Radeon 9700 vs GF4 Ti4600 benchmarks at GameSpot

[Rand]

GameSpot has a comparison between a bunch of OEM systems... the usual crap, nothing particularly interesting... EXCEPT they also have benchmarks on one AlienWare system configured with a GF4 Ti4600, and the identical system with a Radeon 9700.

It seems to be a reg. R9700, not 9700Pro.

Benchmarks start here

 

[flood]

holy moly!

 

[WyteWatt]

Wow i am not impressed at all. Even at 4x FSAA and 1024x768 unreal2003 is not playable on the ATI 9700. Not impressed at all one bit. Yes the ATI 9700 is pretty much faster with FSAA on but still its not playable in unreal2003 at 1024x768 with FSAA 4x on. I know it gets faster in RTCW and Quake 3 area with FSAA on 4x but 80 fps for the GF4 ti 4600 is still playable. I don't care about 140 fps. All i want is a minimal of 60 fps with the frame rates never going lower. Not able to do that in unreal 2003 with 4x FSAA on the ATI 9700

Heck the GF4 ti 4600 even gets the extact same fps as the ATI 9700 with no FSAA in unreal 2003. Thats sad. 52.4 fps is not playable really. Even at 1600x1200 the GF4 ti 4600 is not far away from the ATI 9700. Only about 8 to 9 fps thats hardly any difference at all. But neither 29 or 38 fps is playable so why care.

Like i expected the ATI 9700 is overhyped and not as fast as expected. Too bad for the people who are buying it for $400 i feel bad for them. But oh well its there money.

 

[nortexoid]

one, it's not even a Pro card so the pro should be producing higher framerates than that...
two, over 50fps is pretty damn playable - to most anyway
three, this is the fastest performing graphics chipset on the market...people need to stop expecting miracles...
four, etc.

 

[WyteWatt]

nortexoid ok if over 50 fps is playable then that means the GF4 ti 4600 will beable to play unreal 2003 at 1024x768 with all details on high fine! The ATI 9700 at 1024x768 with all details on high gets the same extact frame rates as one of the GF4 ti 4600 systems. Also the ATI 9700 that means then is not playable much at all in unreal 2003 at 1024x768 with all details on high with 4x FSAA enabled because its below 50 fps. I am still not impressed at all. As i said before it was very overhyped.

 

[CrazySaint]

imtim83, weren't you the guy who started a thread a few weeks ago asking whether 30FPS was playable to settle an argument you were having with someone else who said that 30FPS wasn't playable, so now you're saying that 52.4FPS isn't playable?! IMO, 30FPS is playable (though certainly not great), and 52FPS is certainly acceptable.

And of COURSE its overhyped, every freakin' graphics card is overhyped.

 

[Rand]

Well the R9700Pro should be a bit faster, and hopefully final drivers will offer a boost.... maybe that will get it up to levels at which you consider it playable.

Personally I'm less interested in the specific frame rate as I am in the relative performance boost over the Ti4600. As I have no interest in FPS (First Person Shooter) games, the specific frame rate attained means little to me.

At 1024x768 the R9700 is often only a few FPS ahead of the Ti4600, once bandwidth and graphics card limitations push to the fore-front it quickly broadens that lead as evidenced by 1600x1200 performance.

The R9700 evidently loves FSAA, often pushing 1.5-2X the Ti4600's #'s.
That doesnt necessarily mean much right now though as we have no idea as to the visual quality it can offer.
Nor have we the faintest hint as to how FSAA is implemented besides some form of MultiSampling which really only gives us a superficial impression.

Unfortunate that no DX9 apps are available to show the R9700's performance in apps that fully utilize it's capabilities.


Too bad there were only a few apps tested, and the fact that nothing besides FPS were tested is less then pleasing also.
I so wish more reviewers would notice that not everyone plays or even gives a damn about FPS.... a little more variety in testing would be a huge addition.

Ah well, at least it gives us a bit better impression of the performance of the R9700. We likely won't know much more until we see full reviews.


And please... let's not get into a debate whether 30/50/60/100 or 1billion FPS is needed. It's pretty clear by now that almost everyone has different requirements, and what classifies as a 'playable' frame rate can vary significantly depending upon what genre of game it is.
Naturally your not ging to need anwhere near the same frame rate in a Flight Sim as you would in a Shooter, while RPG's are going to have very different requirements then either Flight Sims or Shooters etc etc.
It's all been debated to death in multiple threads.

 

[WyteWatt]

Rand thats what i said in certain games all you need is 30 fps. In my psot about. But in unreal 2003 and first person shooter games you should have 60 fps + because you are moving fast and want to win. Where driving and plane games move slower. I can take 30 fps in plane game and race car games. I agree with you all that 30 fps is fine in some games but not first person shooting games.

 

[Insane3D]

I like FPS but sometimes I like other games, but not always. I think the Radeon 9700 is really crappy, well not really, but it's ok. I actually love it btw. I was looking at the 1024x768 numbers and I thought how good american cheese is. I once saw a piece of cheese melt, but I got scared and ran away. The 9700 is ok, but melting cheese is scary. UT2003 is cool, but smurfs are blue. Smurfs sometimes play FPS, but mostly they eat melting cheese. That is really scary because they are also blue. I heard Papa Smurf was killed while looking at the 1024 x 768 numbers for the Ti4600 and Radeon 9700. It supposedly was due to the crazy smurf eating too much melted cheese.

:Q

 

[BFG10K]

I'm having a hard time making any useful from those benchmarks.

Sill, with a Monday released date (AFAIK) it shouldn't be long before the likes of Anand and Tom produce the usual quality reviews of the product.

 

[bjc112]

the thing i don't understand is that, when Anand benched it, with beta drivers... It CRUSHED it, now how is this coming about?

Anand is pretty much always dependable... I would wait till he benches or any other hardware site for that matter...

I think that there is more behind the card than that..

 

[WyteWatt]

bjc112 well remember those were only percent numbers. Percents do not show everything. It may seem to crush it with the percent numbers but the true fp numbers may not look like that. Oh well.

 

[Adul]

Originally posted by: imtim83
Rand thats what i said in certain games all you need is 30 fps. In my psot about. But in unreal 2003 and first person shooter games you should have 60 fps + because you are moving fast and want to win. Where driving and plane games move slower. I can take 30 fps in plane game and race car games. I agree with you all that 30 fps is fine in some games but not first person shooting games.

hehe I know people who can kick ass with less the 30 FPS on FPS games, my brother and his friend instance. They where happy with 40 FPS and has well. So either you really need to learnt o adaptm or quiet playing fps

 

[Adul]

for instance I game with a MX440 at 1024 res with all the details turned up

 

[WyteWatt]

Adul yeah but you would expect this so fast ATI 9700 supposely beable to get at least 60 fps mininmal in unreal 2003 at 1024x768 with all high details on with no FSAA and AF. Thats all i am asking. But that does not seem to be the case. Heck this video card will be $350 to $400 when it comes out.

 

[Insane3D]

Man, imtim, you just will never get it will you? I could explain it a million times but you still won't get it..:disgust:

 

[WyteWatt]

Adul did you hear something?

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: imtim83
Adul did you hear something?

Yeah, the wind blowing through imtim83's ears...:Q

 

[WyteWatt]

Hmm i heard nothing. Guess Insane3D never posted here yet.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: imtim83
Hmm i heard nothing. Guess Insane3D never posted here yet.

Yeah, that's because the howling of the wind through your ears made you forget posting on a message board makes no sound...

 

[WyteWatt]

Well still no Insane3D. I guess Insane3D will not post in this thread.

 

[dawks]

Someone correct me if im wrong.. but isnt ATI a generation behind anyway.. Isnt this chip supposed to compete head to head with the Geforce 4?

If so, I would expect it to be faster because its had 5+ months more of development time.

I cant wait to see what the NV30 can do..

 

[Insane3D]

I wonder if imtim83 knows Hardware?


Sorry Rand, I'll leave your thread alone now.....thanks for the link..

 

[erikiksaz]

I've run the beta of UT2k3 on my comp, and i'm pretty sure it doesn't run much faster than 60 fps, or if 60 fps at all. So far it seems just fine. And YES, i do play fps games on a daily basis, pretty much rocket arena 3, so if that doesn't fulfill your "i play first person shooters" requirement, i dont know what will.

 

[Markfw]

I'm sorry if this comes out wrong, but I have had enough of some people.

1) intim83 appears to be an a$$.
2) Wait until Monday when some REAL benchmarks appear.