Here is an idea but I don't have real data to support this at all. So here is a homework assignment.
I posted this in the graphics cards section, and thought you hard core overclockers may have some input.
The 9700pro has the same GPU core / memory clock as the new 9800 (non-pro). 380MHz / 340MHz (680 DDR)
The 9800Pro has an increased GPU core / memory clock. 325MHz / 310MHz (620DDR)
True to the nature of the 9800pro, and the old 9700pro, they didn’t really overclock too well, but were usually pretty tight to spec. Why? Because in each instance, the core / clock is (9800pro) and was (9700pro) set to within an inch of their life to be the king of cards. And that works just fine, too.
That leads me to the R9800 (non-pro). My assumption is to save a few bucks, and to help all the slightly poor gamers, the card is still about $270.00, ATI Bins down the same R350 core and memory (anyone know that it is identical, or is it really different?) to create the R9800. Question, will we have a better price / performance card here after probably better overclocking of the core, GPU or both? The savings is $60.00 or so right now, about what DOOM III or Half-Life 2 will cost you!
9800 verses 9800pro could be an excellent experiment because there is very little downside. The 9700Pro are no FPS slouch, and with update features on the 9800(non-pro) as the 9800pro, it should actually be slightly faster than the 9700pro clock for clock. And, the 9800(non-pro) may overclock even better. The 9800(non-pro) GPU core is most probably a good overclocking candidate because I doubt that the same R350 GPU is ever WAY off of the original 380MHz bin. EXAMPLE; a “bad” 9800pro 360MHz GPU bin marked down to 325MHz with a 9800 (non-pro) BIOS flash. It will move the hardware, and save ATI a few bucks. And, you can get it back to 355MHz with an overclock utility! This is an example, your results will of course vary. But the risk is well worth the effort. Those unused GPU are really eating into the bottom line profit dollars. The memory may actually be a slower part but that’s OK because I’ve found that the GPU clock speed FPS efficiency is more effective than the memory clock speed. But still, even the slower memory is still waiting for a tweak. Help me out here people, anyone know the memory part number for the non-pro 9800 part? Are they slower than the 9800pro part?
With the help of; 2nd Generation cinematic architecture, SMARTSHADER 2.1 ™, SMOOTHVISION 2.1™, and HYPERZ III+™ the 9800 (non-pro), is more efficient, and faster, than the older 9700pro. So, is the table below out of the question? The data, if we all work to fill it in, seems to say that the 9800(non-pro) is a nice card. Even with stock GPU/memory settings on the 9800 (non-pro) we see a 3Dmark/dollar ratio increase of 18.93%. And, we get a better looking 3D world over the 9700pro, which is still a good value at about the same 3Dmark/dollar ratio. This is what I call a good upgrade.
So, do we have any takers on this task? All you gamers out there have a few cards to round up? We’ll need to “normalize” the reference systems to the same computer with the two, or even three, different cards.
3D Mark 2001 SE (b330)
XP 2700+, ASUS A7NX
1024 x 678
..................................................3D Marks.....Deficit..........Price............3Dmark / $
Radeon 9800Pro.............................16225.........Reference.....$334.00(1)....48.6
Radeon 9800 overclocked 5% gain*...15977(?).....neg 1.53%.....$271.00(1)....58.9
Radeon 9800**.............................15672(?).....neg 3.41%......$271.00(1)....57.8
Radeon 9700Pro............................15216.........neg 6.23%......$259.00(1)....58.7
* Figure 5% over the 9700pro, just a guess.
** Figure 3% faster than the 9700pro, just a guess.
(1) Price Watch as of July 14, 2003.
Regards,
Rower30@earthlink.net
I posted this in the graphics cards section, and thought you hard core overclockers may have some input.
The 9700pro has the same GPU core / memory clock as the new 9800 (non-pro). 380MHz / 340MHz (680 DDR)
The 9800Pro has an increased GPU core / memory clock. 325MHz / 310MHz (620DDR)
True to the nature of the 9800pro, and the old 9700pro, they didn’t really overclock too well, but were usually pretty tight to spec. Why? Because in each instance, the core / clock is (9800pro) and was (9700pro) set to within an inch of their life to be the king of cards. And that works just fine, too.
That leads me to the R9800 (non-pro). My assumption is to save a few bucks, and to help all the slightly poor gamers, the card is still about $270.00, ATI Bins down the same R350 core and memory (anyone know that it is identical, or is it really different?) to create the R9800. Question, will we have a better price / performance card here after probably better overclocking of the core, GPU or both? The savings is $60.00 or so right now, about what DOOM III or Half-Life 2 will cost you!
9800 verses 9800pro could be an excellent experiment because there is very little downside. The 9700Pro are no FPS slouch, and with update features on the 9800(non-pro) as the 9800pro, it should actually be slightly faster than the 9700pro clock for clock. And, the 9800(non-pro) may overclock even better. The 9800(non-pro) GPU core is most probably a good overclocking candidate because I doubt that the same R350 GPU is ever WAY off of the original 380MHz bin. EXAMPLE; a “bad” 9800pro 360MHz GPU bin marked down to 325MHz with a 9800 (non-pro) BIOS flash. It will move the hardware, and save ATI a few bucks. And, you can get it back to 355MHz with an overclock utility! This is an example, your results will of course vary. But the risk is well worth the effort. Those unused GPU are really eating into the bottom line profit dollars. The memory may actually be a slower part but that’s OK because I’ve found that the GPU clock speed FPS efficiency is more effective than the memory clock speed. But still, even the slower memory is still waiting for a tweak. Help me out here people, anyone know the memory part number for the non-pro 9800 part? Are they slower than the 9800pro part?
With the help of; 2nd Generation cinematic architecture, SMARTSHADER 2.1 ™, SMOOTHVISION 2.1™, and HYPERZ III+™ the 9800 (non-pro), is more efficient, and faster, than the older 9700pro. So, is the table below out of the question? The data, if we all work to fill it in, seems to say that the 9800(non-pro) is a nice card. Even with stock GPU/memory settings on the 9800 (non-pro) we see a 3Dmark/dollar ratio increase of 18.93%. And, we get a better looking 3D world over the 9700pro, which is still a good value at about the same 3Dmark/dollar ratio. This is what I call a good upgrade.
So, do we have any takers on this task? All you gamers out there have a few cards to round up? We’ll need to “normalize” the reference systems to the same computer with the two, or even three, different cards.
3D Mark 2001 SE (b330)
XP 2700+, ASUS A7NX
1024 x 678
..................................................3D Marks.....Deficit..........Price............3Dmark / $
Radeon 9800Pro.............................16225.........Reference.....$334.00(1)....48.6
Radeon 9800 overclocked 5% gain*...15977(?).....neg 1.53%.....$271.00(1)....58.9
Radeon 9800**.............................15672(?).....neg 3.41%......$271.00(1)....57.8
Radeon 9700Pro............................15216.........neg 6.23%......$259.00(1)....58.7
* Figure 5% over the 9700pro, just a guess.
** Figure 3% faster than the 9700pro, just a guess.
(1) Price Watch as of July 14, 2003.
Regards,
Rower30@earthlink.net
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram