Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HIS 9800Pro 128mb

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Games
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 27, 2004 3:55:12 PM

i have a P4 2.0a Ghz and i used to have a Geforce 4 ti4200 card with this u sed to get
121fps in UT2003, max details, 1024 x 768, flyby antalus.
in 3D mark 03 score: 1459.

after the upgrade to HIS 9800Pro 128mb i get
128fps in UT2003, max details, 1024 x 768, flyby antalus.
in 3D mark 03 score: 5352.

i think i should really see a bigger improvement in ut2003, other games display some improvement (i dont know if its as much as it should be though). the 3Dmark03 fps imrpoves alot in all areas, sohwing the card's installed ok. both ut2003 and unreal 2 and some other games maybe all have shown very little improvement. any help?

using the benchmarks here
http://www6.tomshardware.com/firstlook/20031210/radeon_...
im sure the games should be running faster they are.

----------------------
running XP Pro

More about : 9800pro 128mb

January 27, 2004 4:12:16 PM

You didn't get rid of the nVidia drivers I'm guessing. Best way to do it: wipe, format, install Windows and appropriate drivers (i.e., Catalysts not ForceWares).

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
January 27, 2004 4:19:58 PM

im no genius but wouldnt benches like that be limited by his 2ghz cpu? 3dmark is graphics intensive but real games are also dependant on the cpu... only so far a 2ghz chip will take him regardless of the gfx card... just my opinion... im prolly wrong so dont pay too much attention to me

"Its only when you look at ants closely with a magnifying glass on a sunny day that you realise how often they burst into flames"
Related resources
January 27, 2004 4:24:58 PM

UT2003 would be more limited than 3dMark2k3, but only a 7FPS seems too low for that upgrade, even if he has a 2.0A. You're right though, he shouldn't expect the FPS that THG gets on their testbed.

Maybe you are right, I never really thought about it like that...but I'd doubt a Ti4200 would be the limit of the 2.0A.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
January 27, 2004 5:12:26 PM

all of the games run a bit faster but im sure i should be getting more, ut2003 should be way over 100 during a bot match and much more higher during a flyby.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by sean67 on 01/27/04 07:15 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 27, 2004 5:38:09 PM

Hmmmmm, I'm stumped. Sorry. Anyway, did you get rid of the nVidia drivers before you switched over to your 9800Pro?

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
a b U Graphics card
January 27, 2004 5:46:27 PM

Let me ask everyone. Is it possible that UT is actually picking more advanced settings because of the newer Card? I mean they say the deault benchmark built into the game and the demo that gives the flyby/botmatch score, isn't an accurate way to compare cards as it picks the highest settings supported by the hardware when you run the test. Is that the same for the benchmark version he is running?

Anyway just a guess, because i can understand botmatch scores being limited by his CPU, but flyby?

Edit: also wondering if uninstalling and reinstalling the game (or demo) would change the score. I remember when the game first came out, a friend saw my system and said, hey i don't have grass. He then upgraded his old radeon to an 8500 le and still didn't have grass until uninstalling and reinstalling the game.

But I'd think a Ti4400 could handle whatever UT2003 can dish out (eye-candy wise).

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9500 Pro, Santa Cruz, Antec 1000AMG, TruePower 430watt<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Pauldh on 01/27/04 02:50 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 27, 2004 6:11:06 PM

i did use the windows uninstaller to remove the old drivers then i upgraded, a little while ago i used det RIP but no difference. im now trying to reinstall ut2003, i'll let you know what happens, personally i doubt much will happen. i do use the highest possible settings both before and after the upgrade. it seems odd that both 3dmark03 and x2 rolling demo had a good improvement but not other games.

looking at the THG:VGA charts II, a XP2700+ (about my CPU's speed):
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030120/vgacharts...
and comparing with charts III, P4 3.2G:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-chart...

ut2003 only really wants a 2Ghz to run at peak.
January 27, 2004 6:18:38 PM

Your benchmarks will not get scaythed but your gamming will. Most of the time going from Nvidia to ATI you have to reinstall windows for the best performance.

Barton 2500+ @ 2200mhz (10x220 vcore @ 1.8)
Asus A7N8X Dlx 440 FSB
1gb Geil GD pc3500 Dual Channel (2-3-3-6)
Segata 80gb SATA 8.5ms seek
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro(420/720)
January 27, 2004 6:49:19 PM

thanks alot you guys! i'll reinstall XP i think.
i tried reinstalling ut2003 but no change.
i also tried AquaMark 3 THG got
44,719 with a P4 3.2
i got
32,719 with a P4 2.0
Is this good? never used AquaMark before.
January 27, 2004 9:35:19 PM

Those NVidia drivers will stick around to haunt your system. If its anything, it will definitely be whatever is remaining of those drivers.

----------------------
PIV 2.4c @ 2.89ghz
1gig PC3200 (512mbx2)
ASUS P4P800
GF3 Ti200 64mb (soon to be replaced)
WinXP Pro
3DMark2001SE: 6300
3DMark2003: 688
January 27, 2004 9:38:28 PM

Sure, you can always format and reinstall....if you don't know what you're doing. Heh, my WinXP installation has gone from an Intel P3/866 with 815 chipset and Geforce 2 through various incarnations to the AMD system it is now (listed below). After proper driver replacement and cleanup, all benchmarks results are on par and real world performance is great and no stability issues. I know we really don't want to admit it but Microsoft really has put out an awesome OS.

<font color=purple>AMD XP 2500+ @ 3200+/200, A7N8X Dlx, 512mb PC3200 Corsair XMS DDR, ATi 9800Pro, Audigy Platinum, 2/5 TB of storage, TDK 48x CDRW, Lite-On 16x DVD, XP Pro SP1, and more neon than a ghetto sled
January 28, 2004 2:20:08 AM

Err...first time i hear from people that switching chipset didn't require a window reinstall. Is that too good to be true?

Asus A7N8X Deluxe, Xp 2500+(3200+), 512MB RAM, Radeon 9500Pro
January 28, 2004 5:19:56 AM

OK i reinstalled windows but i still get the same flyby score (around 128fps). it cant be a faulty card if X2 rolling demo (benchmark) and 3Dmark are running as they should. so why are unreal and other games showing little improvement?
a b U Graphics card
January 28, 2004 12:11:06 PM

Your UT2K3 performance seems about right.

You have a slow processor (you can't compare your 2ghz proc. to an XP2700 especially based on a test that's over a year old,), and UT2K3 does not show much performance diff. between the top cards and a GF4ti because it doesn't require and modern features. Take a look at other sites with the same benchmark and you will find the difference is not that dramatic when the CPU is much slower.

Your scores are a tiny bit on the low side, but your system is the crutch. That's what's wrong.

Get a new CPU/MOBO/MEMORY if benchmarks are so important.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
January 28, 2004 8:00:42 PM

thanks for all your input. i looked up some other benchmarking sites and using X2:rolling demo and codecreatures the card performs as it should, i understand that the cpu is holding the pc back a lot. although i thought i would see a bigger increase in ut2003 flyby as it focuses on the GPU not CPU.

ive looked into getting a P4 3.0Ghz (800FSB) ive seen them for around £300($546 USD) [i live in the uk] however one i noticed is £198($364 USD) which is here:

http://www.microdirect.co.uk/catalog/mainprodlist.asp?t...

could any of you guys have a look at it and tell me if theres anything thats not up to spec (seems odd that its £100 cheaper). it seems ok to me but maybe im missing something a second opinion would be great
!