- Dec 13, 2002
- 243
- 0
- 0
Got a GeForce 3 that came with my Dell P4 1.8. Would I see a big difference if I upgraded to a 9700 Pro? Should I wait for the GeForceFX?
Then ya you "might" upgrade but if you plan to play doom 3 WAIT!!! nobody is quite sure what it will take to run that game.
Originally posted by: Rollo
"spend 200 on the 9500pro version the 9700 would be better served on at least a 2.2 or 2200+ system "
Hmmm. The reviewers at Anandtech seem to disagree with you:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1683&p=22
" It isn't really until you reach the 1.33 - 1.40GHz mark that the 9700 Pro really begins to pull away."
They seem to think you start seeing the the improvement over a Ti4600 with a 1500+ cpu. Do you have some links that prove otherwise? Where did you come up with "2.2 or 2200+" as the baseline for a 9700 being worthwhile?
If you want some idea about how much of a performance increase you'll get with a 9700, I went from low 8K range (GF4-Ti4400) on 3dmark 2001SE to low 11K range (R9700 retail) with an Athlon 1600+. That's almost a 30% jump in performance on a machine I supposedly "won't see any benefit on".
Don't let people convince you not to buy as good of a VGA as they have, just because you haven't spent as much on a cpu as they have. Your cpu is fast enough that you can definitely benefit from a 9700.
Snowman is right. They're just saying you may not get the maximum out of the 9700 depending on your CPU, but you will get a BIG BOOST nonetheless. I have an AMD 1600 XP and that card runs sweet! But running the UT2003 benchmark(the one in the game) with all settings set for performance, and with the settings maxed out, the 9700 got the same score on both benches. This tells me that the card has not yet been pushed to it's limit, so when I get a bigger CPU, it will do even better!
I'm with him. I went from a GF3 (standard no TI) which worked pretty darn good too, to a 9700 Pro and got a 4200 point jump in 3DMark, and UT2K3 runs sooooo much sweeter now. That's with an AMD 1600+.Don't let people convince you not to buy as good of a VGA as they have, just because you haven't spent as much on a cpu as they have. Your cpu is fast enough that you can definitely benefit from a 9700.
Originally posted by: Rollo
BTW Wolfsraider-
"the limit of the cpu is a big difference on my 2.8 i get no slowdowns with 16 bots in ctf or bombing run but the 1.5 starts choking and becomes a slide show at times."
"i noticed the graphics a lot on the p4 1.5 but compared to the 2.8 @ 3150 its night and day to me."
So you're saying that when you go from a mediocre cpu, to one running as fast as cpus can possibly run, it just seems better to you? Who'd have thought?!
Here's my original link that says " It isn't really until you reach the 1.33 - 1.40GHz mark that the 9700 Pro really begins to pull away"
i don't but he is willing to wait for a gforce fx if its better so it sounds like all he's looking for is a video cardAlso, how do you know he's not planning to buy a new cpu in the near future as well?
I'm going to buy a 2.53 board in the next few weeks. If I would have listened to guys like you when I sold my Ti4400, I'd be screwed. I'd have a processor capable of performing within 5% of your 2.8, but I'd have a crippled VGA and guys like you would stomp me in online in UT2003
Original Poster: ALWAYS buy the best you can afford, or at least the best for the amount of money you want to spend. There are a lot of guys on these boards handing out bad advice, their reasons for doing so I can't fathom. You'll never be sorry having bought the fastest of anything, except maybe cpus. (the difference in performance between the top of the line and a few notches down is never close to the huge price difference)
"I went from a GF3 (standard no TI) which worked pretty darn good too, to a 9700 Pro and got a 4200 point jump in 3DMark, and UT2K3 runs sooooo much sweeter now. That's with an AMD 1600+."
Originally posted by: Rollo
Mike:
"this has been discussed "
This may have been discussed, but it was just some guy giving his opinion. He didn't post any links to show on objective review site backing up his opinion that this guy would see no performance difference between a 9500 and a 9700. On the other hand, I'll post this:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1756&p=5
See how the Ti4600 is faster than the 9500 Pro?
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1756&p=6
Again, especially at high res, 4600 smacks down the 9500Pro
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1756&p=7
More 4600 smacking going on here...
If I would have listened to guys like you when I sold my Ti4400, I'd be screwed. I'd have a processor capable of performing within 5% of your 2.8, but I'd have a crippled VGA and guys like you would stomp me in online in UT2003.
Don't let people convince you not to buy as good of a VGA as they have, just because you haven't spent as much on a cpu as they have.