http://www.nordichardware.com/reviews/graphiccard/2003/Radeon9800Pro/
I'm not much of a "techie" person, still I guess some of you might be interested.
I'm not much of a "techie" person, still I guess some of you might be interested.
Radeon 9800 Pro preview
- Thread starter Ante P
- Start date
Typedef Enum
Regular
Pretty much delivered what I expected...though I was hoping for just a little bit more oomph over the 9700. Then again, the 9700 is _already_ fast, eh?
I would possibly entertain a 256MB card _if_ ATI allowed more AA samples; otherwise, I don't see any point, other than the higher memory frequency.
I'm looking forward to reading Anand's R350 preview...quite simply, I would like to hear his thoughts on ATI's offering(s) vs. nVidia @ this point in time. Last time, it was "delivered as promised." This time, I'm thinking it might be something like, "nVidia lost the performance race quite some time ago, and it doesn't look like they will get it back anytime soon."
I would possibly entertain a 256MB card _if_ ATI allowed more AA samples; otherwise, I don't see any point, other than the higher memory frequency.
I'm looking forward to reading Anand's R350 preview...quite simply, I would like to hear his thoughts on ATI's offering(s) vs. nVidia @ this point in time. Last time, it was "delivered as promised." This time, I'm thinking it might be something like, "nVidia lost the performance race quite some time ago, and it doesn't look like they will get it back anytime soon."
still reading so i will hold off on comments for the most part but one quick note:
http://www.nordichardware.com/reviews/graphiccard/2003/Radeon9800Pro/index.php?ez=8
you have the 3dmark2k1 6xaa on the title of your q3 scores there.
http://www.nordichardware.com/reviews/graphiccard/2003/Radeon9800Pro/index.php?ez=8
you have the 3dmark2k1 6xaa on the title of your q3 scores there.
i do have a few minor complaints. in q3 and ut2003 i didn't see what demos you were useing for benchmarking, that would be nice to know. also, i think 3dmark scores should be shown in detal; i know it means more complicated graphs but the overall score only tells part of the story while there is much more information to be had from looking at indivudal test scores.
nitpicky complaints aside, damn good review Ante P.
nitpicky complaints aside, damn good review Ante P.
kyleb said:still reading so i will hold off on comments for the most part but one quick note:
http://www.nordichardware.com/reviews/graphiccard/2003/Radeon9800Pro/index.php?ez=8
you have the 3dmark2k1 6xaa on the title of your q3 scores there.
hehe I know I'm just too lazy to correct it
Luminescent
Veteran
According to HardoOCP:
Does this mean fp32 precision per component in the fragment color processor?
kyleb said:i do have a few minor complaints. in q3 and ut2003 i didn't see what demos you were useing for benchmarking, that would be nice to know. also, i think 3dmark scores should be shown in detal; i know it means more complicated graphs but the overall score only tells part of the story while there is much more information to be had from looking at indivudal test scores.
nitpicky complaints aside, damn good review Ante P.
I run DM-Antalus in UT2003 in flyby mode
and "four" in Q3
it's mentioned in the review even
I have a follow up article on the way with SPECviewperf and in depth 3dmark 03 and 2001 tests as well as some other stuff that I din't fit into this part
thanks for the compliment, I did all the work in 30 hours straight.. so I know it ain't perfect
take the UT 4x AA scores for an example
I just realized what I just had done by the time I heard that sound of trash can emptying hehe
Luminescent said:
whaaa, that seems very strange
Ati was actually bragging about the benefits of having 24 bits inetad of 32 or 16, their presentation also mentions this and they refer to some carmack quotes etc.
perhaps [H] are off their rocker
hehe ok perhaps not, but then ATi PR really screwed up this time
Blitzkrieg
Newcomer
For those wanting more ooomph
remember this wasnt the DDR2 version reviewed and that ones clockspeed isnt confirmed 400 would be nice
remember this wasnt the DDR2 version reviewed and that ones clockspeed isnt confirmed
400 would be niceHoly Bejeebers
429Mhz core overclock? I would have not believed it.
And that being limited by the software too.
And no dustbuster.
I don't know what small animals ATI sacrificed when they made the R3XX chips, but it sure worked.
Oh yeah Toms review is up too.[/url]
429Mhz core overclock? I would have not believed it.
And that being limited by the software too.
And no dustbuster.
I don't know what small animals ATI sacrificed when they made the R3XX chips, but it sure worked.
Oh yeah Toms review is up too.[/url]
Typedef Enum
Regular
That's nothing...Did you see the numbers that HardOCP achieved? Something like 460 MHz (core), and something like 800 MHz (memory)...
I mean...the 9700 is already fast enough...the R350 even more so...overclocking it is just sick
I mean...the 9700 is already fast enough...the R350 even more so...overclocking it is just sick
Luminescent
Veteran
For kicks, compare the 9800pro's performance to OCSystem's enhanced R9700pro level III SE: http://www.ocaddiction.com/reviews/video/ocs_r9700pro_level3se/.
Typedef Enum said:That's nothing...Did you see the numbers that HardOCP achieved? Something like 460 MHz (core), and something like 800 MHz (memory)...
I mean...the 9700 is already fast enough...the R350 even more so...overclocking it is just sick
it seems as if I got an older board than all the other ppl
mine was only clocked to 378/675 MHz and it didn't overclock all that well
nothing is fast enough when you want to play all games at 1600x1200 with 16x Quality AF and 6x AA though
Typedef Enum
Regular
I'm going to have to invest in a cheap ATI PCI card in order to drive all of my LCD's...I'm sold on the R350 (heck, I was sold on it a long time ago).
Ante P said:tEd said:
what comments would those be
keep in mind tough that I'm rather looking at this from a consumers perspective
as I said in the first post I'm not a "techie"
nothing major really , just for instance "still only 6x" thingy was alittle confusing , considering there is nothing comparable in quality to date
Ante P said:I run DM-Antalus in UT2003 in flyby mode
and "four" in Q3
it's mentioned in the review even
doh, i do see i overlooked the mention of the demo for q3, i didn't see any mention for ut2k3 but i will take your word for it as i am severly dyslectic so i am not exactly the best preson for the job there.
Didn't find the card that great. Sure a good card, but i'm a bit disapointed :?
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDM5
[H]
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/456/page1.html
HFR
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDM5
[H]
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/456/page1.html
HFR
