My good old 9700 Pro...

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

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
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

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.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

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" <dsutton01@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8ff5b2f9.0406171225.57bd3b99@posting.google.com...
> 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
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"D. Sutton" <dsutton01@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8ff5b2f9.0406171225.57bd3b99@posting.google.com...
> > 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?
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

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)
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

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?
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

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" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:caug8102atp@news4.newsguy.com...
> 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)
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

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
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"D. Sutton" <dsutton01@nodotyahoo.com> wrote in message
news😛v56d055oddqapds5vvv7h4tocbdrt0ulc@4ax.com...
> 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.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:57:11 GMT, jeff b <fakeaddy@fjyfj.com> 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.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"D. Sutton" <dsutton01@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8ff5b2f9.0406171225.57bd3b99@posting.google.com...
> 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... ah heck 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...."
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:57:11 GMT, jeff b <fakeaddy@fjyfj.com> 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
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:52:04 GMT, "Augustus" <tiberius@weeik.com>
wrote:

>
>"D. Sutton" <dsutton01@nodotyahoo.com> wrote in message
>news😛v56d055oddqapds5vvv7h4tocbdrt0ulc@4ax.com...
>> 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
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

borolad@myowseintheboro.org wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:57:11 GMT, jeff b <fakeaddy@fjyfj.com> 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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom