Originally posted by: chsh1ca
Originally posted by: Stradx
Originally posted by: chsh1ca
It is pheasible, remember, 9700Pro -> 9800Pro was a +30% gain, so if ATI has something like that up their sleeves for the 9600Pro, it might in fact be easier. Core refinements + smaller die size (remember, the 9600Pro is 0.13u) which could mean a higher clock might easily add up to 30%. Who knows, before saying no way or second guessing the article, why not just wait and see?
First off, whoa how is the 9800Pro +30% faster than a 9700Pro as far as I know they are pretty close maybe 5-10% difference. Show me proof. Secondly if you look at people who have overclocked the 9600 Pro to insane speeds faster than the 9600xt they STILL dont dont come close to 9700Pro speeds. (they are closer to 9700 np speeds)
Linky, although I am pretty sure you can find your own way to the video section's articles. It's a gain of 5 - 30%, depending on the situation. AA/AF numbers are certainly better.
I do have to wonder why the review of all the cards was done at 1024x768 though, since I know hardly anyone who plays at that res, those who do have older cards.
also if some how is would outpreform the 9700Pro then you have a $200 card that is 5fps slower than a 9800Pro which is a 300-350 card. WTH!
Your numbers are based on what? 5fps in what game? The 9800Pro outperforms it by a lot more than just 5 fps in almost all but CPU limited benchmarks.
lol, also the 9600Pro would be ALOT faster than the 9800se... again doesnt make sense
Actually, no, the 9600Pro would not be ALOT faster than the 9800SE, the 9600XT would be theoretically faster than the 9800SE, although I haven't seen any benchies on the SE, so I can't comment.
Originally posted by: sellmen
Why doesn't that make sense? ATI first released the 9500 pro, then replaced it with a slower card, the 9600pro. Now, they have finally released a card that outperforms their initial midrange card.
Again, that isn't anything to tout, which is why I said it makes no sense. From a marketing perspective, "It's finally better than our old stuff" makes 0 sense, which tells me they are talking about the R9700Pro.
There is no way, absolutely no way, that a 9600 pro can outperform a 9700pro w/ only a 100mhz core increase.
Bold sweeping statements like this about something you haven't even seem numbers for is pretty silly IMO.
Even at these speeds, the radeon 9600 pro is slower than the 9700 pro by a good margin. The 9600XT is clocked at 500/300(600).
The radeon 9700 -> radeon 9800 was not a 30% all-around gain. The two cards performed very similarly(5-10% difference), except for AA/AF situations, where the radeon 9800 pro excelled. If the above quote is true, then the 9600XT outperforms the 9700pro in ALL situations - this simply isn't going to happen.
Yes, in situations where the two cards COULD be speed limited (AA/AF), the R9800Pro was about 30% faster than the R9700Pro. Who plays on a $500 card without AA/AF enabled? Apart from Rollo.
😀
The Radeon 9700pro has an 8-pipeline design and twice the memory bandwidth of the 9600XT, a 100mhz core bump won't overcome this.
Certainly not, I was making two points, this does not respond to either. The first point I made was that I don't believe the article to be mistaken. The second point is that it is pheasible, provided they do more than bump the core clock (which I said in my post). Maybe it will come out that the R9600XT will outperform the R9700Pro at AA/AF, who knows. As I said in my original reply, who knows, before saying no way or second guessing the article, why not just wait and see?
