Black_Cat
Distinguished
- Jan 11, 2002
- 1,897
- 0
- 19,780
It looks like my next card will be an ATI too. Sweet! Anandtech chose a strange way to benchmark. Rather than showing actual frame rates they chose to count the GF4Ti4600 as 1 and anything above that is the number of percentage points that the 9700 bested it by. Weird. I would rather see the frame rates. God, Quake III must be up to about 500fps with this card!
It looks like ATI hit a homerun if they get this thing out within the next couple of weeks and continue with strong driver support.
To start press any key. Where's the "any" key? --Homer Simpson.
It looks like ATI hit a homerun if they get this thing out within the next couple of weeks and continue with strong driver support.
To start press any key. Where's the "any" key? --Homer Simpson.
eden
Champion
- Oct 3, 2001
- 26,549
- 0
- 50,780
I am sorry to be pessimistic but the Q3 results ARE SAD.
Radeons rocked Open GL, but this one manages a bare 4% increase above the Ti4600 in it, even though the R8500 could compete the Ti4200!
As for the percentage method, it is most likely due that ATi restricted the numbers so far, like with THG, so Anand used a smart method: %!
BTW I also am impressed with the 2.5 times better, but we need numbers to see how incredible. For all you know it might just be a 30 FPS with Ti4600, 75 FPS with Rad 9700. Granted it is POWERFUL, but he 2.5 times could be in low FPS in reality, and not in like saying at 4X AA and 8X Aniso you get 100 FPS for GF4 and 250 FPS in Rad 9700...
Again sorry to sound pessimistic, it's just the results over at Anand are skimpy, some are disappointing to say, and they destroy the happiness I had at first. Also these are preliminary drivers, so I am keeping my hype until the final retail card, and possibly if only they could up the clock. It is about 30% better ON AVERAGE per clock, so why not up the clock as well damn it! The thing could eat the Ti4600 then, with its price as well!
--
Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G!
Radeons rocked Open GL, but this one manages a bare 4% increase above the Ti4600 in it, even though the R8500 could compete the Ti4200!
As for the percentage method, it is most likely due that ATi restricted the numbers so far, like with THG, so Anand used a smart method: %!
BTW I also am impressed with the 2.5 times better, but we need numbers to see how incredible. For all you know it might just be a 30 FPS with Ti4600, 75 FPS with Rad 9700. Granted it is POWERFUL, but he 2.5 times could be in low FPS in reality, and not in like saying at 4X AA and 8X Aniso you get 100 FPS for GF4 and 250 FPS in Rad 9700...
Again sorry to sound pessimistic, it's just the results over at Anand are skimpy, some are disappointing to say, and they destroy the happiness I had at first. Also these are preliminary drivers, so I am keeping my hype until the final retail card, and possibly if only they could up the clock. It is about 30% better ON AVERAGE per clock, so why not up the clock as well damn it! The thing could eat the Ti4600 then, with its price as well!
--
Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G!
eden
Champion
- Oct 3, 2001
- 26,549
- 0
- 50,780
For a fairly nice reason, this forum has poor servers, if we hype so much and post tons of threads, not only will it slow down, but we will barely see much creativity in the topics. Best having one with many posting, than 5 with 40 posts each, lagging and taking screen space.
AMD_Man, Q3 on 1024*768 regardless of CPU limit or not, the Radeon 9700 has 20GB of bandwidth, most of its features are DX8 and thus would not react to Q3, but it also has excellent multitexturing, and a clock speed near the GF4 Ti4600. There is no reason for the bandwidth, mem and multitexturing strengh to only add 4%. They should however try the NV15 demo, it is a big bandwidth limited test as proven by the new P4 NWB setups improvements against NW As.
Besides, although the performance at these huge resolutions are nice, I simply do not see how many people here play at such insane res without a monitor that goes this far and allows good sight (so no 17" on 1600*1200!). So the way I see it, 1024*768, to 1280*1024 are resolutions to test, and see the most, because most don't even have the capabilities of 1600*1200, nor the best viewing monitors at them. See what I am saying?
It is purely drivers here for sure, Radeon 8500 had a pretty big boost over the Radeon 7500, and you're telling me that CPU also did this? No, it was the card's performance, which the 7500 btw has a very high GPU speed.
PS: I forgot to add, the 9700 has LMA II-style performance, so that again should have put it sky-high above, which it did not.
--
Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G!
AMD_Man, Q3 on 1024*768 regardless of CPU limit or not, the Radeon 9700 has 20GB of bandwidth, most of its features are DX8 and thus would not react to Q3, but it also has excellent multitexturing, and a clock speed near the GF4 Ti4600. There is no reason for the bandwidth, mem and multitexturing strengh to only add 4%. They should however try the NV15 demo, it is a big bandwidth limited test as proven by the new P4 NWB setups improvements against NW As.
Besides, although the performance at these huge resolutions are nice, I simply do not see how many people here play at such insane res without a monitor that goes this far and allows good sight (so no 17" on 1600*1200!). So the way I see it, 1024*768, to 1280*1024 are resolutions to test, and see the most, because most don't even have the capabilities of 1600*1200, nor the best viewing monitors at them. See what I am saying?
It is purely drivers here for sure, Radeon 8500 had a pretty big boost over the Radeon 7500, and you're telling me that CPU also did this? No, it was the card's performance, which the 7500 btw has a very high GPU speed.
PS: I forgot to add, the 9700 has LMA II-style performance, so that again should have put it sky-high above, which it did not.
--
Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! 
bront
Distinguished
- Oct 16, 2001
- 2,122
- 0
- 19,780
There's a point where the GPU is the limit, not the CPU. The 7500 reaches that point earlier than the 8500 and beyond. So, until you run the test on say a P4 2.53, you won't nessessarily see the difference. The current GPUs are ahead of the curve so much in some cases, that it might take another 6 months to push the CPU beyond being the bottle neck in some newer games.
Shame, because I love leaving SETI@Home running in the background when I play games. I get great framerates on MOHAA in 1600x1200 like that still, Of course, I don't use AA or Ansio. Maybe I should start using Ansio, as it won't hit my 8500 much.
English is phun.
Black_Cat
Distinguished
- Jan 11, 2002
- 1,897
- 0
- 19,780
I tend to agree with you. Now I don't seem as excited. I suppose we'll see more concrete numbers when this card is ready to hit the streets. I suppose ATI is merely planting the thought in our collective heads that they are now the king of the hill. In reality that crown may only be on their heads for a couple of weeks. Thanks a lot for bumming me out, Eden.
To start press any key. Where's the "any" key? --Homer Simpson.
LOL. You people are foolish. Why whould you go and pay $300 to $450 more dollars for a new video card that is only 10 to 40 percent faster than a Geforce 2 Ultra depending on application of course. Not to mention the new cards look no better and in some instances, look worse. After all 32 bit color is 32 bit color on any video card. The reality is that until 64bit processing becomes mainstream you will be hard pressed to realize any real differance in image quality beyond the Geforce2 Ultra. Add in the fact that that most monitors and/or CPU become a bottle neck in the chain of events. After all what good is 1200x1600 res? My card of choice is the GF2 Ultra w/ 29.40's. I can, and do, run any game w/o a single glitch at well beyond 50fps. Beside the fact the human eye can not detect much more than 30 fps. Who cares about frame rate, it really isn't important. I have tested several of the new cards, and yes they may be faster, but the image quality usally suffers at the same given resolution (usally 1024x768) as my Geforce 2 Ultra. For my money the 3DFX VooDoo3, until of course the Geforce 2 Ultra, is and will remain the 2nd best graphics card ever made (for the money). Maybe, when all the game manufacturers settle on a platform standard the PC market will see some truly impressive graphics. Any one truly understand DirectX? Open GL? My advise get a better monitor not Video Card. LOL, max out the graphics and enjoy the veiw, who cares how fast it is, what is important rather, is how good does it look while playing. After all, game creators add all those cool colors and add in's and special effects for a reason. When you buy a graphics card visual quality should be the prime factor not how fast it is. Oh, and BTW who the hell wants to play any game at 1200x1600, I have a Veiw Sonic 22" monitor and I wouldn't want to, unless of course you play with binoculars, LOL.
eden
Champion
- Oct 3, 2001
- 26,549
- 0
- 50,780
That was a pretty childish attitude, defending an almost 2 year old card, with an old generation technology.
I don't even understand where you pick that 40% better than GF2 Ultra claim, that is the funniest thing I ever heard. The Ti500 is about 30% better than the GF2, GF4 Ti4600 is TWICE better, so that makes the 9700 a good 140% better at the very least in most games.
Hell you even contradicted yourself, recommending an old generation card in graphics, then you go saying that graphic image quality is important, which btw there is a HUGE difference when playing Pixel Shader games on a GF2 Ultra and a Radeon 9700.
Get your facts straight dude, that was really misinformed what you said.
Only thing I agree is the 1600*1200 being a way too much touted res, when barely any people use it. Why go crazy on results at such res if you ain't playing on it. Everyone of my friends, and I do mean EVERYONE, plays at 1024*768 or even below, I never once heard a friend using any higher.
--
Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G!
I don't even understand where you pick that 40% better than GF2 Ultra claim, that is the funniest thing I ever heard. The Ti500 is about 30% better than the GF2, GF4 Ti4600 is TWICE better, so that makes the 9700 a good 140% better at the very least in most games.
Hell you even contradicted yourself, recommending an old generation card in graphics, then you go saying that graphic image quality is important, which btw there is a HUGE difference when playing Pixel Shader games on a GF2 Ultra and a Radeon 9700.
Get your facts straight dude, that was really misinformed what you said.
Only thing I agree is the 1600*1200 being a way too much touted res, when barely any people use it. Why go crazy on results at such res if you ain't playing on it. Everyone of my friends, and I do mean EVERYONE, plays at 1024*768 or even below, I never once heard a friend using any higher.
--
Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! 1600x1200 is exaggerrated, yes. The main reason for high res is to improve anti-aliasing quality. However it may be possible to run in a lower resolution with 6X FSAA. In the past all we had was 4X. Also, the Radeon's FSAA claims to be improved and much more optimized into the memory structure.
It's true, barely any people use high res, but I've hung around gaming web sites enough to look at the "picture of the day" things people send in. Most of the screenshots are blurry, taken at low resolutions (there are aliasing artifacts everywhere), and some people still run Half-Life in software mode to this day. There have been several gamers I've run across who ask, "How do I get those cool pictures in the screenshots? Everything looks so blurry." Then I have to explain to them how there is something called "3d" and it's what allows those pictures to be drawn!
I've seen a debate parallel this one too. There was a post earlier in the Gamespy forums saying that Half-Life was a bad game for the industry because it stifled innovation. People were playing an old game and not playing Unreal Tournament or Medal of Honor, games with "better" technology. They were mostly upset that not enough cool mods were being made for other games. So there are people in the gaming industry who want others to mod and play the "1600x1200 aka better technology games" and those who want to stick with the "1024x768 aka half-life game", just like there are those who care about IQ and those who not as much. Your argument is not unfounded. And I see a resemblance here. I've actually touted my opinion on this many times, but I think the average gamer doesn't think about image quality much when buying a video card. Some people buy a Ti 4600 and don't turn on 4X FSAA or anisotropic filtering. Of course this doesn't make sense at first, but eventually you realize that many of them <i>don't even care</i>.
When we debate about image quality and resolutions here I think we should think about what resolutions <i>we</i> use, and look for graphics cards that run fast, beautifully, and smooth on those. The truth is that many people don't care about IQ, and many of them buy fast cards without ever using their full features or performance. The fast cards, to them, are more like an investment. Faster now means it will take longer for it to become slow later on.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by cakecake on 07/20/02 00:21 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
It's true, barely any people use high res, but I've hung around gaming web sites enough to look at the "picture of the day" things people send in. Most of the screenshots are blurry, taken at low resolutions (there are aliasing artifacts everywhere), and some people still run Half-Life in software mode to this day. There have been several gamers I've run across who ask, "How do I get those cool pictures in the screenshots? Everything looks so blurry." Then I have to explain to them how there is something called "3d" and it's what allows those pictures to be drawn!
I've seen a debate parallel this one too. There was a post earlier in the Gamespy forums saying that Half-Life was a bad game for the industry because it stifled innovation. People were playing an old game and not playing Unreal Tournament or Medal of Honor, games with "better" technology. They were mostly upset that not enough cool mods were being made for other games. So there are people in the gaming industry who want others to mod and play the "1600x1200 aka better technology games" and those who want to stick with the "1024x768 aka half-life game", just like there are those who care about IQ and those who not as much. Your argument is not unfounded. And I see a resemblance here. I've actually touted my opinion on this many times, but I think the average gamer doesn't think about image quality much when buying a video card. Some people buy a Ti 4600 and don't turn on 4X FSAA or anisotropic filtering. Of course this doesn't make sense at first, but eventually you realize that many of them <i>don't even care</i>.
When we debate about image quality and resolutions here I think we should think about what resolutions <i>we</i> use, and look for graphics cards that run fast, beautifully, and smooth on those. The truth is that many people don't care about IQ, and many of them buy fast cards without ever using their full features or performance. The fast cards, to them, are more like an investment. Faster now means it will take longer for it to become slow later on.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by cakecake on 07/20/02 00:21 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
nexus_alpha
Distinguished
- Jun 17, 2001
- 270
- 0
- 18,780
Myrmecophagavir
Distinguished
- Apr 16, 2002
- 89
- 0
- 18,630
There are some rough numbers floating around, it's not all percentages and subjective impressions. From the 9700 preview on this very site:
Alpha_02: lol. Maybe you should try to understand things better before talking about them.
Alpha, actually I think there was a bit too much negative response to your post. It's an invariably puzzling thing why computer hardware is still so "complicated."
I know people who, all they want, is fast computers. Fast, fast, fast. They don't care if it does them any good. I know people who hate this idea too, which is why I can kind of see where you're coming from. The computer industry is young. It lacks laws to prevent things like rampant false advertising, monopolistic and crude, uncompetitive business practices, and price fixing/bait and switch techniques.
While these statues are being discussed by congress and acronyms like DMCA and ISDA are thrown around, the consumer gets his ass handed to him. The thing we can do to reverse this, if we have the time, is to do our own research and make sure we don't get picked on or worse, cheated. This is in fact much easier than people think. There are a lot of things we can educate ourselves although admittedly, barely anyone has the time or the will to do research on this. Perhaps PBS should run a documentary on the state of the computer industry, focusing on the legal side. The debate of Napster vs. the RIAA, Winzip vs. WinXP, Netscape vs. Microsoft, the GPL vs. large corporations, and other clashes of ideas are--for lack of a better word--controversial. If this documentary were to be made, another section would be almost mandated to talk about the consumer cheating, memory price-fixing/chip flooding, Intel clock speed cheating, false Athlon XP "+whatever" numbers, and everything in between, as these are so crucial to seeing the big picture as well. The consumer has been cheated so much over the years and for people who are knowledgeable on this stuff (which most people in online hardware forums are), I think it grows on them to the point where they don't think it matters anymore, but it does.
It would be good to move towards a less confusing, easier to understand computer world, but intricacy and complexity are innate to this industry. Like you I don't have an answer to this either. It's an important debate that hasn't turned enough heads. Perhaps people don't care. To this day, people are cheated in an ongoing, regimental, daily basis. Computer makers justify it with their legal savvy (shown by those oh-so-wonderful "we own opengl" claims by Microsoft) and business prowess that congress wants so much to protect while at the same time regulate.
As you can probably tell, this debate reaches farther than the computer industry. In a way, Enron and Worldcom are both related to this problem. For years, the US government has tried to protect the rights of corportations as they are so essential to the economy, but as a result have done nothing to protect them from hurting <i>us</i>. Many democrats and republicans have been in bed with these corporations, taking credit for a "good economy", and are quite guilty of it. During all those Clinton years when everyone thought the economy was soaring, who would've thought that some of it was a fluke?
The technical side will probably never disappear, but will only get worse. I think the only hope of a better, more ethically sound computer industry is to implement better laws and encourage companies, over time, to adopt those laws. It will take some time but I have a lot of hope for the computer industry becoming a bit more like you are suggesting.
My apologies if I read your post wrong.
I know people who, all they want, is fast computers. Fast, fast, fast. They don't care if it does them any good. I know people who hate this idea too, which is why I can kind of see where you're coming from. The computer industry is young. It lacks laws to prevent things like rampant false advertising, monopolistic and crude, uncompetitive business practices, and price fixing/bait and switch techniques.
While these statues are being discussed by congress and acronyms like DMCA and ISDA are thrown around, the consumer gets his ass handed to him. The thing we can do to reverse this, if we have the time, is to do our own research and make sure we don't get picked on or worse, cheated. This is in fact much easier than people think. There are a lot of things we can educate ourselves although admittedly, barely anyone has the time or the will to do research on this. Perhaps PBS should run a documentary on the state of the computer industry, focusing on the legal side. The debate of Napster vs. the RIAA, Winzip vs. WinXP, Netscape vs. Microsoft, the GPL vs. large corporations, and other clashes of ideas are--for lack of a better word--controversial. If this documentary were to be made, another section would be almost mandated to talk about the consumer cheating, memory price-fixing/chip flooding, Intel clock speed cheating, false Athlon XP "+whatever" numbers, and everything in between, as these are so crucial to seeing the big picture as well. The consumer has been cheated so much over the years and for people who are knowledgeable on this stuff (which most people in online hardware forums are), I think it grows on them to the point where they don't think it matters anymore, but it does.
It would be good to move towards a less confusing, easier to understand computer world, but intricacy and complexity are innate to this industry. Like you I don't have an answer to this either. It's an important debate that hasn't turned enough heads. Perhaps people don't care. To this day, people are cheated in an ongoing, regimental, daily basis. Computer makers justify it with their legal savvy (shown by those oh-so-wonderful "we own opengl" claims by Microsoft) and business prowess that congress wants so much to protect while at the same time regulate.
As you can probably tell, this debate reaches farther than the computer industry. In a way, Enron and Worldcom are both related to this problem. For years, the US government has tried to protect the rights of corportations as they are so essential to the economy, but as a result have done nothing to protect them from hurting <i>us</i>. Many democrats and republicans have been in bed with these corporations, taking credit for a "good economy", and are quite guilty of it. During all those Clinton years when everyone thought the economy was soaring, who would've thought that some of it was a fluke?
The technical side will probably never disappear, but will only get worse. I think the only hope of a better, more ethically sound computer industry is to implement better laws and encourage companies, over time, to adopt those laws. It will take some time but I have a lot of hope for the computer industry becoming a bit more like you are suggesting.
My apologies if I read your post wrong.
eden
Champion
- Oct 3, 2001
- 26,549
- 0
- 50,780
I have a hard time understand why you are replying all this to him. All he was saying is that an old generation card would actually still be better than what we have now, that the 9700 is 40% better than Ultra. That's double FUD, man!
I usually stay rational, but this guy really doesn't know what he is saying, he is purely biased and threw FUD.
Ya know I gotta admit though, I truly appreciate you cakecake. You have stayed rational through any discussion, have always shown healthy skepticism, not the type: Oh no that's utterly false man, this can't be, this is not true, they're only making it up!!!
And you have also explained many things, and taught me Stencil Buffering's meaning, and for that I can only say you earned my full respect man! We need more people like you who analyze each side instead of one, and give responses which are worthy to note!
--
Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G!
I usually stay rational, but this guy really doesn't know what he is saying, he is purely biased and threw FUD.
Ya know I gotta admit though, I truly appreciate you cakecake. You have stayed rational through any discussion, have always shown healthy skepticism, not the type: Oh no that's utterly false man, this can't be, this is not true, they're only making it up!!!
And you have also explained many things, and taught me Stencil Buffering's meaning, and for that I can only say you earned my full respect man! We need more people like you who analyze each side instead of one, and give responses which are worthy to note!
--
Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question Download speed is slow on only my PC - please help!- Started by Ograsmium
- Replies: 16
-
-
Question New installed W11 on sdd, D drive (HDD) goes to the 100% in seconds
- Started by Emily_Vin
- Replies: 7
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram