My good old 9700 Pro...

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:57:11 GMT, jeff b wrote:


Especially for Far Cry, the 9700pro is totally inadequate.


Jeff B


That's a pretty sweeping statement - you must have had a pretty bad
experience of running one on this game to come up with that opinion.

"Simon Hutchins" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:57:11 GMT, jeff b wrote:


Especially for Far Cry, the 9700pro is totally inadequate.


Jeff B


That's a pretty sweeping statement - you must have had a pretty bad
experience of running one on this game to come up with that opinion.

Or just be full of ****...

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 19:38:36 GMT, "Kill Bill" wrote:


"Simon Hutchins" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:57:11 GMT, jeff b wrote:


Especially for Far Cry, the 9700pro is totally inadequate.


Jeff B


That's a pretty sweeping statement - you must have had a pretty bad
experience of running one on this game to come up with that opinion.

Or just be full of ****...

Yes - I think that is a fair assesment of the situation.

"Simon Hutchins" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 19:38:36 GMT, "Kill Bill" wrote:


"Simon Hutchins" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:57:11 GMT, jeff b wrote:


Especially for Far Cry, the 9700pro is totally inadequate.


Jeff B


That's a pretty sweeping statement - you must have had a pretty bad
experience of running one on this game to come up with that opinion.

Or just be full of ****...

Yes - I think that is a fair assesment of the situation.

All this time I've been playing Far Cry on a 9700 non-pro .... suppose I
should stop then?

"Bill Larcombe" wrote in message
...

"Simon Hutchins" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 19:38:36 GMT, "Kill Bill" wrote:


"Simon Hutchins" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:57:11 GMT, jeff b wrote:


Especially for Far Cry, the 9700pro is totally inadequate.


Jeff B


That's a pretty sweeping statement - you must have had a pretty bad
experience of running one on this game to come up with that opinion.

Or just be full of ****...

Yes - I think that is a fair assesment of the situation.

All this time I've been playing Far Cry on a 9700 non-pro .... suppose I
should stop then?


By all means! Go get $500 and upgrade now!

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:57:11 GMT, jeff b wrote:


Especially for Far Cry, the 9700pro is totally inadequate.
I'd go for either the nvidia 6800u or the x800xt, both will be
out within a few days.
Of the two, I'd go for the x800xt for one reason, the 3DC map
technology which the 6800u doesn't have. This is going to
be huge in about 2 months.

Jeff B

Can't remember exactly how many in total. I do however clearly
remember buying 16 in one go of the 9500np, all but one pipes opened
to close to 9800 [ GrandMars Brand failed ] equal to or more than the
9700pro.

This card I'm on is one of the said 9600np's and fly's through Far Cry
on full spec and at ' full welly ', no probs.

Now then, for those who see the frequent posts quoting FarCry I've
often wondered what % of people who can't get it to play properly, or
even at a reasonable resolution / speed are running less than 1GiG of
memory at a reasonable bandwidth.

It's one hell of an engine but it seems to me that this game, a
graphical leader amongst equals, needs at least a GiG to play on any
MOBO.

BoroLad

"D. Sutton" wrote in message
om...
I'm new to the videocard world, except to say that I thought it would
be a good idea to upgrade my Dell PC last year to the 9700 Pro card,
since I do a lot of gaming.

So now with all the new stuff coming out, and the almost new stuff
still available, i'm wondering what, if anything to do with my 9700
pro. Is it still a good card? Should I bother upgrading? Should I
overclock it? How does it compare with the ATI Radeon 9600? The Nvidea
cards? I'm so lost.

I play a lot of Far Cry and Painkiller lately, and things look pretty
good to me - nothing runs too slow. I have most of the details turned
on i think. I also do flight sim 2004 and it runs at a good framerate.
It's not that things are too slow now, it's just that i'm so curious
about how much better it can be.

I'm running a P4 2.66 with 533 FSB, and 1gig of ram. I just ran
3dMark2003 and got a score of about 4200. I guess that's pretty slow.

Any thoughts? I'd appreciate some feedback, so I can figure out what
to do.

Just bought a 9700 (non-pro), got it running at 340/305 at the moment with
no added heatsinks. I bought it for two reasons- firstly, I heard it was
about 97% of the 9800 performance for (currently) 60% of the price, and
secondly because I like the idea of turning on AA and AF with a smaller
performance hit than my Ti4600 had. So far it seems to fulfil the promise-
although the latest games i've tested have been Invisible War and Halo. IW
went from a stuttering beast on the Ti4600 to a silky smooth dream on the
9700 at anything above basic resolution... I just wish I liked the game
more.

If you are happy with the performance in Far Cry, from what I hear you
shouldn't be disappointed with the performance in any forthcoming games...
and I know I won't be upgrading- at least, not until PCI Express comes out
and the AGP X800s are approaching the bargain bin.

Oh, and try formatting your drivwe when you have some spare time- all the
gunk and stuff which you collect over the months can slow things to a crawl.
Just don't forget to back everything up, including Windows security patches
(just reformatted and forgot about Sasser... bugger the thing!)

--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:52:04 GMT, "Augustus"
wrote:


"D. Sutton" wrote in message
news
Well, my frame rate was 1280x1024 the first time i ran the test, but i
just reduced it to 1024x768, with very similar results.

Being new to all this, I think i was mistaken - i don't think my
videocard is the 9700 pro version, just the standard 9700. Is there a
big difference?

Radeon 9700.....275 core /275(550)mem Radeon 9700 Pro 325 core / 310 (620)
mem....so yes, it's a pretty substantial difference. Haven't owned a 9700
Pro, but I've read they typically can be clocked close to 9800 Pro spec.


I've had mine set at 378 / 330.75 with no problems.

Just bought a x800 PRO for $329 so its going to be up for sale soon.

Pluvious

wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:57:11 GMT, jeff b wrote:


Especially for Far Cry, the 9700pro is totally inadequate.
I'd go for either the nvidia 6800u or the x800xt, both will be
out within a few days.
Of the two, I'd go for the x800xt for one reason, the 3DC map
technology which the 6800u doesn't have. This is going to
be huge in about 2 months.

Jeff B

Can't remember exactly how many in total. I do however clearly
remember buying 16 in one go of the 9500np, all but one pipes opened
to close to 9800 [ GrandMars Brand failed ] equal to or more than the
9700pro.

This card I'm on is one of the said 9600np's and fly's through Far Cry
on full spec and at ' full welly ', no probs.

Now then, for those who see the frequent posts quoting FarCry I've
often wondered what % of people who can't get it to play properly, or
even at a reasonable resolution / speed are running less than 1GiG of
memory at a reasonable bandwidth.

It's one hell of an engine but it seems to me that this game, a
graphical leader amongst equals, needs at least a GiG to play on any
MOBO.

9800 Pro, Xp 2500+, 1GB RAM. Runs nice at 1024x768 everything maxxed.
Slowed down like twice in the game, and I've nearly completed it.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...