Is the Radeon 9700 what to get

[videoclone]

GeForce FX 5900 ULTRA and FX5900 Non Ultra are the same card with the extra 50Mhz on the Ultra making it 4% faster the ram runs the same! at 850Mhz and the extra 128MB of ram does nothing unless running super high rez with AA and AF turned on

 

[edmundoab]

i own a 9700pro myself and i am very happy with that card.,
so by all means, i'll recommend that card.

 

[nRollo]

Everyone who's seen the latest Benchmarks from anandtech and other sites with the 52.16 driver and the beta 53.xx drivers all know that the FX5900 is now better then the 9700 in DX9 and DX8 .. but still not as good as the 9800 in DX9 ... get the facts right befor you babble out crap

I like 5900s too Videoclone BUT:
1. I don't think the 5900 is going to be faster than the 9700Pro at PS2 shader games, even in mixed mode
2. I've seen many benchmarks where the 5900U is 10-15% faster than a 5900NU, not 4%

So maybe you should "get your facts straight".

 

[edro]

What about the Radeon 9700 Pro AIW? Is that the exact same card, but with the AIW capabilities? (I also have a Radeon 8500, but 64mb)

 

[Sid59]

Originally posted by: edro13
What about the Radeon 9700 Pro AIW? Is that the exact same card, but with the AIW capabilities? (I also have a Radeon 8500, but 64mb)

yes .. the AIW and regualr 9700 pro should perform equally.

 

[Jeff7181]

A 9700 won't be sufficient to run Half Life 2 and other future games, so don't buy a video card with that reasoning. DX9 is still in it's infancy... there are only a few games that actually make use of it's features available right now. With that in mind, buy a card that will play the games you want to play currently. If you buy for the future you'll be disappointed because by the time the games come out that you were anticipating, you could have gotten a better price on the hardware because it most likely won't run the game at a decent rate.
Don't forget, those HL2 benchmark results you saw here on AnandTech were with AA and AF off... I don't know about you, but ever since I got my GF4 over a year and a half ago I can't play a game without at least 2XAA and 4XAF without thinking "this look like hell."

*EDIT* I vote for a 5900 non-ultra with 2.2ns RAM to play current games with ease.

 

[CraigRT]

I know you want the card for DX9, but i'd honestly say, wait and keep the 8500, it's a good card.. look for something more significant in the future, either wait for a price drop once new cards are out and either buy one of the new cards, or take advantage of the price drop and THEN buy something like a 9800.

my .02

going from an 8500 to a 9700 pro won't warrant THAT much of a gain, IMO.

 

[Vonkhan]

9700

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: videoclone
The Bench tests say your wrong !!! The FX5900nu is faster then the 9700Pro and non pro in DX9, DX8 and everything else if you think otherwise show me the benchtests to prove it.

Lets see yours, not the AT ones. Some others.

Everyone who's seen the latest Benchmarks from anandtech and other sites with the 52.16 driver and the beta 53.xx drivers all know that the FX5900 is now better then the 9700 in DX9 and DX8

Well theres already several people who disagree withyou.

get the facts right befor you babble out crap

I don`t babble numb nuts, its not a fiction im talking, its fact. No amount of driver tweaks will rescuse the FX line from its low DX9 performance. Even if it did beat the 9700pro, which it doesnt, i`d expect it too its a newer, supposidly more capible card.

...this hasto be the worst ATI fanboy thread ever!

For a start, im no fan boy. My 9700pro is the first ATI card ive ever owned, my last 4 were nVidias. And i can say for alot of people here that they aint.
The chances are that you are a nVidia fan boy, who cant accept the fact that the FX line is crap at DX9.

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
A 9700 won't be sufficient to run Half Life 2 and other future games...

Huh!
The 9600pro gets very decent fps in HL2. The 9700 is faster?

I don't know about you, but ever since I got my GF4 over a year and a half ago I can't play a game without at least 2XAA and 4XAF without thinking "this look like hell."

Im sure you can live without AA & AF. If you cant, then output your games to your TV and get free AA!

 

[videoclone]

OK Please show me links with the 52.xx or 53.xx drivers and the 9700 non pro or pro being better in DX8 and 9X without evidence all your talk is just that!

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: BoomAM

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
A 9700 won't be sufficient to run Half Life 2 and other future games...

Huh!
The 9600pro gets very decent fps in HL2. The 9700 is faster?

I don't know about you, but ever since I got my GF4 over a year and a half ago I can't play a game without at least 2XAA and 4XAF without thinking "this look like hell."

Im sure you can live without AA & AF. If you cant, then output your games to your TV and get free AA!

40-55 FPS on average is NOT acceptable for a first person shooter... especially not when you're using to having 85 MINIMUM in current games with 4XAA and 8XAF

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
40-55 FPS on average is NOT acceptable for a first person shooter... especially not when you're using to having 85 MINIMUM in current games with 4XAA and 8XAF

No offence.....but to you maybe.
Im more than happy as long as i hit 30+fps.
And before you all critisise my eyesight, i can actually tell the difference between fps quite well, above 120fps, and i cant notice much difference.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: BoomAM

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
40-55 FPS on average is NOT acceptable for a first person shooter... especially not when you're using to having 85 MINIMUM in current games with 4XAA and 8XAF

No offence.....but to you maybe.
Im more than happy as long as i hit 30+fps.
And before you all critisise my eyesight, i can actually tell the difference between fps quite well, above 120fps, and i cant notice much difference.

But you can tell the difference between 30 and 120 right?

*EDIT* By the way... those numbers are AVERAGES... which means, the lows may be down in the 20's or even teens... I'm sure you'd agree that in the teens is not exactly a quality gaming experience.

 

[SuPrEIVIE]

200$ is alot for a card thats almost 2 yrs old...but in awhile the 9700/pro will be extinct in every store soon...but i think its best to wait for the newer cards to be released...stick with ur card...along the way while ur waiting the 9800non pro will probably the same 200$ price like the 9700 or even cheaper

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: SuPrEIVIE
200$ is alot for a card thats almost 2 yrs old...but in awhile the 9700/pro will be extinct in every store soon...but i think its best to wait for the newer cards to be released...stick with ur card...along the way while ur waiting the 9800non pro will probably the same 200$ price like the 9700 or even cheaper

This is what I was getting at in a round about way

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
But you can tell the difference between 30 and 120 right?

LOL.

*EDIT* By the way... those numbers are AVERAGES... which means, the lows may be down in the 20's or even teens... I'm sure you'd agree that in the teens is not exactly a quality gaming experience.

Yes i know. I ment to say that a constant 30fps keeps me happy...

Originally posted by: SuPrEIVIE
200$ is alot for a card thats almost 2 yrs old...but in awhile the 9700/pro will be extinct in every store soon...but i think its best to wait for the newer cards to be released...stick with ur card...along the way while ur waiting the 9800non pro will probably the same 200$ price like the 9700 or even cheaper

9700pro 2 years old? It was 1 year in September.
Even for a 1 year old card, it still holds its own. Its still one of the fastest cards out, coming only 10-20% behind the current performance cards, which for a 1 year old card, is very good.

 

[Jeff7181]

Yes i know. I ment to say that a constant 30fps keeps me happy...

And don't you relize that an average of 40 fps will NOT always stay above 30? Especially in a FPS where you have long alleys, 10+ moving things on the screen, explosions, etc. etc.? A constant 30 might be fine... but that's not the way games work unless you lock the fps in game below the minimum your hardware is capable of running it at... for example, my FX5900 running SoF2 @ a constant 85 FPS.

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Yes i know. I ment to say that a constant 30fps keeps me happy...

And don't you relize that an average of 40 fps will NOT always stay above 30? Especially in a FPS where you have long alleys, 10+ moving things on the screen, explosions, etc. etc.? A constant 30 might be fine... but that's not the way games work unless you lock the fps in game below the minimum your hardware is capable of running it at... for example, my FX5900 running SoF2 @ a constant 85 FPS.

Bloody hell! We`re ment to be discussing the 9700 vs 5900. Not my opinions on frame rates!. lol.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: BoomAM

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Yes i know. I ment to say that a constant 30fps keeps me happy...

And don't you relize that an average of 40 fps will NOT always stay above 30? Especially in a FPS where you have long alleys, 10+ moving things on the screen, explosions, etc. etc.? A constant 30 might be fine... but that's not the way games work unless you lock the fps in game below the minimum your hardware is capable of running it at... for example, my FX5900 running SoF2 @ a constant 85 FPS.

Bloody hell! We`re ment to be discussing the 9700 vs 5900. Not my opinions on frame rates!. lol.

I'm discussing your reasoning... a 9600 Pro won't play HL2 AND MAINTAIN acceptable frame rates... a 9700 is slightly better, but still won't maintain acceptable frame rates... I seriously doubt even a 9800 XT will based on the benchmarks available to us. Granted that was just a sample of what's going to be... and the final release may have better performance, but as of now, it would be stupid to buy ANY video card with the intent to play a game that you won't be able to get your hands on for at least another 3-4 months.

 

[BoomAM]

Whats with the sudden fastination with average/low/max frame rates?
Even the occasional drop to sub 20fps isnt noticeable in most cases, and even if they are, its often few and far between that it does happen (on my rig anyway).

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: BoomAM
Whats with the sudden fastination with average/low/max frame rates?
Even the occasional drop to sub 20fps isnt noticeable in most cases, and even if they are, its often few and far between that it does happen (on my rig anyway).

It's not a sudden "fastination" ... an average of 40 fps doesn't mean jack if 50% of the time it's at 70 fps and the other 50% of the time it's at 10 fps. I don't know why I have to keep explaining this, I've explained it twice at least already in this thread.

My advice to Sandan... buy a card that will make you happy RIGHT NOW if your current one doesn't. If you buy a card for tomorrow, it'll work great now, but still won't play tomorrow's games worth a crap cause there's not a single card on the market that will play HL2 or Doom3 at an acceptable rate for moderate to serious gamers... so you may as well save up money to buy a card that will run tomorrow's games when they come out.