Just bought a Radeon 9700 Pro....
This card is nothing short of AWESOME!!!. The speed and image quality is INCREDIBLE!!. I have been an Nvidia user for a long time and was hesitant about buying this card. Nevertheless, I am very surprised at the speed this thing possesses.
This card is nothing short of AWESOME!!!. The speed and image quality is INCREDIBLE!!. I have been an Nvidia user for a long time and was hesitant about buying this card. Nevertheless, I am very surprised at the speed this thing possesses. My 3DMark went from 8000 to 12249!!. I would recommend it to anyone that is looking to upgrade......
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
Do you want to buy me one?
lol
i just got one in my new dell (see NEW WORK COMP)
UT2003 - all effects to MAX and res @ 1600 x 1200 - did not even dent it - where as i got my VAIO - with a g4 4600m ultra - 1600 x 1200 - man, major lag - but likely cause of the pc133 memory
i just got one in my new dell (see NEW WORK COMP)
UT2003 - all effects to MAX and res @ 1600 x 1200 - did not even dent it - where as i got my VAIO - with a g4 4600m ultra - 1600 x 1200 - man, major lag - but likely cause of the pc133 memory
Quote:Is DirectX 9 out yet or they are still using the 8.1a. I don't think it is available for download yet.
DirectX 8.2 is available, for Windows 2000. I don't recall where on Microsoft's site it was, but it was a large download (20+MB) for the entire directplay update.
DirectX 8.2 is available, for Windows 2000. I don't recall where on Microsoft's site it was, but it was a large download (20+MB) for the entire directplay update.
I think I read that DirectX9 will actually be released before the end of the year, FYI.
Just wanted to let you know: DirectX9 is out, see http://www.microsoft.com/directx/ and ATI released their Catalyst set of drivers at http://mirror.ati.com/products/pc/catalyst/index.html.
Quote:This card is nothing short of AWESOME!!!. The speed and image quality is INCREDIBLE!!. I have been an Nvidia user for a long time and was hesitant about buying this card. Nevertheless, I am very surprised at the speed this thing possesses. My 3DMark went from 8000 to 12249!!. I would recommend it to anyone that is looking to upgrade......
If you look in my profile you will see my 3dmark, i aint saying anything bad about the card but i aint impressed with that score for a 9700 radeon on your system. RAM and processor give next nothing for 3dmarks, especially with a radeon being so much higher clock rates than the Ti4600 (mine is at stock speeds) i would of expected much higher than what i have
If you look in my profile you will see my 3dmark, i aint saying anything bad about the card but i aint impressed with that score for a 9700 radeon on your system. RAM and processor give next nothing for 3dmarks, especially with a radeon being so much higher clock rates than the Ti4600 (mine is at stock speeds) i would of expected much higher than what i have
If you look in my profile you will see my 3dmark, i aint saying anything bad but i aint impressed with that score for a 9700 radeon on your system. RAM and processor give next nothing for 3dmarks, especially with a radeon being so much higher clock rates than the Ti4600 (mine is at stock speeds) i would of expected much higher than what i have.
How do you figure that a Radeon 9700 is clocked "so much higher than the Ti4600"?. Here are the numbers:
Radeon 9700 Pro:
GPU clock- 325Mhz
Memory clock- 620 Mhz
GeForce Ti4600:
GPU clock- 300Mhz
Memory clock- 650Mhz
25Mhz is not "so much higher in my book". The memory is clocked 30 Mhz higher on your Ti4600 also. It's not the clock speed of the GPU or the memory that make this card stand out....it's the technology behind it. For example.....How does a AMD XP 2000+ outperform a Pentium 4 2GHZ?....Is it the clock speed?. Certainly not with the XP 2000 being clocked at 1.667Ghz. It's the underlying technology. Happy Holidays everyone!!....
How do you figure that a Radeon 9700 is clocked "so much higher than the Ti4600"?. Here are the numbers:
Radeon 9700 Pro:
GPU clock- 325Mhz
Memory clock- 620 Mhz
GeForce Ti4600:
GPU clock- 300Mhz
Memory clock- 650Mhz
25Mhz is not "so much higher in my book". The memory is clocked 30 Mhz higher on your Ti4600 also. It's not the clock speed of the GPU or the memory that make this card stand out....it's the technology behind it. For example.....How does a AMD XP 2000+ outperform a Pentium 4 2GHZ?....Is it the clock speed?. Certainly not with the XP 2000 being clocked at 1.667Ghz. It's the underlying technology. Happy Holidays everyone!!....
Quote:How do you figure that a Radeon 9700 is clocked "so much higher than the Ti4600"?. Here are the numbers:
Radeon 9700 Pro:
GPU clock- 325Mhz
Memory clock- 620 Mhz
GeForce Ti4600:
GPU clock- 300Mhz
Memory clock- 650Mhz
25Mhz is not "so much higher in my book". The memory is clocked 30 Mhz higher on your Ti4600 also. It's not the clock speed of the GPU or the memory that make this card stand out....it's the technology behind it. For example.....How does a AMD XP 2000+ outperform a Pentium 4 2GHZ?....Is it the clock speed?. Certainly not with the XP 2000 being clocked at 1.667Ghz. It's the underlying technology. Happy Holidays everyone!!....
Any ideas why the Radeon 9700 is more expensive than the 4600 then, everyones system that has this card outruns my system, 3dmark scores for frame rates and quality. Obviously you arent getting what you should from this card. You also said 25mhz isnt much higher, but it is still higher and this card has better technology and has 8pipe lines rather than 4 on the GF4. I am getting 600 points more which is a lot more. If i clock my CPU back to 2.53 i still get 12712 points.
You also said that an xp 2000+ outperforms a 2ghz P4, does this mean you are suggesting that the GF4 outperforms the Radeon, in this case everyone should save there money and go for the faster Gf4
Radeon 9700 Pro:
GPU clock- 325Mhz
Memory clock- 620 Mhz
GeForce Ti4600:
GPU clock- 300Mhz
Memory clock- 650Mhz
25Mhz is not "so much higher in my book". The memory is clocked 30 Mhz higher on your Ti4600 also. It's not the clock speed of the GPU or the memory that make this card stand out....it's the technology behind it. For example.....How does a AMD XP 2000+ outperform a Pentium 4 2GHZ?....Is it the clock speed?. Certainly not with the XP 2000 being clocked at 1.667Ghz. It's the underlying technology. Happy Holidays everyone!!....
Any ideas why the Radeon 9700 is more expensive than the 4600 then, everyones system that has this card outruns my system, 3dmark scores for frame rates and quality. Obviously you arent getting what you should from this card. You also said 25mhz isnt much higher, but it is still higher and this card has better technology and has 8pipe lines rather than 4 on the GF4. I am getting 600 points more which is a lot more. If i clock my CPU back to 2.53 i still get 12712 points.
You also said that an xp 2000+ outperforms a 2ghz P4, does this mean you are suggesting that the GF4 outperforms the Radeon, in this case everyone should save there money and go for the faster Gf4
Any ideas why the Radeon 9700 is more expensive than the 4600 then, everyones system that has this card outruns my system, 3dmark scores for frame rates and quality. Obviously you arent getting what you should from this card. You also said 25mhz isnt much higher, but it is still higher and this card has better technology and has 8pipe lines rather than 4 on the GF4. I am getting 600 points more which is a lot more. If i clock my CPU back to 2.53 i still get 12712 points.
You also said that an xp 2000+ outperforms a 2ghz P4, does this mean you are suggesting that the GF4 outperforms the Radeon, in this case everyone should save there money and go for the faster Gf4
"Any ideas why the Radeon 9700 is more expensive than the 4600 then"
1. It is more expensive because it is cutting edge technology. Why not spend $100 more(basing this on Circuit City prices) and get a Radeon with better technology and DX9 support?. This card will be good for a good while simply because of the DX9 support.
"Obviously you arent getting what you should from this card."
2. What should I be getting?. I am running no tweaks on this system at all. Everything is at the defaults. I tried a GF4 for a while, and it didn't come anywhere near the speed or quality of the Radeon. I am not dissin' Nvidia....I have been a loyal user of many Nvidia cards for several years now. But, like I said above, my decision to go with a Radeon was based on performance, longevity, and negligible price difference.
"If i clock my CPU back to 2.53 i still get 12712 points."
3. My original score was using a P4 2.26 Ghz. I now have a 2.53 that I got a few days ago. My benchmark has now gone to 13,429 3Dmarks with DX9 installed plus the Catalyst 3.0 drivers.
"You also said that an xp 2000+ outperforms a 2ghz P4, does this mean you are suggesting that the GF4 outperforms the Radeon, in this case everyone should save there money and go for the faster Gf4"
4. An XP 2000+ DOES outperform a P4 2Ghz. No, that is not what I am suggesting. If the Radeon and the GF4 were run at the same core and memory speeds the Radeon would still win because of the technology advancements....just as the XP2000+ whips the Pentium 4 2Ghz. Just go to http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20020819/radeon9700-13.html
and compare the results for yourself. Also, read this conclusion on the comparison of the GF4 and the Radeon 9700 Pro at http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20020819/radeon9700-28.html
I do agree with you though that MY 3DMark scores should be higher than they are. I dont know, maybe I just have a piece of $hit computer.....lol. At any rate, I am happy with the Radeon. Have a good Christmas.
You also said that an xp 2000+ outperforms a 2ghz P4, does this mean you are suggesting that the GF4 outperforms the Radeon, in this case everyone should save there money and go for the faster Gf4
"Any ideas why the Radeon 9700 is more expensive than the 4600 then"
1. It is more expensive because it is cutting edge technology. Why not spend $100 more(basing this on Circuit City prices) and get a Radeon with better technology and DX9 support?. This card will be good for a good while simply because of the DX9 support.
"Obviously you arent getting what you should from this card."
2. What should I be getting?. I am running no tweaks on this system at all. Everything is at the defaults. I tried a GF4 for a while, and it didn't come anywhere near the speed or quality of the Radeon. I am not dissin' Nvidia....I have been a loyal user of many Nvidia cards for several years now. But, like I said above, my decision to go with a Radeon was based on performance, longevity, and negligible price difference.
"If i clock my CPU back to 2.53 i still get 12712 points."
3. My original score was using a P4 2.26 Ghz. I now have a 2.53 that I got a few days ago. My benchmark has now gone to 13,429 3Dmarks with DX9 installed plus the Catalyst 3.0 drivers.
"You also said that an xp 2000+ outperforms a 2ghz P4, does this mean you are suggesting that the GF4 outperforms the Radeon, in this case everyone should save there money and go for the faster Gf4"
4. An XP 2000+ DOES outperform a P4 2Ghz. No, that is not what I am suggesting. If the Radeon and the GF4 were run at the same core and memory speeds the Radeon would still win because of the technology advancements....just as the XP2000+ whips the Pentium 4 2Ghz. Just go to http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20020819/radeon9700-13.html
and compare the results for yourself. Also, read this conclusion on the comparison of the GF4 and the Radeon 9700 Pro at http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20020819/radeon9700-28.html
I do agree with you though that MY 3DMark scores should be higher than they are. I dont know, maybe I just have a piece of $hit computer.....lol. At any rate, I am happy with the Radeon. Have a good Christmas.
You keep saying how much better the Radeon is, and i agree, but like i said you have very low points for such a card. I use no tweaks apart from upping my cpu and that gives me a small amount of points. I find it hard to belive that you went from 2.26 up to 2.53 and got that much of an improvement in points, even with dx9 and new drivers. Anyway all i was suggesting at first was for you to look at your system because you had a low score for that system.
I was gonna go for this card myself until i saw its problems with some games, like displaying bad textures in UT2003 and also a mate of mine bought an 8500 radeon and he doesnt like it, so i stayed away. Maybe they have changed but i need proof before i jump the boat. I jumped over to my P4 because the Intel chips are so much cheaper now than they were and i thought i would give them a go, but the radeon still seems to have problems and at nearly 50% extra cost of the GF4 Ti4600 i didnt think it was worth it
I was gonna go for this card myself until i saw its problems with some games, like displaying bad textures in UT2003 and also a mate of mine bought an 8500 radeon and he doesnt like it, so i stayed away. Maybe they have changed but i need proof before i jump the boat. I jumped over to my P4 because the Intel chips are so much cheaper now than they were and i thought i would give them a go, but the radeon still seems to have problems and at nearly 50% extra cost of the GF4 Ti4600 i didnt think it was worth it
I know my 3Dmarks should be higher. I dont know why it isn't.... . I have a decent motherboard and am running XP Home. Maybe its like I said above......I just have a piece of $hit!!.
P.S..........typo below...
3. My original score was using a P4 2.26 Ghz. I now have a 2.53 that I got a few days ago. My benchmark has now gone to 13,429 3Dmarks with DX9 installed plus the Catalyst 3.0 drivers.
Should have been 12,429
P.S..........typo below...
3. My original score was using a P4 2.26 Ghz. I now have a 2.53 that I got a few days ago. My benchmark has now gone to 13,429 3Dmarks with DX9 installed plus the Catalyst 3.0 drivers.
Should have been 12,429
Quote:I know my 3Dmarks should be higher. I dont know why it isn't.... . I have a decent motherboard and am running XP Home. Maybe its like I said above......I just have a piece of $hit!!.
P.S..........typo below...
3. My original score was using a P4 2.26 Ghz. I now have a 2.53 that I got a few days ago. My benchmark has now gone to 13,429 3Dmarks with DX9 installed plus the Catalyst 3.0 drivers.
Should have been 12,429
I wasnt dissing your system as you have pritty much the same system as i have, but you should be getting better scores. I would look into it, you should be over 13,000 really.
P.S..........typo below...
3. My original score was using a P4 2.26 Ghz. I now have a 2.53 that I got a few days ago. My benchmark has now gone to 13,429 3Dmarks with DX9 installed plus the Catalyst 3.0 drivers.
Should have been 12,429
I wasnt dissing your system as you have pritty much the same system as i have, but you should be getting better scores. I would look into it, you should be over 13,000 really.
Why in the world do you care? I tell you a radeon 9000 did a better job than a GF4 TI 4200 on nature scene when i compared the two. (Not in terms of frame rate, but in tems of colour and visuals). If i were in movie business and i cared a lot about visuals i would go with ATI cards.
(It is my personal opinion and i think that is just being fare)
(It is my personal opinion and i think that is just being fare)
