Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

God bless my 9800 Pro

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 18, 2004 12:59:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Now that the two big "guns" are out -- Doom 3 and Half Life 2 (not to
mention Rome Total War), I can safely say my Radeon 9800 Pro was the
best computer purchase I ever made. This card is now over two years
old, there weren't even any DX9 titles released when it first came
out, and yet it runs the latest games without a hitch. I think that's
pretty amazing and a testament to how far ahead of its time it was
when ATI first conceived it. I had been worried I might need to
upgrade to an X800 or something, but thank God I didn't waste the
money. My trusty old 9800 Pro has done a marvelous job. (Now I'll
start worrying about whether it can handle STALKER).

More about : god bless 9800 pro

Anonymous
November 18, 2004 1:15:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

John wrote:
> Now that the two big "guns" are out -- Doom 3 and Half Life 2 (not to
> mention Rome Total War), I can safely say my Radeon 9800 Pro was the
> best computer purchase I ever made.

I should have bought it, instead I got the 9500 Pro. It lasted two years
but ran out of gas with Doom3 (800x600 without shadows, playable but ...)
It would have been a better investment at the time to get the 9800 Pro.
This time I got the x800 Pro, I really hope it lasts 3 years.

GS.
November 18, 2004 3:31:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Can you run it at 16 by 12 resolution, everything maxed out, with
AA-enabled, at 70FPS..... ? An X800 or 6800GT can -- least my 6800 GT can,
think that's all folks were trying to say. I just replaced my 9800 PRO,
which I agree is probably the best buy at the moment.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Related resources
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 8:32:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

> This card is now over two years
> old, there weren't even any DX9 titles released when it first came
> out, and yet it runs the latest games without a hitch. I think that's

It's not more than two years old, is it? I thought the 9800 Pro cam out in
August 2003.
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 9:04:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

These people who say you can't run Half Life 2 without an X800 are nuts. The
9800 Pro works perfect with the game. But it's still slow as hell with Halo.


"John" <arcanastream@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eb3d8c55.0411180959.541d020c@posting.google.com...
> Now that the two big "guns" are out -- Doom 3 and Half Life 2 (not to
> mention Rome Total War), I can safely say my Radeon 9800 Pro was the
> best computer purchase I ever made. This card is now over two years
> old, there weren't even any DX9 titles released when it first came
> out, and yet it runs the latest games without a hitch. I think that's
> pretty amazing and a testament to how far ahead of its time it was
> when ATI first conceived it. I had been worried I might need to
> upgrade to an X800 or something, but thank God I didn't waste the
> money. My trusty old 9800 Pro has done a marvelous job. (Now I'll
> start worrying about whether it can handle STALKER).
November 18, 2004 9:10:38 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

There are also performance tweaks for the 9800pro in HL2
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=40872

All the tweaks there are good, but scroll down a bit for a ati-specific
tweak.

rms
November 18, 2004 9:10:47 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Rick Carney wrote:
> These people who say you can't run Half Life 2 without an X800 are
> nuts. The 9800 Pro works perfect with the game. But it's still slow
> as hell with Halo.
>

My bro has a 9800 pro, and Halo runs perfectly!
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 9:24:59 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

On 11/18/2004 10:10 AM rms brightened our day with:

>There are also performance tweaks for the 9800pro in HL2
>http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=40872
>
>All the tweaks there are good, but scroll down a bit for a ati-specific
>tweak.
>
>rms
>
>
>
>
So create an autoexec.cfg with this:

snd_async_fullyasync "1"
r_fastzreject "1"

--
Steve ¤»Inglo«¤
www.inglostadt.com
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 9:51:15 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"JimBob" <meandyou@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3046tiF2rub9tU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Rick Carney wrote:
> > These people who say you can't run Half Life 2 without an X800 are
> > nuts. The 9800 Pro works perfect with the game. But it's still slow
> > as hell with Halo.
> >
>
> My bro has a 9800 pro, and Halo runs perfectly!

6 FPS is perfect?

>
>
>
November 18, 2004 9:56:32 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:51:15 GMT, "Rick Carney" <rcarney@socal.rr.com>
wrote:

>> My bro has a 9800 pro, and Halo runs perfectly!
>
>6 FPS is perfect?

I don't know what you are doing wrong with your machine, but my 9700
Pro has run Halo perfectly smoothly since the day of release.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 10:21:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

John wrote:
> Now that the two big "guns" are out -- Doom 3 and Half Life 2 (not to
> mention Rome Total War), I can safely say my Radeon 9800 Pro was the
> best computer purchase I ever made. This card is now over two years
> old, there weren't even any DX9 titles released when it first came
> out, and yet it runs the latest games without a hitch. I think that's
> pretty amazing and a testament to how far ahead of its time it was
> when ATI first conceived it. I had been worried I might need to
> upgrade to an X800 or something, but thank God I didn't waste the
> money. My trusty old 9800 Pro has done a marvelous job. (Now I'll
> start worrying about whether it can handle STALKER).

I just got mine : when I got through the rigmoral of getting it working
(my machine had awful conflicts with it for some reason), it really is
an awesome upgrade.

What I find interesting is that usualyy with a game, everyone starts
pulling their dicks out in order to compare frame rates : It says
something for the gameplay in HL2 that no one has done that yet!
Everyone is too busy enjoying the game for the gameplay and not the
technical achievements and how it runs on their machines.

--
Walter Mitty
-
Useless, waste of money research of the day : ***
http://www.tinyurl.com
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 10:26:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"John" <arcanastream@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eb3d8c55.0411180959.541d020c@posting.google.com...
> Now that the two big "guns" are out -- Doom 3 and Half Life 2 (not to
> mention Rome Total War), I can safely say my Radeon 9800 Pro was the
> best computer purchase I ever made. This card is now over two years
> old, there weren't even any DX9 titles released when it first came
> out, and yet it runs the latest games without a hitch. I think that's
> pretty amazing and a testament to how far ahead of its time it was
> when ATI first conceived it. I had been worried I might need to
> upgrade to an X800 or something, but thank God I didn't waste the
> money. My trusty old 9800 Pro has done a marvelous job. (Now I'll
> start worrying about whether it can handle STALKER).


The 9800 Pro is simply still a decent video card. ATI's public relations
department originally stated that you would "need" a 9800XT to enjoy
Half-Life 2 to it's potential, and a 9800 Pro isn't much slower. PC Gamer
magazine also originally said that the 9700 Pro was something of the
unofficial video card of Doom 3, so I would have expected the 9800 Pro to
hold up well there also. STALKER should be good with it too, if not they'll
lose sales of the game since it's not realistic to expect that most folks
will shell out big bucks for a new video card because of one game.
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 10:43:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
news:v0spp05438vgls71r3s8k1f1ngckgvhc1u@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:51:15 GMT, "Rick Carney" <rcarney@socal.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> My bro has a 9800 pro, and Halo runs perfectly!
> >
> >6 FPS is perfect?
>
> I don't know what you are doing wrong with your machine, but my 9700
> Pro has run Halo perfectly smoothly since the day of release.
> --
> Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
> Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
> please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
> Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

One of you running Halo at 1600 rez with max details and AA/AF on, and the
other is at 300rez with low details and AA/AF off?
November 18, 2004 10:51:09 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:43:04 GMT, "OldDog" <OldDog@citypound.com>
wrote:

>One of you running Halo at 1600 rez with max details and AA/AF on, and the
>other is at 300rez with low details and AA/AF off?

1024x768, all details maxxed. Halo doesn't require or work well with
FSAA.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
November 18, 2004 11:02:57 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

I can see your point Greg. I have a 9500 pro (non L-shaped mem/bios
enhanced) ATI card that has done its job for "God and Country" as the Brits
would say. I did pay a pretty penny of 200$ at that time. It did run every
game very nicely until Doom 3. Again, I said "nicely".

That I think is the ice-breaker for a 9500 pro (oem)., Doom 3. I just
replaced it with another (oem) 9800 pro and the game is 95% smooth as
butter. I hold some of that into account that my system lacks on the 3
generic sticks of ram I have. Only 1 gig total of pc2100 on a board that
can hold more. The rest is:

AMD 3000+ fsb333
80 gig w/XP Pro OS
C-media 8738 sound (better than onboard AC '97)
20in. Monitor
Latest Omega Driver

3DMark 04 - 5700

I love my 9500 pro. That was my best purchase. I have it in my 2nd pc and
that thing still holds on well with every other game. The 9800 pro is a
sweet piece, but it does not offer a jump like a 9500 pro did for its day.
At least to/for me.

SL

p.s. long live the VooDoo 1 !!

SL
"Greg Sumner" <See@Signature.com> wrote in message
news:nb2dnafXlaE6ewHcRVn-ug@comcast.com...
> John wrote:
>> Now that the two big "guns" are out -- Doom 3 and Half Life 2 (not to
>> mention Rome Total War), I can safely say my Radeon 9800 Pro was the
>> best computer purchase I ever made.
>
> I should have bought it, instead I got the 9500 Pro. It lasted two years
> but ran out of gas with Doom3 (800x600 without shadows, playable but ...)
> It would have been a better investment at the time to get the 9800 Pro.
> This time I got the x800 Pro, I really hope it lasts 3 years.
>
> GS.
>
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 11:55:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

That's alright, I've got $500 more in my pocket than you and I don't need
that kind of resolution to enjoy this game.


"fred" <noway@nohow.net> wrote in message news:419d0424$1_2@127.0.0.1...
> Can you run it at 16 by 12 resolution, everything maxed out, with
> AA-enabled, at 70FPS..... ? An X800 or 6800GT can -- least my 6800 GT can,
> think that's all folks were trying to say. I just replaced my 9800 PRO,
> which I agree is probably the best buy at the moment.
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 12:31:42 AM

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

I see your point. You would think Halo's low res, low poly count textures and
models should
run at 1600x1200 on a 9800 Pro 2/128MB of memory but that sure as hell isn't
the case. I was able to get Halo to run at 1280 x 1024 w/no problems. My 9800
Pro is overclocked to XT speeds though, I've got 1GB of PC3200 DDR and an
Athlon Barton running at 2340Mhz.

>Rick Carney wrote:
>> These people who say you can't run Half Life 2 without an X800 are
>> nuts. The 9800 Pro works perfect with the game. But it's still slow
>> as hell with Halo.
>>
>
>My bro has a 9800 pro, and Halo runs perfectly!
>
>


-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
November 19, 2004 12:40:51 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:21:01 +0100, Walter Mitty
<mitticus@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>John wrote:
>> Now that the two big "guns" are out -- Doom 3 and Half Life 2 (not to
>> mention Rome Total War), I can safely say my Radeon 9800 Pro was the
>> best computer purchase I ever made. This card is now over two years
>> old, there weren't even any DX9 titles released when it first came
>> out, and yet it runs the latest games without a hitch. I think that's
>> pretty amazing and a testament to how far ahead of its time it was
>> when ATI first conceived it. I had been worried I might need to
>> upgrade to an X800 or something, but thank God I didn't waste the
>> money. My trusty old 9800 Pro has done a marvelous job. (Now I'll
>> start worrying about whether it can handle STALKER).
>
>I just got mine : when I got through the rigmoral of getting it working
>(my machine had awful conflicts with it for some reason), it really is
>an awesome upgrade.
>
>What I find interesting is that usualyy with a game, everyone starts
>pulling their dicks out in order to compare frame rates : It says
>something for the gameplay in HL2 that no one has done that yet!
>Everyone is too busy enjoying the game for the gameplay and not the
>technical achievements and how it runs on their machines.


Here I'll start.. 100fps-80fps with my rig. ;) 

cl_showfps 1

Pluvious
November 19, 2004 12:59:29 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On 18 Nov 2004 09:59:11 -0800, arcanastream@yahoo.com (John) wrote:

>Now that the two big "guns" are out -- Doom 3 and Half Life 2 (not to
>mention Rome Total War), I can safely say my Radeon 9800 Pro was the
>best computer purchase I ever made. This card is now over two years
>old, there weren't even any DX9 titles released when it first came
>out, and yet it runs the latest games without a hitch. I think that's
>pretty amazing and a testament to how far ahead of its time it was
>when ATI first conceived it. I had been worried I might need to
>upgrade to an X800 or something, but thank God I didn't waste the
>money. My trusty old 9800 Pro has done a marvelous job. (Now I'll
>start worrying about whether it can handle STALKER).

I agree completely. My 9800Pro runs fine (30-40 fps average or higher)
with the following games,

DOOM3 1024x768 2xAA 8xAF (ingame High Quality)
Half Life 2 1152x864 2xAA 4xAF (every graphic setting at max)
FarCry 1024x768 2xAA 4xAF (every graphic setting at max)

Battlefield and UT2K4 based games run at obscene frame rates.
Rome:Total War, Need for Speed: Underground, Richard Burns Rally and
all other recent releases run just great.

I think, I am good until 2006 when Oblivion and the next Unreal game
may come out and the games with cutting edge rendering will start to
look as good as 3DMark2K5 demo (which kills 9800Pro)

Excellent card.
--
Noman
November 19, 2004 12:59:30 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"noman" <ZZZYYno_m_anZZZYY@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:419d19f2.2789991816@news.individual.net...

> I agree completely. My 9800Pro runs fine (30-40 fps average or higher)
> with the following games,
>
> DOOM3 1024x768 2xAA 8xAF (ingame High Quality)
> Half Life 2 1152x864 2xAA 4xAF (every graphic setting at max)
> FarCry 1024x768 2xAA 4xAF (every graphic setting at max)
>
> Battlefield and UT2K4 based games run at obscene frame rates.

BF42 is *not* a graphics whore. It'll run pretty fine with old GF2s.
Different story for BFV, though.
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 1:38:55 AM

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

"Rick Carney" <rcarney@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Ku5nd.19167$zx1.10780@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> These people who say you can't run Half Life 2 without an X800 are nuts.
> The
> 9800 Pro works perfect with the game. But it's still slow as hell with
> Halo.

Are you MicroSurprised?

--
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...."
November 19, 2004 2:00:45 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Rick Carney wrote:
> "JimBob" <meandyou@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:3046tiF2rub9tU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > Rick Carney wrote:
> > > These people who say you can't run Half Life 2 without an X800 are
> > > nuts. The 9800 Pro works perfect with the game. But it's still
> > > slow as hell with Halo.
> > >
> >
> > My bro has a 9800 pro, and Halo runs perfectly!
>
> 6 FPS is perfect?

6?? hmm, dunno where u got that from, more like 30 i think
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 2:25:58 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Pluvious wrote:
>
> Here I'll start.. 100fps-80fps with my rig. ;) 
>
> cl_showfps 1
>
> Pluvious
>
>

Using FRAPS, I get between 50 and 75 depending on screen with a 2.5 p4,
9800 pro 128 Meg 256bit and 1gig ram. All details on high, 4*AA and 8*AS
filtering.

Game continues to impress.
November 19, 2004 2:27:37 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"fred" <noway@nohow.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:419d0424$1_2@127.0.0.1...
> Can you run it at 16 by 12 resolution, everything maxed out, with
> AA-enabled, at 70FPS..... ? An X800 or 6800GT can -- least my 6800 GT can,
> think that's all folks were trying to say. I just replaced my 9800 PRO,
> which I agree is probably the best buy at the moment.

I'm running HL2 at
16x12, anis 4x, AA 0x,
all details on high and water on "reflect all" with:

Athlon XP 2300 MHz (200x11,5)
1 GB ram - 2-3-3-10
Radeon 9800 Pro 128mb @ 432/378

Framerates (Fraps): 40-50 fps - thats enough for me...

By the way, playing on af 20" TFT... :-D

Zulu
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 2:54:29 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"Rick Carney" wrote...

>> My bro has a 9800 pro, and Halo runs perfectly!
>
> 6 FPS is perfect?

Don't use FSAA with Halo, will slow it to a slideshow !!
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 2:54:30 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

ALright I'll try it later. I thought I remembered everyone bitching about
the frame rate. I gave up on it after a while because it was choppy.

Thanks


"Mr B." <ask@me> wrote in message
news:419d2824$0$298$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk...
> "Rick Carney" wrote...
>
> >> My bro has a 9800 pro, and Halo runs perfectly!
> >
> > 6 FPS is perfect?
>
> Don't use FSAA with Halo, will slow it to a slideshow !!
>
>
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 3:08:12 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Rick Carney wrote:
> ALright I'll try it later. I thought I remembered everyone bitching
> about the frame rate. I gave up on it after a while because it was
> choppy.
>
> Thanks

I seem to recall that most of Halo's framerate problems were with the
GeForce FX line, similar to how the FX caards got their asses handed to them
with the HL2 benchmarks from last year.

--
A Member of Troll Incorporated 3000
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 3:08:13 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

John wrote:
> Now that the two big "guns" are out -- Doom 3 and Half Life 2 (not to
> mention Rome Total War), I can safely say my Radeon 9800 Pro was the
> best computer purchase I ever made. This card is now over two years
> old, there weren't even any DX9 titles released when it first came
> out, and yet it runs the latest games without a hitch. I think that's
> pretty amazing and a testament to how far ahead of its time it was
> when ATI first conceived it. I had been worried I might need to
> upgrade to an X800 or something, but thank God I didn't waste the
> money. My trusty old 9800 Pro has done a marvelous job. (Now I'll
> start worrying about whether it can handle STALKER).

Yeah, I upgraded from an Fx5600 to a Radeon 9800 pro ($250 CDN, a decent
price if you aks me), and I am SO happy with the improvements. Especially
after how freaked out I got when I found out how shitty half-life 2 ran on
the fx cards last year. I just need to upgrade my PC's RAM now :s

--
A Member of Troll Incorporated 3000
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 3:17:16 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

fred wrote:
> Can you run it at 16 by 12 resolution, everything maxed out, with
> AA-enabled, at 70FPS..... ? An X800 or 6800GT can -- least my 6800 GT
> can,
> think that's all folks were trying to say. I just replaced my 9800
> PRO,
> which I agree is probably the best buy at the moment.

Dunno. I never even bother enabling AA in my games. HL2 is the fist game I
ever enabled even 2x on, and I get great framerates on my 9800 pro and the
graphics look great to me. Of course I'd prefer an x800 card, no doubt about
dat, but I don't have the money or a pci express slot. Plus I'd probably
need to upgrade my p/s.

--
A Member of Troll Incorporated 3000
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 3:17:17 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

BAMMO wrote:
>> This card is now over two years
>> old, there weren't even any DX9 titles released when it first came
>> out, and yet it runs the latest games without a hitch. I think that's
>
> It's not more than two years old, is it? I thought the 9800 Pro cam
> out in August 2003.

I thought that was when the 9800 XT came out. Dunno. These things get
released too often it's hard to keep track :p 

--
A Member of Troll Incorporated 3000
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 9:39:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

erm, sorry to slam your comment, but Halo does perform excellent on a
9800pro - I'm talking 256-bit here, not the se128-bit anyway.

"Rick Carney" <rcarney@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:D a6nd.19211$zx1.2185@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "JimBob" <meandyou@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:3046tiF2rub9tU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > Rick Carney wrote:
> > > These people who say you can't run Half Life 2 without an X800 are
> > > nuts. The 9800 Pro works perfect with the game. But it's still slow
> > > as hell with Halo.
> > >
> >
> > My bro has a 9800 pro, and Halo runs perfectly!
>
> 6 FPS is perfect?
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 9:39:19 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

In article <cnitoi$2j0s$1@otis.netspace.net.au>, Blaedmon says...
> erm, sorry to slam your comment, but Halo does perform excellent on a
> 9800pro - I'm talking 256-bit here, not the se128-bit anyway.
>
My SE is 256 bit...


--
Conor

Normality will be restored once we work out what normality actually is.
November 19, 2004 11:42:19 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"SL" <pillott@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:J46dnbS6Oe3U2wDcRVn-1A@adelphia.com...
>I can see your point Greg. I have a 9500 pro (non L-shaped mem/bios
>enhanced) ATI card that has done its job for "God and Country" as the Brits
>would say.

Should be "King and Country " or "Queen and Country"
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 7:43:09 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Taking a moment's reflection, John mused:
|
| Now that the two big "guns" are out -- Doom 3 and Half Life 2 (not to
| mention Rome Total War) ... [snip] ... I had been worried I might need to
| upgrade to an X800 or something, but thank God I didn't waste the
| money.

Consider this, though, you spend how much for it two years ago? Only to
wait two years for three games to come out where it would benefit ...
What's the difference in price for the 9800 Pro now as opposed to two years
ago?
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 10:37:54 PM

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

Um, I've got a 9800 Pro overclocked to XT speeds (1GB PC3200, Barton at
2340Mhz) and I sure as hell can't run Doom3 at high quality, 2xAA and 8xAF high
quality acceptably. The timedemo demo that comes w/Doom3 is a fantasy. When you
get to the first boss level in hell tell me how Doom3 runs for you. It'll be a
slideshow.

>I agree completely. My 9800Pro runs fine (30-40 fps average or higher)
>with the following games,
>
>DOOM3 1024x768 2xAA 8xAF (ingame High Quality)
>Half Life 2 1152x864 2xAA 4xAF (every graphic setting at max)
>FarCry 1024x768 2xAA 4xAF (every graphic setting at max)
>
>Battlefield and UT2K4 based games run at obscene frame rates.
>Rome:Total War, Need for Speed: Underground, Richard Burns Rally and
>all other recent releases run just great.
>
>I think, I am good until 2006 when Oblivion and the next Unreal game
>may come out and the games with cutting edge rendering will start to
>look as good as 3DMark2K5 demo (which kills 9800Pro)


-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
Anonymous
November 19, 2004 10:38:49 PM

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

No it won't run pretty fine w/an old GF2. I tried running BF42 w/my GeForce
2/GTS and even at 640x480 it ran like a dog.

>
>BF42 is *not* a graphics whore. It'll run pretty fine with old GF2s.
>Different story for BFV, though.
>
>
>


-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
Anonymous
November 21, 2004 7:59:53 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

rms wrote:
> There are also performance tweaks for the 9800pro in HL2
> http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=40872
>
> All the tweaks there are good, but scroll down a bit for a
> ati-specific tweak.

Well, I'm not sure why you would need to apply any performance tweeks for
this game. In fact I'm disapointed. Doom3 and HL2 were supposed to be the
games that forced users to upgrade their hardware... Hardly. Anyone with a
1.5 P4 or an XP-1700 with 384 megs and a GeForce 3 TI-200 or an ATI Radeon
8500 can get accpetable framerates at 800X600. Move up to a P4 2.4 or an
XP-2400 with a GeForce 4 class card and you're playing at decent framerates
at 1024X768.

I installed on a fast machine with a GeForce 4 TI-4600 and it was smooth as
silk at 1024X768... So, I wondered how it would go on a lesser machine.
Even though Steam pitched a momentary hissy fit when I fed the same CD key
for a different installation, it came out OK. I installed on a PIII 1.0 Ghz
with a GeForce 3 TI-200 and 512 PC-2100. fraps is reporting 28.4 frames per
second at 800X600 and the shadows etc turned off. There is some stuttering
audio but I'm experiencing that on the fast machine, too.
Anonymous
November 21, 2004 4:25:51 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

I started thinking something odd was going on in
alt.games.half-life when one foggy november evening "twobirds"
<notareal@eaddy.com> came into my office and told me:

> Well, I'm not sure why you would need to apply any performance
> tweeks for this game. In fact I'm disapointed. Doom3 and HL2
> were supposed to be the games that forced users to upgrade their
> hardware... Hardly.

You're disappointed? Imagine how ATI and Nvidia feel!

--
Iphigenie, http://iphi.net
Games of the moment: Lionheart, Spellforce
Demos of the moment: Soldiers, Perimeter
Most wanted games: Call of Cthulhu, SWAT4, Half Life 2, Soldiers

Iphi's game news: http://www.iphi.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi?mode=games
Iphi's UK bargain watch: http://www.iphi.net/more.php?id=102_0_1_0_M
Latest Games News: http://www.iphi.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi?mode=games
(currently Spellforce, Ground Control 2, Joint Operations, Rome Total
War, Starshatter, Pariah)
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 6:15:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"mhicaoidh" <®êmõvé_mhic_aoidh@hotÑîXmailSPäM.com> wrote in message
news:xopnd.359459$wV.209915@attbi_s54...
> Taking a moment's reflection, John mused:
> |
> | Now that the two big "guns" are out -- Doom 3 and Half Life 2 (not to
> | mention Rome Total War) ... [snip] ... I had been worried I might need
to
> | upgrade to an X800 or something, but thank God I didn't waste the
> | money.
>
> Consider this, though, you spend how much for it two years ago? Only
to
> wait two years for three games to come out where it would benefit ...
> What's the difference in price for the 9800 Pro now as opposed to two
years
> ago?
>
This is actually a great point. I "upgraded" from a Ti4600 to a 9800Pro,
which turned out to be essentially a waste of money, because I was still
playing my old games like BF1942, BHD, MOHAA, and Slinter Cell. With a good
cpu, the 4600 still kicks butt on all but the latest generation of games, so
is an excellent value if you want to play all the great games from the last
couple of years. To this day I'm not sure if I've realized any real value
from the 9800Pro, with the exception of Far Cry.

jakesnake
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 6:19:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"John" <arcanastream@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eb3d8c55.0411180959.541d020c@posting.google.com...
> Now that the two big "guns" are out -- Doom 3 and Half Life 2 (not to
> mention Rome Total War), I can safely say my Radeon 9800 Pro was the
> best computer purchase I ever made. This card is now over two years
> old, there weren't even any DX9 titles released when it first came
> out, and yet it runs the latest games without a hitch. I think that's
> pretty amazing and a testament to how far ahead of its time it was
> when ATI first conceived it. I had been worried I might need to
> upgrade to an X800 or something, but thank God I didn't waste the
> money. My trusty old 9800 Pro has done a marvelous job. (Now I'll
> start worrying about whether it can handle STALKER).

I wonder if the 9800Pro was really "far ahead of its time" or if it's more a
case of game development/technology slowing down as to not out-pace the
abilities of the millions of cards out there already. Games sell better to
an installed base. I know my old Ti4600 felt "far ahead of its time" too,
as there didn't seem to be any games coming out that I couldn't play, so
long as I could tweak my cpu a bit.

jakesnake
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 8:06:31 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Taking a moment's reflection, jakesnake66 mused:
|
| This is actually a great point. I "upgraded" from a Ti4600 to a 9800Pro,
| which turned out to be essentially a waste of money, because I was still
| playing my old games like BF1942, BHD, MOHAA, and Slinter Cell. With a
| good cpu, the 4600 still kicks butt on all but the latest generation of
| games, so is an excellent value if you want to play all the great games
| from the last couple of years. To this day I'm not sure if I've realized
| any real value from the 9800Pro, with the exception of Far Cry.

I upgraded from a GF4 Ti4400 to a 9800 Pro because my GF4 went tits up.
I wanted to get something a little better, without breaking the bank. But,
I played all the way through Doom 3 on the GF4, and it played D3 just fine.
1024x768, High details, and everything but shadows (mainly because I think
they look bad) enabled.

Though, when I played again with the 9800 Pro, I noticed visual effects
that the GF4 wasn't able to display ... namely the visual distortion from
explosions, and the visual effects of the heat vents in Hell.
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 8:30:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

twobirds wrote:
> rms wrote:
>
>>There are also performance tweaks for the 9800pro in HL2
>>http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=40872
>>
>>All the tweaks there are good, but scroll down a bit for a
>>ati-specific tweak.
>
>
> Well, I'm not sure why you would need to apply any performance tweeks for
> this game. In fact I'm disapointed. Doom3 and HL2 were supposed to be the
> games that forced users to upgrade their hardware... Hardly. Anyone with a
> 1.5 P4 or an XP-1700 with 384 megs and a GeForce 3 TI-200 or an ATI Radeon
> 8500 can get accpetable framerates at 800X600. Move up to a P4 2.4 or an
> XP-2400 with a GeForce 4 class card and you're playing at decent framerates
> at 1024X768.
>
> I installed on a fast machine with a GeForce 4 TI-4600 and it was smooth as
> silk at 1024X768... So, I wondered how it would go on a lesser machine.
> Even though Steam pitched a momentary hissy fit when I fed the same CD key
> for a different installation, it came out OK. I installed on a PIII 1.0 Ghz
> with a GeForce 3 TI-200 and 512 PC-2100. fraps is reporting 28.4 frames per
> second at 800X600 and the shadows etc turned off. There is some stuttering
> audio but I'm experiencing that on the fast machine, too.

the stuttering audio seems to be a symptom of using highest-quality
sound (setting to medium or low seems to fix this).. 28.4 isn't too bad
- but remember that Valve *did* say their minimum specs were 1.2Ghz on a
DX7 card.. Which was a significant increase from last year's minimum
specs of 700Mhz :-) unlike most minimum reported specs, Valve seem to
have actually put some constructive thought into theirs :-)


--
Ben Cottrell AKA Bench

Today's episode is brought to you by the word "patience", the letter
"lambda", and the number two ;-)
November 22, 2004 8:36:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

>> Anyone with a
>> 1.5 P4 or an XP-1700 with 384 megs and a GeForce 3 TI-200 or an ATI
>> Radeon
>> 8500 can get accpetable framerates at 800X600. Move up to a P4 2.4 or an
>> XP-2400 with a GeForce 4 class card and you're playing at decent
>> framerates
>> at 1024X768.


Thats just bollocks. I used my Geforce 5900 ULTRA card on a 3400+ FX53 AMD
64 CPU, two REGISTERED 512MB and raid hard drives (bought the system from
mesh). The games were O.K, but did suffer in some grahical intense scenes,
and stuttured a lot (not the audio stutter problem).

I bought a 6800 GT yesterday, and it has resulted in a PHENOMONAL increase
in performance, I can now run ALL the DX 9 features, and at a full speed
resolution of 1280 x 1024. I also have all the settings set to the highest
quality and I am using 8X AA and 16X AF (Or is it 16X AA and 8X AF?).

It looks amazing...

Gary.
November 22, 2004 8:38:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

Sorry, it was a GEFORCE 5950 Ultra I had...

--
Regards,

Gary.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Visit Tigger's site and read his story.
Browse photos of all our cats - Tigger, Tootsie and Tango.
http://www.cutecats.co.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Gary" <g@g.com> wrote in message
news:uspod.20452$up1.3887@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>> Anyone with a
>>> 1.5 P4 or an XP-1700 with 384 megs and a GeForce 3 TI-200 or an ATI
>>> Radeon
>>> 8500 can get accpetable framerates at 800X600. Move up to a P4 2.4 or
>>> an
>>> XP-2400 with a GeForce 4 class card and you're playing at decent
>>> framerates
>>> at 1024X768.
>
>
> Thats just bollocks. I used my Geforce 5900 ULTRA card on a 3400+ FX53
> AMD 64 CPU, two REGISTERED 512MB and raid hard drives (bought the system
> from mesh). The games were O.K, but did suffer in some grahical intense
> scenes, and stuttured a lot (not the audio stutter problem).
>
> I bought a 6800 GT yesterday, and it has resulted in a PHENOMONAL increase
> in performance, I can now run ALL the DX 9 features, and at a full speed
> resolution of 1280 x 1024. I also have all the settings set to the
> highest quality and I am using 8X AA and 16X AF (Or is it 16X AA and 8X
> AF?).
>
> It looks amazing...
>
> Gary.
>
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 8:39:22 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

Gary wrote:
>>>Anyone with a
>>>1.5 P4 or an XP-1700 with 384 megs and a GeForce 3 TI-200 or an ATI
>>>Radeon
>>>8500 can get accpetable framerates at 800X600. Move up to a P4 2.4 or an
>>>XP-2400 with a GeForce 4 class card and you're playing at decent
>>>framerates
>>>at 1024X768.
>
>
>
> Thats just bollocks. I used my Geforce 5900 ULTRA card on a 3400+ FX53 AMD
> 64 CPU, two REGISTERED 512MB and raid hard drives (bought the system from
> mesh). The games were O.K, but did suffer in some grahical intense scenes,
> and stuttured a lot (not the audio stutter problem).

It depends what "acceptable framerates" are to you.. some people are
quite happy playing at 25fps, wheras others get narky the moment their
framerate drops below 50 :-)


--
Ben Cottrell AKA Bench

Today's episode is brought to you by the word "patience", the letter
"lambda", and the number two ;-)
November 22, 2004 9:04:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:06:31 GMT, "mhicaoidh"
<®êmõvé_mhic_aoidh@hotÑîXmailŠPäM.com> wrote:

> I upgraded from a GF4 Ti4400 to a 9800 Pro because my GF4 went tits up.
>I wanted to get something a little better, without breaking the bank. But,
>I played all the way through Doom 3 on the GF4, and it played D3 just fine.
>1024x768, High details, and everything but shadows (mainly because I think
>they look bad) enabled.
>
> Though, when I played again with the 9800 Pro, I noticed visual effects
>that the GF4 wasn't able to display ... namely the visual distortion from
>explosions, and the visual effects of the heat vents in Hell.

You'll see more noticeable differences in FarCry or in recent games
like MoH: Pacific Assault and Half-Life2.

For older games the biggest advantage is that you can run the game
with decent AA/AF settings at the same resolutions that you were using
for the 4600. Play a game like GTA3 with 4xAA and 8xAF and it looks
completely different compared to when it runs with no AA/AF.
--
Noman
November 22, 2004 10:05:05 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

Gary wrote:
>
> Thats just bollocks. I used my Geforce 5900 ULTRA card on a 3400+
> FX53 AMD 64 CPU, two REGISTERED 512MB and raid hard drives (bought
> the system from mesh). The games were O.K, but did suffer in some
> grahical intense scenes, and stuttured a lot (not the audio stutter
> problem).
> I bought a 6800 GT yesterday, and it has resulted in a PHENOMONAL
> increase in performance, I can now run ALL the DX 9 features, and at
> a full speed resolution of 1280 x 1024. I also have all the settings
> set to the highest quality and I am using 8X AA and 16X AF (Or is it
> 16X AA and 8X AF?).

Read here: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2281

NV3x s**** in HL2.

Zulu
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 10:51:25 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

If you sick of 9800 pro look at this link
http://www.rojakpot.com/default.aspx?location=3&var1=92...

"jakesnake66" <jake@lycos.com> wrote in message news:<Prnod.30120$T13.10833@fe2.columbus.rr.com>...
> "John" <arcanastream@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:eb3d8c55.0411180959.541d020c@posting.google.com...
> > Now that the two big "guns" are out -- Doom 3 and Half Life 2 (not to
> > mention Rome Total War), I can safely say my Radeon 9800 Pro was the
> > best computer purchase I ever made. This card is now over two years
> > old, there weren't even any DX9 titles released when it first came
> > out, and yet it runs the latest games without a hitch. I think that's
> > pretty amazing and a testament to how far ahead of its time it was
> > when ATI first conceived it. I had been worried I might need to
> > upgrade to an X800 or something, but thank God I didn't waste the
> > money. My trusty old 9800 Pro has done a marvelous job. (Now I'll
> > start worrying about whether it can handle STALKER).
>
> I wonder if the 9800Pro was really "far ahead of its time" or if it's more a
> case of game development/technology slowing down as to not out-pace the
> abilities of the millions of cards out there already. Games sell better to
> an installed base. I know my old Ti4600 felt "far ahead of its time" too,
> as there didn't seem to be any games coming out that I couldn't play, so
> long as I could tweak my cpu a bit.
>
> jakesnake
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 11:29:05 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"Gary" <g@g.com> wrote:
>two REGISTERED 512MB
[...]
> The games were O.K, but did suffer in some grahical intense scenes,
>and stuttured a lot (not the audio stutter problem).

Isn't registered memory a lot slower, due to the registers adding
delay?
Anonymous
November 23, 2004 1:35:14 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.games.half-life (More info?)

"Zulu" <zulu@.N.O.S.P.A.M.toughguy.net> wrote in message
news:41a22a45$0$175$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk
> Gary wrote:
>>
>> Thats just bollocks. I used my Geforce 5900 ULTRA card on a 3400+
>> FX53 AMD 64 CPU, two REGISTERED 512MB and raid hard drives (bought
>> the system from mesh). The games were O.K, but did suffer in some
>> grahical intense scenes, and stuttured a lot (not the audio stutter
>> problem).
>> I bought a 6800 GT yesterday, and it has resulted in a PHENOMONAL
>> increase in performance, I can now run ALL the DX 9 features, and at
>> a full speed resolution of 1280 x 1024. I also have all the settings
>> set to the highest quality and I am using 8X AA and 16X AF (Or is it
>> 16X AA and 8X AF?).
>
> Read here: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2281
>
> NV3x s**** in HL2.
>
> Zulu

He is using DX9 with a 6800GT, not an FX.
!