there these days has dual monitor support. Number 1,. if they can get it right why can't ATI with the 9700. And Number 2, why the hell do we need dual monitor support anyway. I mean really, how many people are using dual monitors? I can only bear to look at it if I have two identical monitors next to each other. I run a 22" NEC and don't really want to spend the ching to have another one next to it - and a 17 or 19 looks stupid in that arrangement. Hey, maybe a top of the line card like a 9700 should have dual monitor support, but even the basic nVidia MX cards have it too. Why do all cards have this? To run the cost up? CFster

Quoted text (13 lines)

> Since this thread is about 9700 I'd say it's certainly your fault for > thinking its the same with 9700 just because you had problems with 8500 > cards. > > If the 9700 cards are so bad could you please point out just one review > mentioning any problems apart from AGPx8 which originates in > motherboards not being 100% compatible with the Intel 3.0 AGP standard > and not really a 9700 problem. > > Regards > > Bruno >

Go to Rage3D and look in the forums. CFster

Give the Unreal Tournamet 2003 demo a try - it's a real killer... :-) -- ed_

i'll second that -- im very happy with my ati 8500 (295/295) and it works beautifully ...I'll "need" to wait a wait a while for the first price price drop -- grab the 9700 and then maybe a zalman "80" heatpipe (fanless) solution attached if theres a chance... jk "Shrivel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > snip... That includes my present > Radeon 8500LE, which I love to death - I haven't had the least bit of > trouble with it and it is a great performer, especially when you consider > how much I paid for it a few months ago. >

Yeah I wondered why my luck was so bad! Actually after my 3td 8500 I installed a TI200 and it worked like a charm from the get go. But I wasn't crazy over the pic quality and wanted a stronger gf4, so I got a PNY 4400 a couple months later. I haven't had nothing but good luck with it to! It will oc like crazy if I want it to....... and it has very good pic quality. I've probably bought close to 75 or more v cards in over 15 years and I only had 2 others be DOA on me. One was a Viper 770 and I can't even remember what the other one was, it was so long ago. But I'll agree, 3 straight bad v cards of the same make looks funny, er suspicious. For anyone wanting a benchmark score: I'm running a P4 1.8a oc'ed to 2322 @129 fsb. Abit BD7 raid. 512 DDR PNY TI 4400 (when benchmarking oc'ed 305/670) 3DMark2k2 12459 Tried a Gainward GS750 but it had problems (The memory issue, and the best it would do was about 11,000.(Although my drivers are different now.) I never broke 9000 with any 8500. Cheers, Mike "Tim Miser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> "Mike Lamb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:YXCk9.3236$[email hidden]... > > So it's my fault eh? The guy in the chair? That's a typical > > ATI response I've at rage3d to whoever can't get an ATI to work.. > > You gotta wonder though don't you? 3 cards in a short period of time? > Maybe there is some kind of power/short circuit issue with your MB/Power > supply causing the video card to fail?? In all my life I've had maybe 50 > video cards and only had 1 video card go bad and that was a V5 after I

pryed > off the heatsinks! If it's just bad luck man, I would avoid airplanes. > > -Tim > > >

Tim Miser wrote: > . Also I wasn't > expecting a big jump with MSFS2002 but wow! Went from the upper teens with > no FSAA to the mid 30's in frame rate with 4xFSAA and 16x ansio and one > resolution notch higher! I thought that FS2002 was cpu limited but not as > much as I thought with my XP 2000+. Hey that's good news, I got the same CPU but using a Radeon 8500 64MB retail (better than the 32MB GF2 GTS I was using before) and about all I can do is crank a few details a little higher and keep the FPS the same as the GF2 was which is upper teens in the Seattle area of the sim. Charles -- Head Papershuffler Paper Airplane Division (currently assigned to the Rubber Band Flight Dynamics project) Sadly, due to poor economic conditions the RBFD project is in the process of being shut down and all personnel involved have received layoff notices with an effective date of 10-25-02

Reviews? Those are the articles written by a person who receives a free product to test? Free product = Biased <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:C8Dk9.31662$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Mike Lamb wrote: > > So it's my fault eh? The guy in the chair? That's a typical > > ATI response I've at rage3d to whoever can't get an ATI to work.. > > > Since this thread is about 9700 I'd say it's certainly your fault for > thinking its the same with 9700 just because you had problems with 8500 > cards. > > If the 9700 cards are so bad could you please point out just one review > mentioning any problems apart from AGPx8 which originates in > motherboards not being 100% compatible with the Intel 3.0 AGP standard > and not really a 9700 problem. > > Regards > > Bruno >

"Glen Pittman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Reviews? Those are the articles written by a person who receives a free > product to test? > > Free product = Biased >I imagine they receive free test samples from many manufacturers - which one would they be biased towards?

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > > <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:C8Dk9.31662$[email hidden]... > > Mike Lamb wrote: > > > So it's my fault eh? The guy in the chair? That's a typical > > > ATI response I've at rage3d to whoever can't get an ATI to work.. > > > > > Since this thread is about 9700 I'd say it's certainly your fault for > > thinking its the same with 9700 just because you had problems with 8500 > > cards. > > > > If the 9700 cards are so bad could you please point out just one review > > mentioning any problems apart from AGPx8 which originates in > > motherboards not being 100% compatible with the Intel 3.0 AGP standard > > and not really a 9700 problem. > > > > Regards > > > > Bruno > > > >

MotoGP. -- Charlie was a chemist, Charlie is no more, What Charlie thought was H2O, was H2SO4.

On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 21:01:05 GMT, "CFster" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >> Ghosting problem here too. I'll try a BNC connection later and see if >> that fixes it. >> Too early for me to comment on the drivers though since I just picked >> up the card today. > >Well, I'll tell you I had no luck with mine trying BNC connectors. I think >it has something to do with the dual RAMDACS generating their signals at a >slightly different frequency and causing interference. Some cards do it, >some don't.

Tried the BNC cable, no difference. Changed my el-cheapo Codegen 300w power supply to an Antec True Power 430w, no difference. Re-installed Windows XP and did notice that before installing the video card drivers there was no ghosting. Install the drivers and the ghosting comes back, which would lead me to think that maybe it's got something to do with the drivers.

Well, there's an underwater game called Aqua-somethingoranother that is gorgeous, but it's always been noted as really hard on just about everything. -Larry "Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (23 lines)

> I will be buying a 9700 soon (upgrading from a Ti500) and am looking for > a few demos or games that really stress video and cpu. I'm a pretty avid > PC gamer but at this time I'm hard pressed to point to any one game > that stands out above the rest to push ones system. > > Sure any game at 16x12x32bit with 4xAA will be pretty slow but it use to > be most games at 10x7x16bit with noAA would be in the teens to 20s > fps-wise really stressing even the best systems. > > It's almost as though hardware has passed games in the race for power. > Perhaps developers misjudged the rate of hardware improvements? > > Anyway, Comanche 4 would be my best first choice of a horsepower hungry > game..I guess. > > Anyone have an opinion to what's a good game to make my card/system > wanna puke its guts out? > > P.S. Heck, now that I think about it, I'm second guessing myself on why > should I upgrade since my system runs what I play just fine (for the > most part). Guess I'm simply digging the fact that the new ATI can do AA > so well with hardly any performance hit. >

The game you're trying to remember is Aquanox. -- Mart " All those who think they know the 3rd letter in the vowel chain say 'I' " "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mLZk9.34363$[email hidden]... > Well, there's an underwater game called Aqua-somethingoranother that is > gorgeous, but it's always been noted as really hard on just about > everything. > > -Larry > > "Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > I will be buying a 9700 soon (upgrading from a Ti500) and am looking for > > a few demos or games that really stress video and cpu. I'm a pretty avid > > PC gamer but at this time I'm hard pressed to point to any one game > > that stands out above the rest to push ones system. > > > > Sure any game at 16x12x32bit with 4xAA will be pretty slow but it use to > > be most games at 10x7x16bit with noAA would be in the teens to 20s > > fps-wise really stressing even the best systems. > > > > It's almost as though hardware has passed games in the race for power. > > Perhaps developers misjudged the rate of hardware improvements? > > > > Anyway, Comanche 4 would be my best first choice of a horsepower hungry > > game..I guess. > > > > Anyone have an opinion to what's a good game to make my card/system > > wanna puke its guts out? > > > > P.S. Heck, now that I think about it, I'm second guessing myself on why > > should I upgrade since my system runs what I play just fine (for the > > most part). Guess I'm simply digging the fact that the new ATI can do AA > > so well with hardly any performance hit. > > > >

Yeah, yeah... That's the ticket! -Larry "Mart" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:an1q0e$v36$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> The game you're trying to remember is Aquanox. > > -- > Mart > " All those who think they know the > 3rd letter in the vowel chain say 'I' " > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:mLZk9.34363$[email hidden]... > > Well, there's an underwater game called Aqua-somethingoranother that is > > gorgeous, but it's always been noted as really hard on just about > > everything. > > > > -Larry > > > > "Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > I will be buying a 9700 soon (upgrading from a Ti500) and am looking

for > > > a few demos or games that really stress video and cpu. I'm a prettyavid > > > PC gamer but at this time I'm hard pressed to point to any one game > > > that stands out above the rest to push ones system. > > > > > > Sure any game at 16x12x32bit with 4xAA will be pretty slow but it useto

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > be most games at 10x7x16bit with noAA would be in the teens to 20s > > > fps-wise really stressing even the best systems. > > > > > > It's almost as though hardware has passed games in the race for power. > > > Perhaps developers misjudged the rate of hardware improvements? > > > > > > Anyway, Comanche 4 would be my best first choice of a horsepower

hungry > > > game..I guess. > > > > > > Anyone have an opinion to what's a good game to make my card/system > > > wanna puke its guts out? > > > > > > P.S. Heck, now that I think about it, I'm second guessing myself onwhy > > > should I upgrade since my system runs what I play just fine (for the > > > most part). Guess I'm simply digging the fact that the new ATI can doAA > > > so well with hardly any performance hit. > > > > > > > >

Tony Rae wrote:

Quoted text (23 lines)

> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 21:01:05 GMT, "CFster" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >>>Ghosting problem here too. I'll try a BNC connection later and see if >>>that fixes it. >>>Too early for me to comment on the drivers though since I just picked >>>up the card today. >> >>Well, I'll tell you I had no luck with mine trying BNC connectors. I think >>it has something to do with the dual RAMDACS generating their signals at a >>slightly different frequency and causing interference. Some cards do it, >>some don't. > > > Tried the BNC cable, no difference. Changed my el-cheapo Codegen 300w > power supply to an Antec True Power 430w, no difference. > Re-installed Windows XP and did notice that before installing the > video card drivers there was no ghosting. Install the drivers and the > ghosting comes back, which would lead me to think that maybe it's got > something to do with the drivers. > >

tt

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

Quoted text (22 lines)

> I will be buying a 9700 soon (upgrading from a Ti500) and am looking for > a few demos or games that really stress video and cpu. I'm a pretty avid > PC gamer but at this time I'm hard pressed to point to any one game > that stands out above the rest to push ones system. > > Sure any game at 16x12x32bit with 4xAA will be pretty slow but it use to > be most games at 10x7x16bit with noAA would be in the teens to 20s > fps-wise really stressing even the best systems. > > It's almost as though hardware has passed games in the race for power. > Perhaps developers misjudged the rate of hardware improvements? > > Anyway, Comanche 4 would be my best first choice of a horsepower hungry > game..I guess. > > Anyone have an opinion to what's a good game to make my card/system > wanna puke its guts out? > > P.S. Heck, now that I think about it, I'm second guessing myself on why > should I upgrade since my system runs what I play just fine (for the > most part). Guess I'm simply digging the fact that the new ATI can do AA > so well with hardly any performance hit.

Panzer Elite S.E. with any of the 3rd party special affects addons -included on the CD- will give your Card a real kick in the FPS department. When the original Panzer Elite was released, one reviewer described it as brilliant but unplayable on any known or existing hardware configuration. It's a damn good thing hardware has caught up somewhat with this sim, because it really is great! Donovan Fly'in high in the NW skies

Boot up mame and try Sinistar. :D

Comanche 4 (more CPU dependant than GPU) Unreal Tournament 2003 Jedi Knight (high res full textures anti-aliasing switched on) Battlefield 1942 All good games for stressing your card at 1024 * 768 * 32 bit and anti-aliasing switched on. "Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (23 lines)

> I will be buying a 9700 soon (upgrading from a Ti500) and am looking for > a few demos or games that really stress video and cpu. I'm a pretty avid > PC gamer but at this time I'm hard pressed to point to any one game > that stands out above the rest to push ones system. > > Sure any game at 16x12x32bit with 4xAA will be pretty slow but it use to > be most games at 10x7x16bit with noAA would be in the teens to 20s > fps-wise really stressing even the best systems. > > It's almost as though hardware has passed games in the race for power. > Perhaps developers misjudged the rate of hardware improvements? > > Anyway, Comanche 4 would be my best first choice of a horsepower hungry > game..I guess. > > Anyone have an opinion to what's a good game to make my card/system > wanna puke its guts out? > > P.S. Heck, now that I think about it, I'm second guessing myself on why > should I upgrade since my system runs what I play just fine (for the > most part). Guess I'm simply digging the fact that the new ATI can do AA > so well with hardly any performance hit. >

"David Travers" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:6GLl9.1341$[email hidden]... > Unreal Tournament 2003 > > Jedi Knight (high res full textures anti-aliasing switched on) The above 2 run superb on a G4 440MX @ 1024x768. > Battlefield 1942 A disaster, I currently have it @ 800x600x16 with embedded off and it still only runs just about acceptable. I think I'll upgrade to a 9700 Pro but I'm not sure my Athlon XP2000 will be able to drive it to the limit, I may be better off getter a XP2600 instead :\

On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 21:01:05 GMT, "CFster" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >> Ghosting problem here too. I'll try a BNC connection later and see if >> that fixes it. >> Too early for me to comment on the drivers though since I just picked >> up the card today. > >Well, I'll tell you I had no luck with mine trying BNC connectors. I think >it has something to do with the dual RAMDACS generating their signals at a >slightly different frequency and causing interference. Some cards do it, >some don't. I also suspect the fact that it has to get power directly from >the power supply has something to do it. Maybe if you're case power supply >is substandard then it's not putting out a "clean" power signal.

An update on my ghosting problem.... No matter what I've tried, new power supply, BNC cable, new good quality 15pin cable, the ghosting is still there. I even tried another card, this time unlike the original card which is a Hightech Excalibur, I tried a retail ATI. Ghosting is still there. Lastly, I tried what I should have done in the first place, I connected my brothers cheapy 17" Viewsonic E70, which is relatively new. My monitor is a 21" Viewsonic P810 which is around 6 years old. To my amazement there is no ghosting what so ever with that 17" monitor. I find this very odd since my P810 had no problem at all with my previous GF3 Ti500. Obviously the 9700 is doing something that my P810 just does not like. Oh well, I was considering a new monitor anyway :)

GTA3: Diamond Multimedia Monster Fusion (Voodoo Banshee) - Textures don't render, Driver Crashes during some cut scenes Voodoo 5 - 10fps (@640x480!!!) GeForce 4 420 MX - 20 fps (@1024x768!!) GeForce 4 Ti 4200 - 30 fps (@1600x1200!!) "David Travers" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:6GLl9.1341$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (38 lines)

> Comanche 4 (more CPU dependant than GPU) > > Unreal Tournament 2003 > > Jedi Knight (high res full textures anti-aliasing switched on) > > Battlefield 1942 > > All good games for stressing your card at 1024 * 768 * 32 bit and > anti-aliasing switched on. > > "Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > I will be buying a 9700 soon (upgrading from a Ti500) and am looking for > > a few demos or games that really stress video and cpu. I'm a pretty avid > > PC gamer but at this time I'm hard pressed to point to any one game > > that stands out above the rest to push ones system. > > > > Sure any game at 16x12x32bit with 4xAA will be pretty slow but it use to > > be most games at 10x7x16bit with noAA would be in the teens to 20s > > fps-wise really stressing even the best systems. > > > > It's almost as though hardware has passed games in the race for power. > > Perhaps developers misjudged the rate of hardware improvements? > > > > Anyway, Comanche 4 would be my best first choice of a horsepower hungry > > game..I guess. > > > > Anyone have an opinion to what's a good game to make my card/system > > wanna puke its guts out? > > > > P.S. Heck, now that I think about it, I'm second guessing myself on why > > should I upgrade since my system runs what I play just fine (for the > > most part). Guess I'm simply digging the fact that the new ATI can do AA > > so well with hardly any performance hit. > > > >

On Wed, 02 Oct 2002 22:42:24 GMT, "John Miller" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >"David Travers" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:6GLl9.1341$[email hidden]... >> Unreal Tournament 2003 >> >> Jedi Knight (high res full textures anti-aliasing switched on) > >The above 2 run superb on a G4 440MX @ 1024x768.

But NOT with high res full textures and anti aliasing switched on.

On Wed, 02 Oct 2002 22:42:24 GMT, "John Miller" >> Unreal Tournament 2003 >> Jedi Knight (high res full textures anti-aliasing switched on) But NOT with high res full textures and anti aliasing switched on.

Try Battlefield 1942 with full settings and 59 bots. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Best Wishes, B. Pallett. http://www.btinternet.com/~cosmosweb ---------------------------------------------------------------- "Marc de Vries" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Wed, 02 Oct 2002 22:42:24 GMT, "John Miller" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >"David Travers" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:6GLl9.1341$[email hidden]... > >> Unreal Tournament 2003 > >> > >> Jedi Knight (high res full textures anti-aliasing switched on) > > > >The above 2 run superb on a G4 440MX @ 1024x768. > > But NOT with high res full textures and anti aliasing switched on. > >

Try Battlefield 1942 with full settings and 59 bots. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Best Wishes, B. Pallett. http://www.btinternet.com/~cosmosweb ---------------------------------------------------------------- > On Wed, 02 Oct 2002 22:42:24 GMT, "John Miller" > >> Unreal Tournament 2003 > >> Jedi Knight (high res full textures anti-aliasing switched on) > But NOT with high res full textures and anti aliasing switched on.

UT2003

"Vern Pellerin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:WB9o9.49863$[email hidden]... > UT2003 Understatement of the year! Time to upgrade once again. Screw it, UT is better anyway. Wonder if I can get my $40 back.

In article <2wao9.95173$[email hidden]>, "Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote: >"Vern Pellerin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:WB9o9.49863$[email hidden]... >> UT2003 > >Understatement of the year! Time to upgrade once again. Screw it, UT is >better anyway. Wonder if I can get my $40 back. So I'm not the ONLY one who thinks that UT is better than UT2003? The graphics are obviously better in UT2003. But the gameplay in UT2003 seems more Quake-like. I'm not sure how to describe it, but the original UT just seems more fun than UT2003. And the weapons in UT2003 are just a little odd. I liked the original UT weapons better. They were a bit simpler and more FUN.

"Vern Pellerin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ygko9.52255$[email hidden]... > In article <2wao9.95173$[email hidden]>, "Gonzo"<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >"Vern Pellerin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:WB9o9.49863$[email hidden]... > >> UT2003 > > > >Understatement of the year! Time to upgrade once again. Screw it, UT is > >better anyway. Wonder if I can get my $40 back. > > > So I'm not the ONLY one who thinks that UT is better than UT2003? > > The graphics are obviously better in UT2003. But the gameplay in UT2003

seems > more Quake-like. I'm not sure how to describe it, but the original UTjust > seems more fun than UT2003. And the weapons in UT2003 are just a littleodd. > I liked the original UT weapons better. They were a bit simpler and moreFUN. The UT2003 newsgroup is full of postings like yours FWIW. IMO what they screwed up in UT2003 is: 1)Weapons are weaker and simply lame compared to the UT weapons. 2)Level design is too small and to Quakish looking 3)Announcer is annoying 4)Netcode is worse than UT 5)3 Gigs of HD space?? What's good OTOH: 1)Pretty (low fps) graphics 2)Skeletal physics are nice that's about it. Hopefully a patch and some user made maps will help resolve SOME of these issues.

They ruined the character models...all the UT Characters looked great...like individuals...these all look exactly like Quake. I dont plan on buying UT2003 PAPA DOC >So I'm not the ONLY one who thinks that UT is better than UT2003? > >The graphics are obviously better in UT2003. But the gameplay in UT2003 seems >more Quake-like. I'm not sure how to describe it, but the original UT just >seems more fun than UT2003. And the weapons in UT2003 are just a little odd. >I liked the original UT weapons better. They were a bit simpler and more FUN. Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand Never Forget Never Forgive September 11, 2001 www.papadoc.net Maj. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the 10th Mountain Division:"If they want to bring in more people so we can kill them,We're happy to oblige."

FWIW, I know you probably mean "quake 3 like". But FWIW I think that the original 4 quake episodes contained some of the most well designed levels of all time. Nearly each one was a true masterpeice of space. In quake 2 and to a leser extent 3, the level design SUCKED. Even though the games were much better. for multiplayer. -frl "Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:F4lo9.83784$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> "Vern Pellerin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:ygko9.52255$[email hidden]... > > In article <2wao9.95173$[email hidden]>, "Gonzo" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >"Vern Pellerin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > >news:WB9o9.49863$[email hidden]... > > >> UT2003 > > > > > >Understatement of the year! Time to upgrade once again. Screw it, UT

is

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > >better anyway. Wonder if I can get my $40 back. > > > > > > So I'm not the ONLY one who thinks that UT is better than UT2003? > > > > The graphics are obviously better in UT2003. But the gameplay in UT2003 > seems > > more Quake-like. I'm not sure how to describe it, but the original UT > just > > seems more fun than UT2003. And the weapons in UT2003 are just a little > odd. > > I liked the original UT weapons better. They were a bit simpler and

more

Quoted text (23 lines)

> FUN. > > The UT2003 newsgroup is full of postings like yours FWIW. > > IMO what they screwed up in UT2003 is: > > 1)Weapons are weaker and simply lame compared to the UT weapons. > 2)Level design is too small and to Quakish looking > 3)Announcer is annoying > 4)Netcode is worse than UT > 5)3 Gigs of HD space?? > > What's good OTOH: > > 1)Pretty (low fps) graphics > 2)Skeletal physics are nice > that's about it. > > Hopefully a patch and some user made maps will help resolve SOME of these > issues. > > >

Their is not PC that can do that and get a framerate over 5fps (: On Sun, 6 Oct 2002 22:45:13 +0000 (UTC), "B Pallett" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Try Battlefield 1942 with full settings and 59 bots.

In article <F4lo9.83784$[email hidden]>, "Gonzo" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (24 lines)

>"Vern Pellerin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:ygko9.52255$[email hidden]... >> In article <2wao9.95173$[email hidden]>, "Gonzo" ><[email hidden]> wrote: >> >"Vern Pellerin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> >news:WB9o9.49863$[email hidden]... >> >> UT2003 >> > >> >Understatement of the year! Time to upgrade once again. Screw it, UT is >> >better anyway. Wonder if I can get my $40 back. >> >> >> So I'm not the ONLY one who thinks that UT is better than UT2003? >> >> The graphics are obviously better in UT2003. But the gameplay in UT2003 >seems >> more Quake-like. I'm not sure how to describe it, but the original UT >just >> seems more fun than UT2003. And the weapons in UT2003 are just a little >odd. >> I liked the original UT weapons better. They were a bit simpler and more >FUN. > >The UT2003 newsgroup is full of postings like yours FWIW.

Really? Cool. I haven't even read any other posts about it. Those were just my initial impressions from playing it for a couple of days. You're right, the weapons are weaker. Which means that you have to rely on special items more, which means that the hardcore players do better, and the regular guys who don't know where every single power-up is and what it does don't have much chance at winning the game. >IMO what they screwed up in UT2003 is: > >1)Weapons are weaker and simply lame compared to the UT weapons.HELL YES >2)Level design is too small and to Quakish lookingHELL YES >3)Announcer is annoyingYES >4)Netcode is worse than UTI don't know about this. It seems ok to me. But I do have a reliable cable modem connection. Not everyone has high speed I-net access. >5)3 Gigs of HD space??Hungry for space, but big-ass hard drives are pretty cheap these days.

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >What's good OTOH: > >1)Pretty (low fps) graphics >2)Skeletal physics are nice >that's about it. > >Hopefully a patch and some user made maps will help resolve SOME of these >issues. > > >

Actually, on my 9700 Pro I can run almost any game in max detail 1600x1200x32bit 4x AA/ 16x AF, with thr exception of Unreal Tournament 2003, by far the demanding engine I've seen yet "Anders E.D" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Ffyk9.26033$[email hidden]... > Correction: www.rage3d.com > > "Mike Lamb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:T6vk9.3208$[email hidden]... > > Try the ATI forums at www.3drage.com > > They can answer such questions better since you are intending on runninga > > ATI card. > > Also you better get over there anyways because you'll gonna need a lotof > > help getting that ATI card to run. Been there done that, and I don'twanna

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > go back! > > > > Mike > > > > > > "Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Damn typo's. Pardon me. > > > > > > Destroy wrote: > > > > > > > I will be buying a 9700 soon (upgrading from a Ti500) and am looking > for > > > > a few demos or games that really stress video and cpu. I'm a pretty > avid > > > > PC gamer but at this time I'm hard pressed to point to any one game > > > > that stands out above the rest to push ones system. > > > > > > > > Sure any game at 16x12x32bit with 4xAA will be pretty slow but it

use > to > > > > be most games at 10x7x16bit with noAA would be in the teens to 20s > > > > fps-wise really stressing even the best systems. > > > > > > > > It's almost as though hardware has passed games in the race forpower.

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > > > Perhaps developers misjudged the rate of hardware improvements? > > > > > > > > Anyway, Comanche 4 would be my best first choice of a horsepower > hungry > > > > game..I guess. > > > > > > > > Anyone have an opinion to what's a good game to make my card/system > > > > wanna puke its guts out? > > > > > > > > P.S. Heck, now that I think about it, I'm second guessing myself on > why > > > > should I upgrade since my system runs what I play just fine (for the > > > > most part). Guess I'm simply digging the fact that the new ATI can

do

Quoted text (8 lines)

> AA > > > > so well with hardly any performance hit. > > > > > > > > > > > > >

The absolutely most power-sucking game I ever tried was the (otherways) great flight-sim "Fly 2". It isn`t even playabel in full graphic settings on any of the most powerful PC.s today. Regardless to any graphic card. "Tony Rae" <[email hidden]> skrev i meddelandet news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 21:01:05 GMT, "CFster" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > > > >> Ghosting problem here too. I'll try a BNC connection later and see if > >> that fixes it. > >> Too early for me to comment on the drivers though since I just picked > >> up the card today. > > > >Well, I'll tell you I had no luck with mine trying BNC connectors. I

think > >it has something to do with the dual RAMDACS generating their signals ata > >slightly different frequency and causing interference. Some cards do it, > >some don't. I also suspect the fact that it has to get power directlyfrom > >the power supply has something to do it. Maybe if you're case powersupply

Quoted text (17 lines)

> >is substandard then it's not putting out a "clean" power signal. > > An update on my ghosting problem.... > No matter what I've tried, new power supply, BNC cable, new good > quality 15pin cable, the ghosting is still there. I even tried another > card, this time unlike the original card which is a Hightech > Excalibur, I tried a retail ATI. Ghosting is still there. > > Lastly, I tried what I should have done in the first place, I > connected my brothers cheapy 17" Viewsonic E70, which is relatively > new. My monitor is a 21" Viewsonic P810 which is around 6 years old. > To my amazement there is no ghosting what so ever with that 17" > monitor. I find this very odd since my P810 had no problem at all with > my previous GF3 Ti500. Obviously the 9700 is doing something that my > P810 just does not like. Oh well, I was considering a new monitor > anyway :) >

"Mikke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > PacMan. > lol :)