ZenMonkey: No you don't need a mobo with 8x AGP support. The ATI card supports it but will of course work on a AGP 4x mobo just like the first 8x AGP card the Sabre did. The speed difference is really small also so there is no rush to run out and get a new mobo for 8x AGP support.
Sorry I should have been more clear about that. The Radeon9700 is designed to work in AGP8X mode but it is compatiable with AGP4X so you could run it without any problems on an AGP4X slot. The only thing is it wouldn't be running at it's maximum so you would loose a bit of performance, I myself couldn't stand that.
Like the GeForce4 Ti
I was speaking with Daman 316 yesterday. And after what he's told me. I fear the the 9700 will be too fast for any cpu under 3ghz. What there should be is some kind of sisk processor similar to ps2 or n64 cpu. That are made specially for games. But this sisk processor should act as somekind of back up for the cpu which will be on the video card. When the game gets too heavy. Sisk kicks in... A risk processor does all the calculations at once, like 10 at a time (10 being example, i don't know how many they do at a time), so its a bit slower game wise. When a sisk does it one by one, which is obviously better for games, and gameplay. which would be the reason the 33mhz of the psx did so good.
Too be totally honest, i really can't see the difference between X-box's 750mhz risk p3 processor and ps2 300mgh sisk processor. My ps2 never lagged once, or got choppy in any games i've played, no matter how many players we were...
I beleive it would be a big improvement. Not in graphics, but in video card horsepower... You'll lag less and won't be as choppy.
About AGP4x Vs AGP8x:
"All of the benchmarks shown here are using a AGP4X bus. While this will of course give a bit of a performance hit in some applications, from our testing the differences at this time with these particular games and benchmarks, it is nominal at best."
About needing a 3GHz+ computer:
"And speaking more on frame rate and eye candy, I think it is worth it to bring up the AthlonXP 1.53GHz frame rates as well. The scores we got out of that setup simply floored me. I would have not guessed that a Radeon 9700 Pro upgrade could be worth so much on a sub-2GHz system. I can already see a lot of folks going for the video card upgrade with the 9700 and leaving the CPU till later.."
[Quotes from [H]ardOCP]
I did read the review that topaz mentioned...and I don't know if it was the same review or another that showed the performance differences between the 4600 and new Radeon...well anyway, they seemed to be neck and neck at 1gighz (my current speed).
Of course, I could enable all the extras on the Radeon, or whatever.
Dunno if I should start a new thread, but I will throw the question to you guys. If you had an AMD Thunderbird 1gighz and were planning to buy the Radeon 9700 Pro, AND you said "Well, I will spend another 2-300 bucks for a mobo and chip," what motherboard and chip would you buy?
That's a long question, I know. I always heard to go Asus, but this guy at the shop where I will buy the graphics card swears by a company called Gigabyte?
ZM
Thanks for the info.
This card really rulez supreme... with FSAA and AF its up to 400% faster than any other consumer card available on this planet... ATI did a very good job!
4x faster? LoL dude, it's only a little faster than a ti4600, the big improvement is in FSAA. Anyone get their Radeon yet?
That's what he said,
which is very true. I am for sure getting it!with FSAA and AF its up to 400% faster
Hum...I actually saw some test results without FSAA or anisotropic filtering at high (or maybe it was off).
Either way, it was on an Athlon XP 1700+ or so, and the Raedon 9700 beat the 4600 in "some" tests by very little...(9700 would get like a 90fps average and the 4600 one of maybe 85)...On 1600x1200, the difference was bigger though. Anyway, on "other" tests, the 4600 actually did "slightly" better...They used Q3, 3D Mark 2001 SE and Aquamark for the tests I think.
Now I know that they used normal SDRAM (133mhz) on that computer, AGP4x, and that they didn't have a "really" fast processor, but it was about average I'd say, and the difference (without all the goodies enabled) was basically the same (5% difference maybe)...So I don't think it'll be worth buying this new card for people with average computers...Like "average" cpu's, motherboards which don't support AGP8x and FSB values of over 266mhz, or for people who don't care about FSAA and anisotropic filtering.
...I wanna see more results though, preferably on top-of-the-line PC's...Oh and, that thing the card has to display even more colors, and make everything look a lot nicer I read needs 4 times the memory bandwidh or some shit...So people probably won't use that much...
Here are some screenshots from a GF4 convert:
http://64.49.204.89/radeon/index.htm
wow better frame rates... who cares, ati blows, their drivers are ALWAYS shitty, it will be a year til they get something stable out, in the meantime i'll stick with my geforce 4.
Yep, really great, instead of 1FPS you get 4FPS on 1600x1200, an really incredible improvement.Originally posted by hiTCHHiKER
This card really rulez supreme... with FSAA and AF its up to 400% faster than any other consumer card available on this planet...
Considering NVidia's last driver release? I don't think there is much room for that kind of talk...Originally posted by p i m p
wow better frame rates... who cares, ati blows, their drivers are ALWAYS shitty, it will be a year til they get something stable out, in the meantime i'll stick with my geforce 4.
no problems here.
Yea, those new drivers look great.. lolOriginally posted by p i m p
no problems here.
hxxp://www.3dgpu.com/yabb_se/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=1360
after checkin out wild tymes web page... i would not consider switchin from my g4 ti 4600.. the only game i play that he tested is SOF2 and he said with max detail it didnt run smooth on my alienware 1.8 p4, audigy plat, 80 gig hd, g4 ti 4600 i run at max everything and i get 90-100 fps at all times of the game as well as MP so with the price drop in the g4 ti 4600.. its still a much more reliable card
There isn't much point in buying a Radeon 9700 if you already have a GeForce4 Ti4600. Even though performance will increase, you won't see that much with curent games. Who the fuck plays at 1600*1200+ anyway? But if you have a GeForce2, like me, an upgrade to a Radeon 9700 is a very good investment.
uh you all lil kids should grow up... no difference than gf4ti4600 ? oh come on can u run Quake3 x4fsaa x16aniso and STILL Getting 100FPS? hell no, the fuckin gf4 will crowl!
and where u see 'slight' difference that's because the limitation of the fucking CPU not because the damn card.. if u think the card is everything u should quit pc scene just NOW.
and that kid showing 400% isn't enough saying instead of 1fps gettin 4fps u are one hella fuckup.. look at 3dmarks @ x4fsaa x16aniso 1600x1200... GF4 was getting 2500 3dmarks, and radeon9700 what did it get? 10000 3dmarks! i see 400% improvement...
dont like 1600x1200? dont play on that! play on 1024x768 x4fsaa x16aniso and SEE the huge difference than gf4ti4600.
what can i say people... you are bunch of morons thinking that gf4 is the same level of radeon. and who the fuck was talking about their drivers? low quality? haha maybe some bugs yeah but not that crap... someguy got 20,000 3dmarks with radeon9700 can u see gf4 do that? huh? with their l33333333t drivers? GROW UP. thx
morons.
p.s. u want the link? just ask...
All I'm saying is, if you bought a GF4 Ti4600 a couple months ago, no need to spend another 400$ on a vid card because you won't see THAT much improvement. Especially if you don't have super fast CPU and memory as well as the rest of your computer.
Oh yeah, anybody have one yet?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Social Networking Bookmarks