It seems to me that the clock speed boosts in the new products have already been easily attained by members of AT forums? So would anyone actually get that? If it were up to you what would you do? 9600 xt @ $200 or 9600 pro @ $150?
9800 XT and 9600 XT useless for computer enthusiasts?
- Thread starter FearoftheNight
- Start date
ethebubbeth
Golden Member
- May 2, 2003
- 1,740
- 5
- 91
THey set the 9800 xt at like 413 because they were unable to get satisfactory yields at higher clocks....doesn't sound good for oc.
ethebubbeth
Golden Member
- May 2, 2003
- 1,740
- 5
- 91
in that case yes, it is impertinent to the enthusiast because users can achieve comparable results through overclocking.
For a 740MHz memory clock (i.e. 370MHz DDR), at least 2.5ns memory is required. I expect that 2.2ns may be used and this would allow for much overclocking potential for the memory. I don't know how useful this would be for typical resolutions though, but it would probably make a difference at 1600x1200 with max AA, AF.
Is the R3xx more constricted by the core or memory clock?
Is the R3xx more constricted by the core or memory clock?
I wouldn't say they're useless. The ram on them will be faster, and these should be able to oc a little higher. These have been tested for the higher speeds, whereas a 9800 pro might have been tested at the higher speeds and failed.
Useless? Not with Dynamic Overcloking & a free game of Half Life 2.
Official Speeds are 412 on the core; 364 on the memory for the 9800XT.
Official Speeds are 412 on the core; 364 on the memory for the 9800XT.
Why would anyone have purchased a 9800 Pro over a 9700 Pro? The same thing seems to be happening here with the 9800 XT over the Pro... Seems to me as though the XTs will simply replace the Pros as the "enthusiast" part found on the shelfs alongside the non pro/xt boards.
And it may not sound like the cores are any more tweakable if they can get yeilds "only" at 412 or whatever. Hell, there's a reason the 9800 Pro was clocked at "only" 380MHz and the 9700 Pro "only" 325MHz. What does this mean? IT just means that those are the stable clocks they were able to obtain with those respective cores. Does it mean that they couldn't be over clocked higher than the yeilds ATI found suitable? No, it just means that at those yeilds they are certain they'll produce very few problematic batches where customers discover the default clock speed to be unstable. The cores are more mature and can probably be pushed further, but how much further is the question. Many "enthusiasts" didn't seem to have too much problems pushing the 9700 over 400MHz, the 9800 let users go a little higher, how much higher the XT will allow for might determine if it's "worth" it for 9800 Pro users to upgrade if they have the cash to burn.
And it may not sound like the cores are any more tweakable if they can get yeilds "only" at 412 or whatever. Hell, there's a reason the 9800 Pro was clocked at "only" 380MHz and the 9700 Pro "only" 325MHz. What does this mean? IT just means that those are the stable clocks they were able to obtain with those respective cores. Does it mean that they couldn't be over clocked higher than the yeilds ATI found suitable? No, it just means that at those yeilds they are certain they'll produce very few problematic batches where customers discover the default clock speed to be unstable. The cores are more mature and can probably be pushed further, but how much further is the question. Many "enthusiasts" didn't seem to have too much problems pushing the 9700 over 400MHz, the 9800 let users go a little higher, how much higher the XT will allow for might determine if it's "worth" it for 9800 Pro users to upgrade if they have the cash to burn.
According to Beyond3D, the reason for the low stock clocks is to keep heat output in check for OEMs; not because of yield issues. The Overdrive feature will allow customers to attain much higher speeds without voiding the warranty.
According to Rage3d is was because ... "As a side note, the high clock speeds introduced timing issues between the chip I/O pads and core logic, which was solved by Delay Lock Loops. These Delay Lock Loops are the cause of the weird core speed."
ha
shows you
i dont think its "free" (despite a Press Release saying otherwise...)
and i still have more problems than you can solve.
anyway, i figure if the 9600xt(200 bucks) is only slightly faster than a 9600pro(~150 bucks) , i have the same money (~$200) in a 9600 pro/xt card and a copy of half life 2.
unless nvidia has their card out, and its significantly better than the 9600XT, and the cost is lower...well, if i can get a comparable nvidia card and half life 2 for 200 bucks, im in.
anand said that the 9600 XT would be faster than the 9700 pro in all circumstances.
for only 200 bucks but HL2 shipping with these will only be the single player version which is good but I love multiplayer games wonder how much that will cost seperatly
for only 200 bucks but HL2 shipping with these will only be the single player version which is good but I love multiplayer games wonder how much that will cost seperatly
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter