If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
My good old 9700 Pro...
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. Thanks. D |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I'm curious about what you say. I get the impression
that the 9700 is older?? than the 9600 ? I don't understand. However, I'm running the same games on an AMD 2000+ clocked at 1669 I think, and the video is an ATI Radeon 9000 Pro. Far Cry looks great, and the frame rate is fine. Your system is much faster than mine. I don't think you should upgrade unless you just want to tinker for the heck of it. I don't think you would gain anything right now in terms of running what is out there any better at all. I'm steering my system in the direction of every form of multimedia I can think of, just to evaluate it. Right now, I have cable TV, video capture, DVD, cdrw, hellofa 3d Logitec joystick ( cost $35 wowee! ), several levels of hacker defense, disk image recovery, WinXP, and I'm running MBSA ( Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer ) .. which I highly recommend, McAffee 8.0. I'm learning a lot about the hype out there ... specifically about the ATI Catalyst drivers and just how sorry they use to be, but now how well they are performing for me. I'm going to take what I have and optimize it for a while more before I start looking at upgrades. I've actually been able to produce a first rate gaming computer, and network computer, by evaluating the software and configuring it properly. I read a lot of posts here that clearly tell me that users with really good systems are screwing them up by misconfiguring them. I've done the same thing, but I can recover quickly thanks to disk imaging. My system is rock stable, fast, runs 3d games very well, virtually hacker proof, monitor is AOC 19" .22 dot pitch flat ( $189 ). I probably have a total of $750 in it spread out over 4 years, and it will kick the crap out of most other home systems I've seen .. because it is configured right. And, that takes a lot of study, but is worth it by the time you really need to upgrade. johns |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Your 3dMark03 score seems pretty low to me (4200?). I'm thinking your rig
is handicapped somewhere - you should be getting more. I've got a P4 2.4 (no HT) on a 400mhz AGP4x (only) Dell (Intel) board, 768mb RdRam (PC800), ATI 9800pro, CAT 4.6 - everything stock-clocked and the CAT's at default settings (quality). My system doesn't care whether Fast Writes is on or off, so I keep it off. 3dMark03 (v340) 5455 Aquamark 3 35,815 3dMark01SE (latest) 13,805 (these have always been extra lame on this system) I had a (PowerColor) 9700pro in the above box for two weeks (it died so I opted to replace with the ATI 9800pro). Everything was the same except I used CAT 4.2 : 3dMark03 5315 Aquamark 3 34,220 3dMark01 13,670 I run FarCry at medium across the board except for High/environment and High/special effects. Runs really well - no hitches. Makes a nice difference running High/environ versus medium = a LOT more weeds, vegetation, bugs, birds, jungle sounds etc., big ambience improvement. If I crank everything up to High and then VeryHigh/enrironment (always on 1024x768) it still plays good but I start seeing some slight hitching when the action cranks up. This is with CAT defaults (quality settings). Running FarCry and UT2003 (max settings), Painkiller, Call of Duty etc., I could not tell any difference whether the 9700 or the 9800 was in the box. Overclocking the 9800pro has never given me more than 150 points increase in either of the 3dmark benches and the AquaMark actually went down 200 points. I'm confident my case and card cooling is good. Even at the max overclocks I've seen posted for the 9800pro I've seen no signs of problems but the performance gain seems neglible. My 9800pro would probably appreciate more CPU speed. Since I'm running FarCry well on this rig I'm thinking it should hold its own on Doom 3 and Half-Life 2. Seems to me your rig should be beating mine. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
If all your games run at a brisk pace, including the much-feared FarCry,
then what's the problem? Do you need a synthetic benchmark to tell you your card is slow? The 9600 is significantly slower than the 9700 Pro, especially at above 1280x1024 with FSAA enabled. -- "War is the continuation of politics by other means. It can therefore be said that politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed." "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. Thanks. D |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"D. Sutton" wrote in message om... 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. A 9700 Pro is not slow....it's in the 9800 Pro league. What was your screen resolution when you ran that '03 benchmark. 1024x768 or 1280x1024? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
D. Sutton wrote:
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? Yes. Should I bother upgrading? Not to any of the "almost new stuff still available". Should I overclock it? If you have to ask the answer is probably "no". It's like asking "should I hot-rod my car". If you're not into hot-rodding and don't want to be then the answer is "no". If you are into it or want to be then you shouldn't need to ask. How does it compare with the ATI Radeon 9600? Walks all over it. The 9600 replaces the 9500 in the ATI lineup. The reason they replaced the 9500 was that it used ths same chip as the 9700 and could often be modded into a full 9700. The 9600 uses a new chip that's permanently crippled and can't be modded to that performance level. The 9800 is a very slightly improved 9700 with the later versions running at a somewhat higher clock speed. The Nvidea cards? I'm so lost. No reason to go from a 9700 to any nvidia that could be classified as "almost new stuff". 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. Not much unless you go to the X800. 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. Breathe. Relax. Thanks. D -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Ive got a 2600xp chip , 1 gig ram and a saphire 9700pro and i can score upto
5500 ish in 3dmark03. Not bad as far as im concerned. doughy "J. Clarke" wrote in message ... D. Sutton wrote: 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? Yes. Should I bother upgrading? Not to any of the "almost new stuff still available". Should I overclock it? If you have to ask the answer is probably "no". It's like asking "should I hot-rod my car". If you're not into hot-rodding and don't want to be then the answer is "no". If you are into it or want to be then you shouldn't need to ask. How does it compare with the ATI Radeon 9600? Walks all over it. The 9600 replaces the 9500 in the ATI lineup. The reason they replaced the 9500 was that it used ths same chip as the 9700 and could often be modded into a full 9700. The 9600 uses a new chip that's permanently crippled and can't be modded to that performance level. The 9800 is a very slightly improved 9700 with the later versions running at a somewhat higher clock speed. The Nvidea cards? I'm so lost. No reason to go from a 9700 to any nvidia that could be classified as "almost new stuff". 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. Not much unless you go to the X800. 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. Breathe. Relax. Thanks. D -- --John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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? I checked out the online results browser and it seems that my scores are definitely in the lower end for my class of equipment. I'm wondering if the new catalyst drivers I just installed have anything to do with it? D A 9700 Pro is not slow....it's in the 9800 Pro league. What was your screen resolution when you ran that '03 benchmark. 1024x768 or 1280x1024? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
9700 AIW video problem + directx failure | arch | Ati Videocards | 3 | January 27th 04 03:38 AM |
9700 Pro Crash during benchmark with 3dmark03 | Sean | Ati Videocards | 5 | December 17th 03 04:47 PM |
do i have a 9700 or 9700 PRO? | zlo | Ati Videocards | 8 | October 3rd 03 05:33 PM |
Radeon *Value* Family - 9700 and below. . . | Sparky | Ati Videocards | 3 | July 17th 03 09:49 PM |
Is this a 9700 or a 9700 Pro? | Lowen B. Holde | Ati Videocards | 2 | July 9th 03 11:55 PM |