9800 PRO -256 Appears Pretty Useless...

[Twitch]

Is there anyone who is actually excited about this product at $499 U.S.?

Assuming Tom's very slim set of benchmarks is a good indicator, this card is pretty much total marketing, with almost nothing in the way of tangible benefits. It also dissipates a lot of heat, especially from the new DDRII memory. Apart from the hotter DDRII and the extra 128 megs of RAM (which only comes into play at ridiculously high resolutions and quality settings) there is no difference between this card and the 9800 PRO--it can't even be called a product refresh!

Sorry guys, I love my ATI card, but I think ATI is capable of better than this. I wouldn't be saying anything if it weren't for the fact ATI seems to think this card is worth an extra $100!


<font color=green>The Netherlands is where you go when you're too good for heaven.</font color=green> :tongue:


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Twitch on 06/04/03 03:47 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[jaythaman]

I cant understand one thing, I mean i've never played at 1600*1200 res but even at 1200*1024 the edges pretty much smoothen. And then why do we even need 6x AA?

<font color=blue>If you can read this then it's time to move on to the next post :tongue: </font color=blue><font color=red><b><i>Jay Kay</font color=red></b></i>

 

[dhlucke]

If you've got a huge monitor....

<b>Is Nvidia cheating?</b>

<A HREF="http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1086025,00.asp" target="_new">Extremetech says YES!</A>
<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.org/?article=9648" target="_new">Futuremark says YES!</A>

 

[lhgpoobaa]

Yeah. Quite dissapointing really.
We all know that extra ram beyond a certain point does zip unless you use insare resolutions... but using such resolutions gives crap framerates anyway.

Why didnt they up the core speed and just stick in some faster DDR1 ram?
Its not as if 320Mhz DDR1 is uberfast considering there are 400Mhz+ modules around.

I also noticed that no overclocking was done.
P.S. I too love my R9700pro

<b>My PC is so powerful it it makes a 286-16 look slow!</b> :lol:
<A HREF="http://www.picturetrail.com/master_poobaa" target="_new">PooBaa's Pics!</A>

 

[phial]

actually, i was going to point out that the REVIEw of the 256R350 was useless because the benchmarks are in no way usefull to test this card to its capacity


but i aim too lazy

-------

<A HREF="http://www.quake3world.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001355.html" target="_new">*I hate thug gangstas*</A>

 

[Twitch]

Yes, Poobah, that's exactly where I'm coming from. It almost seems like ATI got duped into buying nVidia's leftover DDRII...

phial: Please explain to me how this card is going to have performance in any apps that will justify the extra $100. Do you believe that the 9800 PRO is starving for bandwidth? I don't. And since memory quanitity is virtually the only thing that's improved in the -256, that transaltes to no noticeable increase in performance.

Is there anyone out there thinking, "man, I only get 15 FPS in Splintercell at 1600x1200 with high quality settings, 6XFSAA, and 16XAT, so I'm gonna buy this bitchin new 9800 PRO-256 so I can get 18 FPS!"

Technologically, I don't see what apps are going to be noticeably improved by the extra RAM and DDRII.


<font color=green>The Netherlands is where you go when you're too good for heaven.</font color=green> :tongue:


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Twitch on 06/05/03 02:10 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Willamette_sucks]

Jay you saying 1280x1024 with no AA is smooth?
Ya... ok, man. I have a 19" monitor so sometimes i play at 1600x1200, like in sof2 (multiplayer) i play at 1600x1200 with 6xaa its so freaking awesome because everything is 100% perfectly smooth no noticable aliasing AT ALL! Too bad aniso dosnt work in that game

And, uh.. Twitch? What do you mean "I dont think the 9800 pro is starving for memory bandwidth."
Of course it is!
More bandwidth is ALWAYS better, the 5900 ultras extra 5-6 gb/s bandwidth is a major factor in it beating the 9800 pro most of the time!

If they doubled the memory bandwidth on a 9800 pro performance would go WAY up, not double, but WAY up.
Wake up man, you dont just say "OK, 380mhz, 21.8 gb/s, its not starving for more, thats enough bandwidth for now."

BLAAH!




Long live ATI.

 

[Twitch]

The GeForce 5800FX was memory-starved because nVidia chose to utilize a 128-bit memory bus rather than a 256-bit bus like ATI. The 5900FX is better because it <i>fixes THE problem</i> that was killing the performance, whereas the new 9800 PRO-256 is trying to fix something that ain't broke.

Show me the empirical benefits of the 9800 PRO-256. Sure, theoretically, mathematically, more memory is better than less, but there is also a point where the hardware no longer can fully or effectively utilize that bandwidth to maximum effect. There also comes a point where the hardware is overkill for current and even future apps. Why would I spend $500 for a graphics card that will help me not at all in any games to come for the next six months compared to a 9800 PRO? Hell, you'd have trouble convincing me that my 9800 PRO was worth the extra $100 over the 9700 PRO, and there's some tangible gains with that upgrade.

Sorry dude, don't point to a 0-2% gain in normal apps or a 5% gain at ultra-high resolutions that are unplayable to begin with and tell me it's worth $100. If you think so, you're every vendors' dream mark.

By the way, I've got some beach-front property in Kansas if you're interested.


<font color=green>The Netherlands is where you go when you're too good for heaven.</font color=green> :tongue:


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Twitch on 06/05/03 02:04 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Willamette_sucks]

Duh you asshat, that was only a 10mhz boost, and that just takes care of the latency increases!
If they really bumped the speed up, or lets say took a 128mb 9800 pro and put the memory at 460 or so, there would be a huge performance increase, esp. with AA etc.
Freaking duh dude.

And yeah, ive said it before, ill say it again.
There IS a limit where increasing memory bandwidth more wouldnt increase performance more, but that point would be at like 10,000 mhz, it would be a curve up to that point.
Same with the GPU.

Long live ATI.

 

[Twitch]

Dude, you need to revisit "Dick and Jane" so you can polish your reading comprehension skills past the preschool level.

The 9800 PRO -256 is NONE of the things you just said would make it better. We're not talking about some theoretical nonexistent fantasy graphics card, we're talking about the 9800 PRO 256. I said that the 9800 PRO-256 DOES NOT EFFECTIVELY BENEFIT FROM THE NEW MEMORY CONFIGURATION. Hypothetically, if they "bumped the speed up" or "put the memory up at 460 or so" like you suggest (and I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon, considering the heat issues,) then my opinion would probably be different, because then the hardware might effectively use any extra bandwidth. But the existing hardware on the card benchmarked by THG does not gain any benefit from the extra 128 megs of memory or the DDR2 until the quality settings become insanely high--and even then the gain is not even enough to mention.

Get it now, Einstein?

<font color=green>The Netherlands is where you go when you're too good for heaven.</font color=green> :tongue:


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Twitch on 06/05/03 02:09 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[TKH]

I think there is one important use of 9800P-256MB DDRII which is you pay extra $100 to ATI for them to spend on girls. So the R&D guys will be mentally boosted and motivated and thus they could make better product which justify the skyhigh price.

It is morally wrong to allow suckers to keep their money
<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=22996" target="_new">My System Rig</A>

 

[Twitch]

Wasn't the whole point of DDR2 supposed to be that it could be clocked way higher than DDR? Where are the heat issues coming from?


<font color=green>The Netherlands is where you go when you're too good for heaven.</font color=green> :tongue:

 

[Twitch]

Also, you'd be able to tell people "I have a $500 graphics card!" That would impress the hell ouf the chicks, dontchaknow?

And if you were lucky, they wouldn't know how dumb you were for buying it.



<font color=green>The Netherlands is where you go when you're too good for heaven.</font color=green> :tongue:

 

[GeneticWeapon]

I would buy it.

3DMark 03 = 4,101
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=775464" target="_new">http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=775464</A>
<font color=red>AthlonXP 2100+/Radeon 9500Pro</font color=red>

 

[lhgpoobaa]

very true... that ddr of the same speed needs no such sinks for another 100mhz.

maybe its cauz its very new and not perfected yet? like the NV30 core or the tbredA?

<font color=blue>Many modern games <b>must</b> be played multiplayer. And those you encounter online are, almost as a rule, <b>complete and utter cockmongers.</b></font color=blue> :frown:

 

[eden]

Yeah it makes no sense. It's like saying you went to 0.13m and you now generate more heat, but supposedly you can scale higher. (Tbred A comes to mind as being an exception of scaling, and the natural disaster known as NV30 comes to mind for the 0.13m fiasco)

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:

 

[Ghostdog]

Why is everyone going crazy about the clockspeeds?
It´s not a new model, it´s a 9800Pro with more memory.
I can understand the 10 mhz boost on the memory (to counter the latency times of DDRII), but if they had boosted clockspeeds too much they should have given it a new model-number.

I´m kind of disappointed with Lars over the review. Benchmarks on two programs? Sure, other (older) games might not even show the benefit at ultra-quality settings, but a slightly more extensive suite of benchmarks would have been nice.

I´m also quite surprised about this:
"Even upcoming games such as Doom III don't run better with 256 MB, as our benchmarks show, with the current status of the 3D engine (see the section on Doom III in our FX 5900 review)"
Many people have suggested that Catalyst 3.2 don´t know how the utilize the doubled memory of the new 9800Pro. At the time Lars was unsure about this matter, I would like to know if this has been cleared up with ATI?
It seems strange that Tom´s has discussion board, yet none of the writers ever come here (I don´t blame them though, some of the members...).

<font color=red>I´m starting to feel like a real computer consultant.</font color=red>

 

[Guest]

I really don't see the benefit of DDRII, does anyone else see it fading out of the marketplace? We need a better subsitute b/c both the FX5800 and R9800/256mb cards are flukes.

--Thanks to my inside connections to Nvidia, I'm using the AGP 16X GeforceFX7500+ TiMX Pro GPU with 512megs of DDRIV ram Special Edition featuring S and T and U Video Output! Beat that!--

 

[Twitch]

Actually, the very short benchmark suite (two) is something I mentioned in my opening post, because it mystifies me also. It probably would be wiser to reserve judgement but I think I can see where things are going with this card. I don't see any reason why other benchmarks would paint a different picture. The architecture is no different, the core speed is the same, the bandwidth isn't markedly higher, there's just more memory.

Only settings and applications that specifically benefit from memory quanitity are going to benefit. I don't see how this card is going to excel under those conditions.

I would rather have seen them migrate the R350 to a .13 process, use higher quality DDR, and up the speeds to 450/400 (or thereabouts.) That would be approximately a 20% increase in core clock and approximately a 20% increase in memory bandwidth. Even if it took them another three or four months to bring it to market, at least it would be an actual improvement and would probably justify the extra $$$. If not, then don't release anything at all and just sell the 9800 PRO, which is a much better value than the competition, and then go on to R400...

<font color=green>The Netherlands is where you go when you're too good for heaven.</font color=green> :tongue:

 

[addiarmadar]

Really guy there is not difference in the scores right now cause there is nothing out right now that would kill that much AGPram. The 256mb is not for gamers but for those with HUGE monitors with plasma displays and have the money for it and also for CAD/graphics designers. Hell there is really no difference between the radeon 9700 pro and the 9800. If you ever want more from the 9700 just oc the core with pstrip or the radeonator.

 

[Willamette_sucks]

Actually there are hardware differences.


Does anybody here remember Vera Lynn?
Remember how she said that, we would meet again, some, sunny day.

Vera! Vera!
What has become of you?
Does anybody else in here, feel the way I do?

Long live ATI.

 

[eden]

Differences in AA and Aniso mostly, however in the majority of standard gaming cases, (heck, including AA and Aniso), it is barely ahead if not tied most of the time. In IQ situations, it sometimes fails to live up to its 6:1 color compression enhancement, keeping in mind it had increased its core and memory as well.

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:

 

[lhgpoobaa]

I just want to see a R9800 with a core speed increase and say 450Mhz DDR1. now that would rock.

<font color=blue>Many modern games <b>must</b> be played multiplayer. And those you encounter online are, almost as a rule, <b>complete and utter cockmongers.</b></font color=blue> :frown: