HardOcp has some ATI-9700 3DMark scores

[NicColt]

HardOcp ATI 9700 3DMark scores

but they insist that this is from beta drivers. Check it out.

 

[TheSmJ]

With results like that, they better be (and must be) beta!

BTW, NicColt's sig got me thinking, does anyone know if Doom 3 will be using only DX8.1, or 9.0 effects?

 

[gururu]

those results aren't very impressive. it is clear that whoever posted them realized this.
probably from a malicious source I'd say. hopefully not leaked from a reputable web site or
from the inside at ATI. can't be trusted. and with a P4 oc'd to 3.0 GHz. Its fishy all around.
Was the person going for a high score or were they trying to tell us something about the
9700's performance?

 

[jamie2833]

seems to me like it's real, go to the madonions ORB and check it out yourself.

around 200 increase from a geforce 4 TI4600 i would say is not bad at all, were you expecting 5000? or even 10000?
also i thought 3dmark was supposed to be nvidia biased?

who knows, whoever used the card obviously had a beta card and doesn't neccessarily reflect any real performance when it is released in a couple/few weeks from now

 

[Killrose]

I was'nt impressed by these results either, but there are no DX9 tests in 3DMark yet (I beleive), and if that's the case, when the new version comes out with DX9, add about 3000+ points difference to the final scores on that 9700.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

All I have to say is - did you see the bear demo? That looked fantastic.

This looks like an evolutionary product sppedwise, and a revolutionary product with regard to features. That is a good thing, I think.

 

[SSXeon5]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
All I have to say is - did you see the bear demo? That looked fantastic.

This looks like an evolutionary product sppedwise, and a revolutionary product with regard to features. That is a good thing, I think.

Um you all arnt impressed by the asswoopen it gave the gf4 in every game to date .... 25-30% faster then the GF4 with 4xAA/16xAF and GF4 with nothing on? Your not impressed because of a stupid benchmark everyone worships .... i think thats sad. All I know is im going to pick this bad boy up when it gets close to $250 ... and there is not stoping that! And thease are beta everything .... if anything when it comes out it will top the charts of 3dmark no dought .... but that test is pretty useless...

SSXeon

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I'd think everyone should be well aware that the Radeon 9700 won't offer any huge advantage in boosting framerates at such a low-mid range resolution. It was made pretty clear to me that the 9700 would only be a practical invenstment ($399 MSRP) if you wish to run all your current games at 1600x1200 with FSAA and AF cranked up. Core and ram clock speed of the 9700 are going to be at least 300/300 or maybe even up to 350/350... at 300/300, sure, it'll offer superior performance to a GF4 Ti 4600, but remember that the 4600 is clocked at 300/325...and that is very fast.

Also, notice the use of 1024x768...why use such a CPU dependent resolution for such a fast GPU? HardOcp should have posted 3DMark scores at 1600x1200 with 4XFSAA 16X Anisotropy and compared them to what the Ti 4600 could dish out. At 1024x768, at Radeon 9000 Pro is on par with a Ti 4200, and the 9000 Pro is meant by ATI to compete with the GF4 MX line...but once you notch up the res to 1280x1024 and 1600x1200, the 4200 begins to show it's muscle, especially if you enable FSAA.

Also remember that 3DMark 2001SE is testing DX8.1, not DX9... the 9700 surely would tear the 4600 a new one @ 1024x768 on say 3DMark 2002?

 

[SSXeon5]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
I'd think everyone should be well aware that the Radeon 9700 won't offer any huge advantage in boosting framerates. Core and ram clock speed of the 9700 are going to be at least 300/300 or maybe even up to 350/350... at 300/300 sure, it'll offer superior performance to a GF4 Ti 4600, but remember that the 4600 is clocked at 300/325...

Also, notice how we all use the 1024x768 resolution, why use such a CPU dependent resolution for such a fast GPU? HardOcp should have posted 3DMark scores at 1600x1200 with 4XFSAA 16X Anisotropy and compared them to what the Ti 4600 could dish out.

Also remember that 3DMark 2001SE is testing DX8.1, not DX9... the 9700 surely would tear the 4600 a new one @ 1024x768 on say 3DMark 2002?

True and I remember someone doing the 9700 with 4xAA/16xAF and it crushing the Ti4600 by about 6000+ points when the TI4600 just turned on 4xAA. And Im sure to believe the 9700 can hit 375/800+ .... the chips on the freaken thing are 2ns .... 1000/2 = 500Mhz or 1000Mhz DDR!!!!!! but they will prob knock it down to 400Mhz and boy they can prob oc to 1GHz or more on the ram

SSXeon

 

[bunnyfubbles]

the chips on the freaken thing are 2ns

Are you sure?!?! :Q

2ns should mean you could get up to 500MHz.... 500MHz x 2 (DDR) x 32 bytes (256-bit interface) = 32GB/sec! 30GB/sec compared to roughly 20GB/sec that ATI has the 9700 currently at, compared to the 10GB/sec of the Ti 4600... That's a hell of a bandwidth... I don't quite believe that 2ns figure... although I'm wanting to

 

[Killrose]

Actually, us 17" monitor types will benifit from the power of the 9700, because for us @1024x768 32bit, everything maxed, we can add 4xFSAA and 16xAnsio for free.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Yeah, but giving a $399 video card a montior smaller than 19" is a shame

can't most 17" do 1280x1024? That's the resolution Anand mentioned that UT 2003 was silky smooth at on the 9700 even with 4X FSAA...

 

[Killrose]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Yeah, but giving a $399 video card a montior smaller than 19" is a shame

can't most 17" do 1280x1024? That's the resolution Anand mentioned that UT 2003 was silky smooth at on the 9700 even with 4X FSAA...

Yes, probably, but who want's to try and frag those teny tiny little guy's?

 

[SSXeon5]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

the chips on the freaken thing are 2ns

Are you sure?!?! :Q

2ns should mean you could get up to 500MHz.... 500MHz x 2 (DDR) x 32 bytes (256-bit interface) = 32GB/sec! 30GB/sec compared to roughly 20GB/sec that ATI has the 9700 currently at, compared to the 10GB/sec of the Ti 4600... That's a hell of a bandwidth... I don't quite believe that 2ns figure... although I'm wanting to

2ns Chips Its the bottom ones not the top ... and even if it was the top 2.2ns is also impressive!!

SSXeon

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Pshh... 2.2ns

that only equates to roughly a 29.1GB/sec memory bandwidth provided the memory could successfully hit 455MHz

I want 32GB/sec, 29.1GB/sec isn't enough let alone a puny 20GB/sec 3.3ns 600MHz DDR would provide

Sure would be sweet if that ram overclocks well...really sweet if the core could be over clocked nicely as well, but I've got a feeling that it won't be able to change too drastically...