Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

R9800 128MB Pro Poor Performance...

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 7, 2004 3:21:35 AM

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

Bought a cheapish Connect3D R9800 Pro 128MB 256bit in the UK. Clean install
of WinXP with Catalyst 4.6 and using UT2004 as a gauge at default settings.
I find that my frame rates are actually higher with my old Ti4400 than the
C3D 9800 Pro!! Needless to say, I have returned the 9800 Pro. Recently,
there are quite a few people complaining of a similar performance gap...
Maybe inferior components are to blame. I expected a speed bump not
retardation. I'll wait a bit and go for an X800.
July 7, 2004 3:21:36 AM

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

On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 23:21:35 +0100, "Noch" <pixies@dawn.com> wrote:

>Bought a cheapish Connect3D R9800 Pro 128MB 256bit in the UK. Clean install
>of WinXP with Catalyst 4.6 and using UT2004 as a gauge at default settings.
>I find that my frame rates are actually higher with my old Ti4400 than the
>C3D 9800 Pro!! Needless to say, I have returned the 9800 Pro. Recently,
>there are quite a few people complaining of a similar performance gap...
>Maybe inferior components are to blame. I expected a speed bump not
>retardation. I'll wait a bit and go for an X800.




Well i went from a ti4600 to a ATI 9700 pro and i have to say the ATI
card blows the ti4600 away in performance and graphics.So there must
be something wrong with you're system,and you should of tried
different drivers the 4.6 ran like sht for me so i went back to the
cat 4.4 and all is good :) 
>
July 7, 2004 5:32:04 AM

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

"Noch" <pixies@dawn.com> wrote in message
news:40eb25e9$0$17177$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> Bought a cheapish Connect3D R9800 Pro 128MB 256bit in the UK. Clean
install
> of WinXP with Catalyst 4.6 and using UT2004 as a gauge at default
settings.
> I find that my frame rates are actually higher with my old Ti4400 than the
> C3D 9800 Pro!! Needless to say, I have returned the 9800 Pro. Recently,
> there are quite a few people complaining of a similar performance gap...
> Maybe inferior components are to blame. I expected a speed bump not
> retardation. I'll wait a bit and go for an X80

It seems highly unlikely that the 9800 Pro was defective at all. Defective
cards either don't work, artifact, crash or lockup the system. They don't
give slower than expected framerates. I have not read anything here or
elsewhere about this so called "performance gap".....there are 128bit 9800
Pros out there which don't perform to the same level as the 256bit ones, but
even these aren't slow either. You say you did a total XP hosedown and
reinstall when you installed this card? That too seems extreme. I'd suspect
some of the m/b drivers were not installed, or some other driver or software
related problems. Looking over several reviews of your exact card I see no
issues whatsoever. It performs about the same as all the other 9800 Pros.
You say you used only one benchmark and one driver version too. This is not
a really good way to evaluate a card.
Related resources
Anonymous
July 7, 2004 7:36:55 AM

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

dude i have the same problem, replaced a 4400 with a 9800 pro,
framerates are down at least 1/3 across the board. spent a couple of
weeks trying to troubleshoot it with help from ati tech support, nothing
has helped. they finally to me to rma it and they would send me another
one. hopefully that will help, but who knows? i'm thinking it's some
very obscure hardware issue. very strange.

Noch wrote:
> Bought a cheapish Connect3D R9800 Pro 128MB 256bit in the UK. Clean install
> of WinXP with Catalyst 4.6 and using UT2004 as a gauge at default settings.
> I find that my frame rates are actually higher with my old Ti4400 than the
> C3D 9800 Pro!! Needless to say, I have returned the 9800 Pro. Recently,
> there are quite a few people complaining of a similar performance gap...
> Maybe inferior components are to blame. I expected a speed bump not
> retardation. I'll wait a bit and go for an X800.
>
>
Anonymous
July 7, 2004 11:24:27 AM

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

"Noch" <pixies@dawn.com> wrote in message
news:40eb25e9$0$17177$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> Bought a cheapish Connect3D R9800 Pro 128MB 256bit in the UK. Clean
install
> of WinXP with Catalyst 4.6 and using UT2004 as a gauge at default
settings.
> I find that my frame rates are actually higher with my old Ti4400 than the
> C3D 9800 Pro!! Needless to say, I have returned the 9800 Pro. Recently,
> there are quite a few people complaining of a similar performance gap...
> Maybe inferior components are to blame. I expected a speed bump not
> retardation. I'll wait a bit and go for an X800.
>
>

You try ONE game ? DONT try different drivers...then return the card ?

THEN post to the ati group and not mention the rest of your system ?

uh....right...

Did you totally remove your old nvidia drivers ?
July 7, 2004 11:24:28 AM

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

The rest of my system does not matter here (treat it as a zero constant);
the realtive performance of the cards does. I do not imagine that there will
be such a enormous difference between 4.6 and earlier usable versions - I
hear 4.4 mentioned. Likewise with other games. The card was clearly
*drastically* underperforming.

Regarding old Nvidia's driver bits, I did a reformat and then installed
WinXP - so no remaining bits to ibterfere.
July 7, 2004 12:32:57 PM

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

> different drivers the 4.6 ran like sht for me so i went back to the
> cat 4.4 and all is good :) 

I agree. I think my system had better color with the 4.5 driver.
I'm tossing the 4.6 .... ATI 9600XT. Maybe it is finally time
to try the Omega driver ?? One really bad thing about the 4.6
driver was its tendency to keep changing one of the video
settings from Medium ( in Far Cry ) to Custom, and then
video effects would drop out that were running fine, and
frame rates would also drop. I would set it back, but then
I saw problems like reduced AI intelligence or even
respawning loops that would make a level impossible to
play. I had not seen that with the 4.5 driver when I had
my ATI 9000 in the system. The game ran fine on the
9000.

johns
July 7, 2004 12:54:04 PM

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

Noch wrote:
> The rest of my system does not matter here (treat it as a zero
> constant); the realtive performance of the cards does. I do not
> imagine that there will be such a enormous difference between 4.6 and
> earlier usable versions - I hear 4.4 mentioned. Likewise with other
> games. The card was clearly *drastically* underperforming.
>
> Regarding old Nvidia's driver bits, I did a reformat and then
> installed WinXP - so no remaining bits to ibterfere.

You did install the chipset drivers after you reformatted right?

Martin
July 7, 2004 6:47:30 PM

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

Yes it is an Asus a7n8x dlx v1.4 bios latest 1008 and using latest nforce2
drivers under winxp - so the lot are installed. Besides, both cards were put
in the same rig. Indeed the Ti4400 if anything had a worse time because I
only uninstalled the ATi drivers with the supplied utility so interfering
bits might be left.


"Martin" <martin@scotland.org> wrote in message
news:2l1og8F7d0v1U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Noch wrote:
> > The rest of my system does not matter here (treat it as a zero
> > constant); the realtive performance of the cards does. I do not
> > imagine that there will be such a enormous difference between 4.6 and
> > earlier usable versions - I hear 4.4 mentioned. Likewise with other
> > games. The card was clearly *drastically* underperforming.
> >
> > Regarding old Nvidia's driver bits, I did a reformat and then
> > installed WinXP - so no remaining bits to ibterfere.
>
> You did install the chipset drivers after you reformatted right?
>
> Martin
>
>
July 7, 2004 7:03:03 PM

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

Nothing extreme, I did the WinXP clean install because my SATA boot drive
died - not because of the ATi 9800 Pro. There is nothing unusual about a
card or a system being faulty and underperforming but performing basically
okay. For instance, there is a performance gap between most cards due to
component variation - that could in some cases easily be exaggerated... What
you talk of are the obvious results of failure - bang! it died is more
noticeable than its underperforming by x fps. I bet there are many people
out there now with systems or parts 'faulty' and who are not aware of it
atall.

I bought a cheapish card and did not want to spend forever evaluating the
whys of its problem - not worth the effort. I did a reasonable quick test
against an 'inferior' card and it failed - so back it went. I have read of
others seeing similar problems, so I posted here.

As I said I'll go for an X800 Pro in a few weeks. I'll be seriously pissed
off if that is beaten by my T14400... :) 
Anonymous
July 7, 2004 9:14:49 PM

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

I replaced my ti4400 with a 9700pro a while ago now, and I noticed great
performance increase when I got the 9700pro installed.

did you check the AGP speed that it was running in? fast writes? SBA ? there
wasnt any AA or FSAA enabled by default?



"mkdykstra" <mkdykstra@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:rdKGc.37126$XM6.19077@attbi_s53...
> dude i have the same problem, replaced a 4400 with a 9800 pro,
> framerates are down at least 1/3 across the board. spent a couple of
> weeks trying to troubleshoot it with help from ati tech support, nothing
> has helped. they finally to me to rma it and they would send me another
> one. hopefully that will help, but who knows? i'm thinking it's some
> very obscure hardware issue. very strange.
>
> Noch wrote:
> > Bought a cheapish Connect3D R9800 Pro 128MB 256bit in the UK. Clean
install
> > of WinXP with Catalyst 4.6 and using UT2004 as a gauge at default
settings.
> > I find that my frame rates are actually higher with my old Ti4400 than
the
> > C3D 9800 Pro!! Needless to say, I have returned the 9800 Pro. Recently,
> > there are quite a few people complaining of a similar performance gap...
> > Maybe inferior components are to blame. I expected a speed bump not
> > retardation. I'll wait a bit and go for an X800.
> >
> >
>
Anonymous
July 8, 2004 3:04:53 AM

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

If you will no longer need your old T14400, you can send it to me. :-)
I using a Radeon8500LE 128MB card.
I hope you new X800 Pro blows your socks off. :-)

"Noch" <pixies@dawn.com> wrote in message
news:40ec0291$0$26537$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> Nothing extreme, I did the WinXP clean install because my SATA boot drive
> died - not because of the ATi 9800 Pro. There is nothing unusual about a
> card or a system being faulty and underperforming but performing basically
> okay. For instance, there is a performance gap between most cards due to
> component variation - that could in some cases easily be exaggerated...
What
> you talk of are the obvious results of failure - bang! it died is more
> noticeable than its underperforming by x fps. I bet there are many people
> out there now with systems or parts 'faulty' and who are not aware of it
> atall.
>
> I bought a cheapish card and did not want to spend forever evaluating the
> whys of its problem - not worth the effort. I did a reasonable quick test
> against an 'inferior' card and it failed - so back it went. I have read of
> others seeing similar problems, so I posted here.
>
> As I said I'll go for an X800 Pro in a few weeks. I'll be seriously pissed
> off if that is beaten by my T14400... :) 
>
>
Anonymous
July 8, 2004 8:02:12 AM

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

Don't you mean a constant of unity?
A constant of zero would always return zero.

>The rest of my system does not matter here (treat it as a zero constant);
>the realtive performance of the cards does. I do not imagine that there will
>be such a enormous


-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
!