9800 Pro or 9800XT?

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

all right. i'm going to get one of these cards, but i've recently read on one of
the threads here that you may be able to "mod" the pro to an xt?

is it worth getting an xt or pro? if i get a pro, can i update it to an xp?
16 answers Last reply
More about 9800 9800xt
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    Unless you can find a really good deal on the 9800 XT, save your money, and
    get the 9800 PRO.

    Bill Crocker


    "Robet Maloney" <maloneyx349@webaccess.com> wrote in message
    news:rupWc.980$rT1.118@trndny02...
    > all right. i'm going to get one of these cards, but i've recently read on
    > one of
    > the threads here that you may be able to "mod" the pro to an xt?
    >
    > is it worth getting an xt or pro? if i get a pro, can i update it to an
    > xp?
    >
    >
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    I would say it all depends on how much memory each has and how much they
    cost.

    It is true to say that some 9800 Pros can be modded to the XT, but it all
    depends on the graphic core. Early Pros used the R350 core while the XT uses
    a R360 core. Many of the later Pros do seem to use the R360 core, but it
    really is pot luck Im afraid.

    I managed to get a 9800Pro a while back with the R360 core which I managed
    to mod to an XT, but to be honest you would only get a couple of frames more
    perfomance over the stock 9800 Pro anyway.

    The other thing to consider is that genuine XT's come with 256Mb RAM, whilst
    most Pros only have 128Mb, so even if it does mod to an XT you still wont
    have a true full XT

    In my opinion save your money and but the Pro, unless of course you want the
    256Mb Ram and the extra few frames in the latest games!

    Hope this helps

    W1dge

    "Robet Maloney" <maloneyx349@webaccess.com> wrote in message
    news:rupWc.980$rT1.118@trndny02...
    > all right. i'm going to get one of these cards, but i've recently read on
    > one of
    > the threads here that you may be able to "mod" the pro to an xt?
    >
    > is it worth getting an xt or pro? if i get a pro, can i update it to an
    > xp?
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    On 8/23/2004 11:38 AM w1dge brightened our day with:

    >I would say it all depends on how much memory each has and how much they
    >cost.
    >
    >It is true to say that some 9800 Pros can be modded to the XT, but it all
    >depends on the graphic core. Early Pros used the R350 core while the XT uses
    >a R360 core. Many of the later Pros do seem to use the R360 core, but it
    >really is pot luck Im afraid.
    >
    >I managed to get a 9800Pro a while back with the R360 core which I managed
    >to mod to an XT, but to be honest you would only get a couple of frames more
    >perfomance over the stock 9800 Pro anyway.
    >
    >The other thing to consider is that genuine XT's come with 256Mb RAM, whilst
    >most Pros only have 128Mb, so even if it does mod to an XT you still wont
    >have a true full XT
    >
    >In my opinion save your money and but the Pro, unless of course you want the
    >256Mb Ram and the extra few frames in the latest games!
    >
    >Hope this helps
    >
    >W1dge
    >
    >
    >
    Just looking at the results in Doom 3 at [H]ard_OCP, with a little
    tweaking I get better results with my 9800 Pro than they get with a 9800
    XT. Obviously if I had tweaked an XT it would be higher but we're
    talking about 3-4 fps.

    If you're going to spend 9800 XT money get a GeForce 6800, they're
    cheaper and faster (the non-GT or non-ultra 6800s only have 128 Mb or RAM.)
    Radeon 9800 XT 256 Mb ~ $320
    Radeon 9800 Pro 256 Mb ~ $290
    GeForce 6800 128 Mb ~ $280 *best bang for buck*
    Radeon 9800 Pro 128 Mb ~ $200


    --
    History shows again and again
    How nature points up the folly of men

    Steve ¤»Inglo«¤
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    It sounds good but I have a friend who told me that with my 2.6Ghz P4 that my
    system would be a bottleneck to the 6800 non-ultra even. He told me to go with
    a Radeon 9800. That's why I brough it up.

    Is a 2.6ghz with 1gb of ram a bottleneck for a 6800?

    All I know is that the whole thing is making me dizzy. One person told me an
    X800 Pro, then someone else told me that the X800 Pro was too much and to go
    with a 9800 Pro or XT, and now something else. :-p

    "Inglo" wrote:
    >
    > Just looking at the results in Doom 3 at [H]ard_OCP, with a little
    > tweaking I get better results with my 9800 Pro than they get with a 9800
    > XT. Obviously if I had tweaked an XT it would be higher but we're
    > talking about 3-4 fps.
    >
    > If you're going to spend 9800 XT money get a GeForce 6800, they're
    > cheaper and faster (the non-GT or non-ultra 6800s only have 128 Mb or RAM.)
    > Radeon 9800 XT 256 Mb ~ $320
    > Radeon 9800 Pro 256 Mb ~ $290
    > GeForce 6800 128 Mb ~ $280 *best bang for buck*
    > Radeon 9800 Pro 128 Mb ~ $200
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    *Something* has to be the bottleneck in the system, but the faster your
    video card the better the performance no matter what your other components
    are. Of course if you are running a 9700 Pro on a celeron 1ghz you would be
    much better off with a CPU upgrade over getting a 9800 pro though heh.

    I don't see how a P4 2.6ghz could really be called a bottleneck at this
    point, that is a darn fast CPU.


    "Robet Maloney" <maloneyx349@webaccess.com> wrote in message
    news:wLrWc.1156$rT1.1021@trndny02...
    > It sounds good but I have a friend who told me that with my 2.6Ghz P4 that
    my
    > system would be a bottleneck to the 6800 non-ultra even. He told me to go
    with
    > a Radeon 9800. That's why I brough it up.
    >
    > Is a 2.6ghz with 1gb of ram a bottleneck for a 6800?
    >
    > All I know is that the whole thing is making me dizzy. One person told me
    an
    > X800 Pro, then someone else told me that the X800 Pro was too much and to
    go
    > with a 9800 Pro or XT, and now something else. :-p
    >
    > "Inglo" wrote:
    > >
    > > Just looking at the results in Doom 3 at [H]ard_OCP, with a little
    > > tweaking I get better results with my 9800 Pro than they get with a 9800
    > > XT. Obviously if I had tweaked an XT it would be higher but we're
    > > talking about 3-4 fps.
    > >
    > > If you're going to spend 9800 XT money get a GeForce 6800, they're
    > > cheaper and faster (the non-GT or non-ultra 6800s only have 128 Mb or
    RAM.)
    > > Radeon 9800 XT 256 Mb ~ $320
    > > Radeon 9800 Pro 256 Mb ~ $290
    > > GeForce 6800 128 Mb ~ $280 *best bang for buck*
    > > Radeon 9800 Pro 128 Mb ~ $200
    >
    >
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    On 8/23/2004 1:17 PM JD brightened our day with:

    >*Something* has to be the bottleneck in the system, but the faster your
    >video card the better the performance no matter what your other components
    >are. Of course if you are running a 9700 Pro on a celeron 1ghz you would be
    >much better off with a CPU upgrade over getting a 9800 pro though heh.
    >
    >I don't see how a P4 2.6ghz could really be called a bottleneck at this
    >point, that is a darn fast CPU.
    >
    >
    >
    A friend of mine just put a non-ultra 6800 in his old Athlon XP 2400
    Thoroughbred, and it's running rings around my 9800 Pro matched with an
    XP 3200+ Barton.

    The CPU may be a bottleneck but that's relatively insignificant, the way
    you can usually tell is if you get the same benchmark results regardless
    of resolution. So your CPU has become the limiting factor, that does
    not negate the performance gain of a faster card. So when you benchmark
    Doom 3 with a 6800 you get 70 fps at 1280x1024, at 80x600 you're still
    getting 70 fps, with a much faster processor Doom 3 benches at 75+ fps
    at 1280x1024 but now at 800x600 you're getting 110 fps. That's not all
    there is to it, but for the most part you get a reviewer who runs a few
    tests notices the above situation and reports that the 6800 will be
    limited by what CPU you have, it's true but...
    well here, Guru3D has a pretty good article comparing a P4 2.8 GHz with
    an Athlon 64 3800+
    http://tinyurl.com/4smnb
    So a new $700 processor and motherboard will get you 5-14 more fps at
    1280x1024 depending on the card (though the 2.8s speed is eminently
    playable).
    And if you look around Guru3D some more there's word that the regular
    6800 GTs can be soft-modded from 12 pipelines to 16. Making them an
    even better bargain.

    My last two cards have been Radeons, I don't consider myself a fanboy of
    either company, but right now I can't help but recommend people give the
    6800s a shot. You can't go wrong right now spending $200 or less on a
    128 Mb 9800 Pro either, that's an excellent value and all the current
    games are playable at high settings, albeit at 1024x768 resolution.

    --
    History shows again and again
    How nature points up the folly of men

    Steve ¤»Inglo«¤
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    On 8/23/2004 1:51 PM Inglo brightened our day with:

    >
    > And if you look around Guru3D some more there's word that the regular
    > 6800 GTs can be soft-modded from 12 pipelines to 16. Making them an
    > even better bargain.
    >
    That should read, "the regular 6800, non-GTs, can be soft-modded..."

    --
    History shows again and again
    How nature points up the folly of men

    Steve ¤»Inglo«¤
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    Hi,

    I say buy the 9800Pro, install it and enjoy it. Once you are happy that the
    card is performing well, then download and install *ATITool* which is a
    really easy to use overclocking program that will *Automatically* boost your
    9800Pro's speeds until it has maxed.

    I have the Sapphire 9800 (paid £216.00 this time last year), which is the
    same card as the 9800Pro except it is clocked abit slower, anyway I flashed
    the 9800 using a 9800Pro, added a ARCTIC VGA Silencer and now my 9800 is
    clocked faster then both a 9800Pro and a 9800XT. The price now is about
    £140-00 UK Pounds (was £300-00 this time last year!).

    The nVidia 6800 and ATI X800 are very nice cards but they are *Cutting Edge*
    and therefore are damn expensive.

    the only thing useful I am missing using my overclocked 9800 compared to a
    9800XT is the onboard GPU temp sensor.
    --
    Wayne ][
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    If I were to get say the 9800Pro, is there a big difference between the 128 and
    256MB of RAM in it?

    I run most of my games at 1024x768
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    On 8/23/2004 5:36 PM Robet Maloney brightened our day with:

    >If I were to get say the 9800Pro, is there a big difference between the 128 and
    >256MB of RAM in it?
    >
    >I run most of my games at 1024x768
    >
    >
    >
    >
    For one, the 256s are more likely XT mod capable. But real performance,
    it might make a difference if you're trying to run Doom 3 on Ultra
    settings, everything else not so much. Strangely enough if you look at
    this group of benchmarks from Tom's Hardware: http://tinyurl.com/56xzr,
    the 128 Mb 9800 Pro is .3 fps faster than the 256 Mb model.
    That's for gaming, some other graphics applications will take advantage
    of the increased memory.

    --
    History shows again and again
    How nature points up the folly of men

    Steve ¤»Inglo«¤
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    On 8/23/2004 5:36 PM Robet Maloney brightened our day with:

    >If I were to get say the 9800Pro, is there a big difference between the 128 and
    >256MB of RAM in it?
    >
    >I run most of my games at 1024x768
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Is your name actually "Robet"?

    --
    History shows again and again
    How nature points up the folly of men

    Steve ¤»Inglo«¤
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    "Inglo":
    > Is your name actually "Robet"?

    Haha, no. Robert. I was just too lazy to change it. :-p

    Regarding the 256... it sounds like the way to go for me. When it comes to
    modding to the XT though, I don't have any experience with doing that yet. It's
    not very difficult, is it? I guess I could look it up when I get the card.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    "Robet Maloney" <maloneyx349@webaccess.com> wrote in message
    news:rupWc.980$rT1.118@trndny02...
    > all right. i'm going to get one of these cards, but i've recently read on
    one of
    > the threads here that you may be able to "mod" the pro to an xt?
    >
    > is it worth getting an xt or pro? if i get a pro, can i update it to an
    xp?
    >
    >

    Everyone keeps talking about how Doom3 runs. While it is enjoyable and the
    lighting/graphics are great, remember that there are other games out there.
    Perhaps this benchmark will also help - or confuse you further :-)

    http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/half-life2_vst/

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

    On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:06:05 GMT, Inglo
    <ingloogoo@zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.xcc> wrote:

    >On 8/23/2004 11:38 AM w1dge brightened our day with:
    >
    >>I would say it all depends on how much memory each has and how much they
    >>cost.
    >>
    >>It is true to say that some 9800 Pros can be modded to the XT, but it all
    >>depends on the graphic core. Early Pros used the R350 core while the XT uses
    >>a R360 core. Many of the later Pros do seem to use the R360 core, but it
    >>really is pot luck Im afraid.
    >>
    >>I managed to get a 9800Pro a while back with the R360 core which I managed
    >>to mod to an XT, but to be honest you would only get a couple of frames more
    >>perfomance over the stock 9800 Pro anyway.
    >>
    >>The other thing to consider is that genuine XT's come with 256Mb RAM, whilst
    >>most Pros only have 128Mb, so even if it does mod to an XT you still wont
    >>have a true full XT
    >>
    >>In my opinion save your money and but the Pro, unless of course you want the
    >>256Mb Ram and the extra few frames in the latest games!
    >>
    >>Hope this helps
    >>
    >>W1dge
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >Just looking at the results in Doom 3 at [H]ard_OCP, with a little
    >tweaking I get better results with my 9800 Pro than they get with a 9800
    >XT. Obviously if I had tweaked an XT it would be higher but we're
    >talking about 3-4 fps.
    >
    >If you're going to spend 9800 XT money get a GeForce 6800, they're
    >cheaper and faster (the non-GT or non-ultra 6800s only have 128 Mb or RAM.)
    >Radeon 9800 XT 256 Mb ~ $320
    >Radeon 9800 Pro 256 Mb ~ $290
    >GeForce 6800 128 Mb ~ $280 *best bang for buck*
    >Radeon 9800 Pro 128 Mb ~ $200

    You can get the 9800 Pro 128 MB for far lower than $200 now, if you
    shop around. More like 150'ish.

    And the 256 MB 9800 cards are still very overpriced.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:41:16 GMT, "Robet Maloney"
    <maloneyx349@webaccess.com> wrote:

    >It sounds good but I have a friend who told me that with my 2.6Ghz P4 that my
    >system would be a bottleneck to the 6800 non-ultra even. He told me to go with
    >a Radeon 9800. That's why I brough it up.
    >
    >Is a 2.6ghz with 1gb of ram a bottleneck for a 6800?
    >
    >All I know is that the whole thing is making me dizzy. One person told me an
    >X800 Pro, then someone else told me that the X800 Pro was too much and to go
    >with a 9800 Pro or XT, and now something else. :-p

    There is always a rule of thumb, here.

    It's a bottleneck if the game is CPU limited, but otherwise, no.
    The easy way to test this is to underclock your CPU and see if your
    framerates go down correspondly.

    Doom 3 is very GPU limited except at the lowest settings, AND it needs
    fast CPU, too. So either way, you will see a major performance boost.

    Far Cry is more CPU limited, even with last generation (5900, 9800)
    cards. Even on a pentium 4 3.7 ghz, at 1024x768@32, no AA or AF, Far
    Cry is hitting a major CPU bottleneck. Going from 1024x768 to 800x600
    gave no FPS improvement at all. (assuming Water quality was on " very
    high ", instead of " Ultra high", all other settings= Very High.)

    When you get a fast video card, you can rest assured you can crank up
    the IQ and AA and AF without losing very many frames, even if the CPU
    is not really up to snuff.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    I'd say save the cash with a 128mb card. Put it toward the next upgrade, or
    pay the extra over the 256mb card for the newer generation.
    mike

    "Robert Maloney" <maloneyx349@webaccess.com> wrote in message
    news:djxWc.2898$oD2.1536@trndny08...
    > "Inglo":
    >> Is your name actually "Robet"?
    >
    > Haha, no. Robert. I was just too lazy to change it. :-p
    >
    > Regarding the 256... it sounds like the way to go for me. When it comes to
    > modding to the XT though, I don't have any experience with doing that yet.
    > It's
    > not very difficult, is it? I guess I could look it up when I get the card.
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Radeon Windows XP ATI Graphics