We don't need no 9800 PRO or XT!!!

VIAN · Oct 1, 2003

I don't know why all the fuss, the XT is only about 10 frames faster than the 9700 Pro. It's not worth the money to me. I think that anybody with a 9700 Pro is a fool to think about getting either of those, just wait for next gen. They don't offer that much performance. Next gen cards are guarranteed to offer at least 25% performance increase, at least.

superjohnny · Oct 1, 2003

Originally posted by: VIAN Next gen cards are guarranteed to offer at least 25% performance increase, at least.

Do you have any facts to substantiate this claim?

Viper96720 · Oct 1, 2003

You may not need it. But they are people out there that need to have the latest and greatest.

VIAN · Oct 1, 2003

K hold on. Take a look at these links. Pay attention to launch cards only. Look at all benchmarks.

5800 Ultra creaming Ti 4600
Ti 4600 creams Geforce3
Geforce3 creams on Geforce2 GTS 64MB - take into consideration lauch memor was only 32MB
GTS creams on Geforce SDR - was launched as SDR and then released DDR; Too bad the Voodoo5 5500 was based on these benchmarks

Lonyo · Oct 1, 2003

Originally posted by: VIAN
K hold on. Take a look at these links. Pay attention to launch cards only. Look at all benchmarks.

5800 Ultra creaming Ti 4600
Ti 4600 creams Geforce3
Geforce3 creams on Geforce2 GTS 64MB - take into consideration lauch memor was only 32MB
GTS creams on Geforce SDR - was launched as SDR and then released DDR; Too bad the Voodoo5 5500 was based on these benchmarks

So you're assuming that they will be 25% faster, but you do not KNOW that they will be 25% faster.

You are just guessing, based on previous trends.
There is no guarantee.

VIAN · Oct 1, 2003

its an educated assumption that will most likely be true. Especially if they do another one of those little updates and 10 more frames is gained by the R400 that will be a nice percentage over the 9700 pro. the 9800pro is 5-10% over 9700 pro and xt is 5-10% over 9800pro so from 9700 up to xt is a 10-20% difference and if the R400 performes 5-10% difference over the xt it will be a 15%-25% difference from 9700pro. So there was never a need to upgrade from the 9700pro. It was better to wait it out. But I understand how awsome it is to be up to date, but i don't have the money and a lot of you people don't either.

rbV5 · Oct 1, 2003

My neighbor buys a new BMW every other year, and yet I don't think he's a fool even though I'm still driving my nearly 11year old Trooper. I say big deal, its his money, why should I care?

VIAN · Oct 1, 2003

yeah its all about pride and i understand that, but from a performance point of view it is unneeded.

rbV5 · Oct 1, 2003

yeah its all about pride and i understand that, but from a performance point of view it is unneeded.

I don't think its about pride at all. Whether its "needed" or not is up to the consumer. You basically only "need" a cheap console to play video games, and you don't "need" to play games at all.

VIAN · Oct 1, 2003

uh, he got me.

Viper96720 · Oct 1, 2003

You should look at some of the 9800XT benches at anandtech. The non cpu limited ones.
UT2003 flyby w/ 4x AA 8x AF
9800XT gets 148.7
9800 Pro 256 137.5

That kind of difference maybe enough for some wanting to get the newer card. Plus the benches were at 1024x768 and not all uses that resolution. I hardly pay
any attention to benches with aa and af disabled.

VIAN · Oct 1, 2003

For overall power I look at 1600x1200x32 with AF & AA enabled at max. But I play at 1280x960x32 with AF & AA disabled. So I usually look at 1280x1024x32 with no AF & AA. The visual quality is not worth the money.

rbV5 · Oct 1, 2003

So I usually look at 1280x1024x32 with no AF & AA. The visual quality is not worth the money.

And thats why "need" is relative. I can't imagine not using AF at the very least (8x if possible) and try to run at 1600x1200 if I can (why else have a 22" monitor), some folks are completely satisfied at 640x480@ 16bit.

xSauronx · Oct 1, 2003

Originally posted by: rbV5
My neighbor buys a new BMW every other year, and yet I don't think he's a fool even though I'm still driving my nearly 11year old Trooper. I say big deal, its his money, why should I care?

agreed

oNiceGuy · Oct 1, 2003

Look at it this way, the latest fx5900 has about 50% less fps than a ATI 9800 on half life.

Or how about the cool features you get with a 9800AIW Pro card, just for tv.

The truth is, fps doesn't stay static for games...It sometimes improve over time, sometimes spikes to lows. Just because a benchmark shows a difference of 5 to 10 fps, doesn't mean that it will always stay this low. Not to mention, once you overclock your computer...and vid card.

Besides, you get to say you own the latest and greatest

venk · Oct 1, 2003

My GF2 GTS-V and 1.2 Ghz T-Bird run Call of Duty a 1024x768 with no slowdowns. Why the hell does anyone need anything greater than a card that is three generations behind?

jiffylube1024 · Oct 1, 2003

Originally posted by: VIAN
K hold on. Take a look at these links.
GTS creams on Geforce SDR - was launched as SDR and then released DDR;

^ Hehehe. 16-bit colour in a benchmark. It's been awhile!

Looney · Oct 1, 2003

Originally posted by: VIAN
yeah its all about pride and i understand that, but from a performance point of view it is unneeded.

What makes you think your needs is the universal standard?

Phantron · Oct 1, 2003

Ummm scuze me, but Im running a 4200 here that im really getting tired of due to it will not longer play games decently from my perspective. I only paid $178 and OC'ed to near 4400 speeds, so I saved some cash for a year up until now . The last time I paid full bore for a new card was the Geforce 3 back in June 2001 for $400. So I think im due time for something high end for myself no? In other words, a 9800XT fits my bill perfect.

ed21x · Oct 2, 2003

For most of the games on Anand's tests, the difference in 5-10 frames per second were within the range of 60-> 70, or 50->60 frames, in which case, the slight difference is VERY noticeable. Imagine the difference when your monitor refreshed from 60 to 70 hz.

jagare · Oct 2, 2003

You do NEED a Radeon 9800 Pro or NT if you want to play the latest games at high quality with AF and FSAA, especially with Half-life 2 and Doom 3. Of course the games are still playable on slower hardware but what's the point of all these cutting-edge graphics if you all you're gonna do is turn them down so your GeForce 3 can run the game smoothly at 640x480x16?

Pentium · Oct 2, 2003

people shouldn't be buying todays' cards for tomorrows games.

VIAN · Oct 2, 2003

Nice. I like this one. Thats why cards become so obsolete. Halo is should be considered a tomorrow's game because: A. It is DX9, B. It was recently released, and C. It takes cards like the XT and give them less than 60 frames. How's that, 500 card and barely run Halo. I just a little angry.

Sabreguy · Oct 2, 2003

Of course there is a need for new video cards.

New cards come out, old cards get cheaper.

People that dosne't need the lastest/greatest card = Win.

I'm all for CPUs that are barely faster and Video cards that are 5 fps faster than what's greatest now, makes buying *my* parts much cheaper.

Budmantom · Oct 2, 2003

10fps isn't worth it when you compare 100fps to 110, but what about when the difference is going from 30 to 40?

In the high-end games when you crank up the resolution to 1280x960x32+ with AA/AF maxed then you start maxing out all the eye candy the gpu and cpu can become taxed pretty easily, remember not everyone is playing Quake3.

Tom

We don't need no 9800 PRO or XT!!!

Diamond Member

Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Lifer

Diamond Member

Lifer

Diamond Member

Lifer

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Lifer

Lifer

Member

Banned

Diamond Member

Lifer

Member

Diamond Member

Member

Member

Diamond Member

Member

Lifer