Benchmarks

My intention here is *not* to start a flamewar, but if merely a question
that can only be answered by posing it to both ng's.

Having recently upgraded from a Ti4600 to a Radeon 9800 Pro and also having
setup a friend's PC with a 9800 Pro too, I have to say I'm surprised at the
lack of raw performance.

My system is P4 2.4b @ 2.7, with 512MB RAM.
His is P4 3.06 with 1024MB RAM.

Basically I was sorta impressed by 3d Mark 03, Aquanax, and FSAA and AF
performance under the Radeon, but was pretty disappointed that the
performance under the card without this eye candy on wasn't really that much
greater than my Ti4600.

I even went back to the Ti4600 and found that the performance of AF and FSAA
was actually a lot better than I'd ever given it credit for.

Even though the Radeon gave me 5500 in 3DMark03, and 50 in CodeCreatures, it
didn't seem to excel in real-time gaming, where the Ti4600 is the other way
around.

I have been subsequently told that the resolution I play at (1024) and the
eye candy (AF FSAA) are major factors in performance and that my CPU is a
limiter at these settings.

What I'm basically asking is this: Is it just me or do Ati seem to excel in
benchmarks and generally get higher framerates in games (Higher roof), but
Nvidia are more consistent, if maybe a touch lower?

Try playing a new DX9 enabled game, which are beginning to come out, and
you'll see the difference between your cards. The Ti4600 is fast, but it's
not DX9 compatible.

--
DaveW



"Danny" wrote in message
...
My intention here is *not* to start a flamewar, but if merely a question
that can only be answered by posing it to both ng's.

Having recently upgraded from a Ti4600 to a Radeon 9800 Pro and also
having
setup a friend's PC with a 9800 Pro too, I have to say I'm surprised at
the
lack of raw performance.

My system is P4 2.4b @ 2.7, with 512MB RAM.
His is P4 3.06 with 1024MB RAM.

Basically I was sorta impressed by 3d Mark 03, Aquanax, and FSAA and AF
performance under the Radeon, but was pretty disappointed that the
performance under the card without this eye candy on wasn't really that
much
greater than my Ti4600.

I even went back to the Ti4600 and found that the performance of AF and
FSAA
was actually a lot better than I'd ever given it credit for.

Even though the Radeon gave me 5500 in 3DMark03, and 50 in CodeCreatures,
it
didn't seem to excel in real-time gaming, where the Ti4600 is the other
way
around.

I have been subsequently told that the resolution I play at (1024) and the
eye candy (AF FSAA) are major factors in performance and that my CPU is a
limiter at these settings.

What I'm basically asking is this: Is it just me or do Ati seem to excel
in
benchmarks and generally get higher framerates in games (Higher roof), but
Nvidia are more consistent, if maybe a touch lower?

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:22:52 GMT
"DaveW" wrote:

Try playing a new DX9 enabled game, which are beginning to come out,
and you'll see the difference between your cards. The Ti4600 is fast,
but it's not DX9 compatible.

Dave, if you are to be believed then there are no directX 9 compatible
boards on the market. The Ti4600 most assuredly _is_ directX 9
compatible but does not provide acceleration for the new features of
directX 9 so they are either disabled or will run in software with a
performance penalty.

--
DaveW



"Danny" wrote in message
...
My intention here is *not* to start a flamewar, but if merely a
question that can only be answered by posing it to both ng's.

Having recently upgraded from a Ti4600 to a Radeon 9800 Pro and also
having
setup a friend's PC with a 9800 Pro too, I have to say I'm surprised
at
the
lack of raw performance.

My system is P4 2.4b @ 2.7, with 512MB RAM.
His is P4 3.06 with 1024MB RAM.

Basically I was sorta impressed by 3d Mark 03, Aquanax, and FSAA and
AF performance under the Radeon, but was pretty disappointed that
the performance under the card without this eye candy on wasn't
really that
much
greater than my Ti4600.

I even went back to the Ti4600 and found that the performance of AF
and
FSAA
was actually a lot better than I'd ever given it credit for.

Even though the Radeon gave me 5500 in 3DMark03, and 50 in
CodeCreatures,
it
didn't seem to excel in real-time gaming, where the Ti4600 is the
other
way
around.

I have been subsequently told that the resolution I play at (1024)
and the eye candy (AF FSAA) are major factors in performance and
that my CPU is a limiter at these settings.

What I'm basically asking is this: Is it just me or do Ati seem to
excel
in
benchmarks and generally get higher framerates in games (Higher
roof), but Nvidia are more consistent, if maybe a touch lower?







--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Well,this is an interesting item.
I would say your cpu is not limiting anything yet.Most new games can run
with max settings @ 2ghz cpu.
I have always found it ridiculous that the shops ask 3x the price of a ps2
or xbox for a high end videocard which becomes obsolete after 1 or 2 years.
Today's videocards are heavily overpriced,but maybe the same will happen as
with cd burners.
I payed more then 300euro for my now ageing hp9300.Today you pay little for
a fast burner.
Let us hope the videocard business will go the same direction,then more of
us will be able to get that high end card and also more of us will have less
trouble in buying a new card after 1 year.

"Danny" schreef in bericht
...
My intention here is *not* to start a flamewar, but if merely a question
that can only be answered by posing it to both ng's.

Having recently upgraded from a Ti4600 to a Radeon 9800 Pro and also
having
setup a friend's PC with a 9800 Pro too, I have to say I'm surprised at
the
lack of raw performance.

My system is P4 2.4b @ 2.7, with 512MB RAM.
His is P4 3.06 with 1024MB RAM.

Basically I was sorta impressed by 3d Mark 03, Aquanax, and FSAA and AF
performance under the Radeon, but was pretty disappointed that the
performance under the card without this eye candy on wasn't really that
much
greater than my Ti4600.

I even went back to the Ti4600 and found that the performance of AF and
FSAA
was actually a lot better than I'd ever given it credit for.

Even though the Radeon gave me 5500 in 3DMark03, and 50 in CodeCreatures,
it
didn't seem to excel in real-time gaming, where the Ti4600 is the other
way
around.

I have been subsequently told that the resolution I play at (1024) and the
eye candy (AF FSAA) are major factors in performance and that my CPU is a
limiter at these settings.

What I'm basically asking is this: Is it just me or do Ati seem to excel
in
benchmarks and generally get higher framerates in games (Higher roof), but
Nvidia are more consistent, if maybe a touch lower?

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:04:14 -0000, "Danny"
wrote:

My system is P4 2.4b @ 2.7, with 512MB RAM.
His is P4 3.06 with 1024MB RAM.

Basically I was sorta impressed by 3d Mark 03, Aquanax, and FSAA and AF
performance under the Radeon, but was pretty disappointed that the
performance under the card without this eye candy on wasn't really that much
greater than my Ti4600.

I even went back to the Ti4600 and found that the performance of AF and FSAA
was actually a lot better than I'd ever given it credit for.

I have been subsequently told that the resolution I play at (1024) and the
eye candy (AF FSAA) are major factors in performance and that my CPU is a
limiter at these settings.

What I'm basically asking is this: Is it just me or do Ati seem to excel in
benchmarks and generally get higher framerates in games (Higher roof), but
Nvidia are more consistent, if maybe a touch lower?

1 - Make sure you remove ALL NVidia drivers.. it WILL effect ATI
performance.

2 - I'm about 5400 with 3Dmark03 (AMD-2500Mhz @ 1833Mhz)/512mb DDR

3 - My previous card on my MAIN PC was a Ti4200 which wasn't that much
slower than the TI4600. Such as this review you should check out
below. Here is a SMALL part: Unreal II @ 1024x768 on the P4 3.2Ghz

39.7 = fx5600Ultra (for fun)
47.7 = 4200
58.1 = 4600
97.2 = ATI 9800Pro
74.4 = ATI 9800-LE

I play Unreal2 / UT2003 in 1280x1024 and get around 70~120fps = FULL
DETAILS on MAX.

My Ti4200 would play at HALF detail.... but still give me about 60fps.
When I switch the settings down, its noticable... not as nice looking.



--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

-
Danny stood up at show-n-tell, in
, and said:

My intention here is *not* to start a flamewar, but if merely a
question that can only be answered by posing it to both ng's.

Having recently upgraded from a Ti4600 to a Radeon 9800 Pro and also
having setup a friend's PC with a 9800 Pro too, I have to say I'm
surprised at the lack of raw performance.

My system is P4 2.4b @ 2.7, with 512MB RAM.
His is P4 3.06 with 1024MB RAM.

Basically I was sorta impressed by 3d Mark 03, Aquanax, and FSAA and
AF performance under the Radeon, but was pretty disappointed that the
performance under the card without this eye candy on wasn't really
that much greater than my Ti4600.

I even went back to the Ti4600 and found that the performance of AF
and FSAA was actually a lot better than I'd ever given it credit for.

Even though the Radeon gave me 5500 in 3DMark03, and 50 in
CodeCreatures, it didn't seem to excel in real-time gaming, where the
Ti4600 is the other way around.

I have been subsequently told that the resolution I play at (1024)
and the eye candy (AF FSAA) are major factors in performance and that
my CPU is a limiter at these settings.

I would venture to say that your bottleneck is a combination of memory and
processor. And, by processor, I don't mean raw MHz. You've got to look at
what chipset you're running, as well. I think that if you went up to 1GB of
physical memory that you would see vast improvement, in gaming, regardless
of who's video solution you are using.

In running a P4 2.4C, with 1024MB DDR400 and a Radeon 9700np, all games ran
smooth with highest settings and AF/FSAA maxed out, for me. However, I did
see a slight problem running maxed out with only 512MB DDRAM, on a few
games.



What I'm basically asking is this: Is it just me or do Ati seem to
excel in benchmarks and generally get higher framerates in games
(Higher roof), but Nvidia are more consistent, if maybe a touch lower?

My experience is that both are pretty consistent. However, sometimes nVidia
comes out with a better solution/platform and, sometimes, ATI does.
Sometimes, it's frustrating. But, in the end, it's better for us that this
competition is there. It keeps pushing technology, further.

--
Strontium

"It's no surprise, to me. I am my own worst enemy. `Cause every
now, and then, I kick the livin' **** `outta me." - Lit

1 - Make sure you remove ALL NVidia drivers.. it WILL effect ATI
performance.

Tried that. A format/new partition is as clean as you get.


2 - I'm about 5400 with 3Dmark03 (AMD-2500Mhz @ 1833Mhz)/512mb DDR

I was 5500.

I would venture to say that your bottleneck is a combination of memory and
processor. And, by processor, I don't mean raw MHz. You've got to look
at
what chipset you're running, as well.

i845pe

I think that if you went up to 1GB of
physical memory that you would see vast improvement, in gaming, regardless
of who's video solution you are using.

Rememer I said my friend has 1024MB?
Still, I *do* want more and faster memory.


In running a P4 2.4C, with 1024MB DDR400 and a Radeon 9700np, all games
ran
smooth with highest settings and AF/FSAA maxed out, for me. However, I
did
see a slight problem running maxed out with only 512MB DDRAM, on a few
games.

One point is that what one person thinks is smooth, another sees as, well,
not smooth.




What I'm basically asking is this: Is it just me or do Ati seem to
excel in benchmarks and generally get higher framerates in games
(Higher roof), but Nvidia are more consistent, if maybe a touch lower?

My experience is that both are pretty consistent. However, sometimes
nVidia
comes out with a better solution/platform and, sometimes, ATI does.
Sometimes, it's frustrating. But, in the end, it's better for us that
this
competition is there. It keeps pushing technology, further.


True.
'How many PC owners does it take to change a lightbulb?

None, because as soon as it's half way in it's out of date.'

-
Danny stood up at show-n-tell, in
, and said:

I would venture to say that your bottleneck is a combination of
memory and processor. And, by processor, I don't mean raw MHz.
You've got to look at what chipset you're running, as well.

i845pe

Dated I just upped to a 9800XT and P4 2.40C. And, guess what? My
motherboard is my bottleneck (D865GBF). Yep, sucks. They keep us buying...
However, since this upgrade, it has been butta, all around. Aquanox2, SW:
KotOR...anything....full FSAA/AF not one glitch, not one freezeframe during
the most intense scenes (blowing up 3 ships, at once, at close range in
AN2). If you've played AN2, you will see what I mean. That game is HEAVY
intense graphically. YMMV.



I think that if you went up to 1GB of
physical memory that you would see vast improvement, in gaming,
regardless of who's video solution you are using.

Rememer I said my friend has 1024MB?
Still, I *do* want more and faster memory.

I don't recall reading your experience, in games, with your friend's system.
You've only provided your details... Maybe I missed something. Would be
good to know 'what' games, you are seeing lack of raw performance in as
well. It's not always the hardware



In running a P4 2.4C, with 1024MB DDR400 and a Radeon 9700np, all
games ran smooth with highest settings and AF/FSAA maxed out, for
me. However, I did see a slight problem running maxed out with only
512MB DDRAM, on a few games.

One point is that what one person thinks is smooth, another sees as,
well, not smooth.

Obviously. However, I saw a dramatic improvement
(overall)......'personally'.






What I'm basically asking is this: Is it just me or do Ati seem to
excel in benchmarks and generally get higher framerates in games
(Higher roof), but Nvidia are more consistent, if maybe a touch
lower?

My experience is that both are pretty consistent. However,
sometimes nVidia comes out with a better solution/platform and,
sometimes, ATI does. Sometimes, it's frustrating. But, in the end,
it's better for us that this competition is there. It keeps pushing
technology, further.


True.
'How many PC owners does it take to change a lightbulb?

None, because as soon as it's half way in it's out of date.'

--
Strontium

"It's no surprise, to me. I am my own worst enemy. `Cause every
now, and then, I kick the livin' **** `outta me." - Lit

-
Strontium stood up at show-n-tell, in , and
said:

-
Danny stood up at show-n-tell, in
, and said:

I would venture to say that your bottleneck is a combination of
memory and processor. And, by processor, I don't mean raw MHz.
You've got to look at what chipset you're running, as well.

i845pe

Dated I just upped to a 9800XT and P4 2.40C. And, guess what? My
motherboard is my bottleneck (D865GBF). Yep, sucks. They keep us
buying...

This statement was in regard, to benchmark programs. Real-life,
performance-wise, this beast is rockin'. I use benchmarks to test tweaks.
But, when I get a new shiny object to slap in my box....gotta see how it
runs against the big '****ing contest' boys, right?


However, since this upgrade, it has been butta, all around.
Aquanox2, SW: KotOR...anything....full FSAA/AF not one glitch, not
one freezeframe during the most intense scenes (blowing up 3 ships,
at once, at close range in AN2). If you've played AN2, you will see
what I mean. That game is HEAVY intense graphically. YMMV.


snip
--
Strontium

"It's no surprise, to me. I am my own worst enemy. `Cause every
now, and then, I kick the livin' **** `outta me." - Lit