CDRLabs.com

Don't mind me, I'm just excited!! On my comp, with the 9800pro, I get 5322 points on 3DMark 03. Can anyone else post their scores, just for comparison?

is it 256 or 128 MB mem.?

Same question I was going to ask elim.

Congrats on the card. I was going to pull the trigger but decided to wait.

Only diff in performance is at higher resolutions between the two. Even @ higher resolutions, not a huge delta.

FYI ATI has a new core coming out in 4-6 weeks. Still unsure if it's going to be a further optimized R350 core (higher clocks and hyperZ enhancements) or a .13m version of the core running at an even faster speed. My best is on the former.

I think ATI is saving the die shrink for the R4XX core due out in January. Doesn't make sense to go to the expense to shrink the die since the R3XX core can still scale higher. Average overclocks are in the 425MHZ range.

I'll definitely wait for the next-gen core card ... just found out earlier today (new MaxPC mag.) that the HalfLife2 will run smoothly even on my trusty ole 128MB R8500 ..

Its the 128 mb one, just like in my sig!

I dont think I could even afford the 256 mb one!!!! LOL!!

Great card, good choice !!

You know what you get when you go Radeon.
If you go nVidia, you have no clue what the real performance will be, because of all the cheating

Now now,hjs, surely you remember the "Quake-Quack" cheating of ATI last year? NVidia aren't alone in this, let me assure you. Both the companies have had their ups and downs.

Yes, ati isn't clean either, but not the way nVidia is doing it.
Ati is only caught at optimizing for 3dmark (2001 & 2003) nVidia for about 70 other games\benchmarks. for example no tri-linear filtering in UT-2003 even if you enable it.

Check the forums at beyond3d for some expert views.

ryus wrote:Don't mind me, I'm just excited!! On my comp, with the 9800pro, I get 5322 points on 3DMark 03. Can anyone else post their scores, just for comparison?

I have an Asus Geforce 4 Ti4200 64 MB (not overclocked), with 3D Mark 2001 I got 6605 3D Marks. My computer is a 1 GHZ AMD Athlon, 512 PC133, 120 GB Maxtor 7200 RPM 8mb (Partitioned), 20 GB Maxtor 7200 rpm, Windows XP home.
I must point out that I dont have 3D Mark 03, This was with 2001 so dont feel like you got ripped off.

Yeah, 3D Mark 2003 only works well with DirectX 9 cards. Hence, if Turkeyscore did the test with 3D Mark 2003, he would get a much lower score.

Turkeyscore.com wrote:I have an Asus Geforce 4 Ti4200 64 MB (not overclocked), with 3D Mark 2001 I got 6605 3D Marks. My computer is a 1 GHZ AMD Athlon, 512 PC133, 120 GB Maxtor 7200 RPM 8mb (Partitioned),

Youre cpu is holding you back, i got double of that with an Xp 1800+ in 2001 (cpu & vid-crd max overclocked)

ryus congrats to you

That must be one hell of a card.

I'm thinking of buying my first ATI card for the first system I am building (rather than buying). Can't spend the money on one quite as high as yours so maybe you or somebody else could help me out on choosing an ATI card.

If I'm lucky I'll find a 9700 pro for less than, say $225. Otherwise, I think I am looking at the 9600 pro or 9500 pro. Between these two, can you or anybody else give me the scoop on which is really the better card? I have read that the 9500 pro is a subdued 9700, but a little common sense would tell me that the 9600 pro is a step above the 9500. Any help on this is appreciated.

Oh and if it helps any, I'm a Quake 3 gamer (it's the only game I really play).

I get around 14,000 points on 3DMark 01 SE.

Wedge, if you cant get the 9700pro, go for the 9600pro. 9600 is the replacement for the 9500. Also the 9600 is made on the .13u die, which is what the 9800 replacement might be on.

hjs wrote:Youre cpu is holding you back, i got double of that with an Xp 1800+ in 2001 (cpu & vid-crd max overclocked)

Yeah I know, the motherboard I have can only go up to 1.2 GHZ, I want to overclock my cpu to that but I cant get the stupid heatsink off to unlock the processor.
I am saving for a good P4 system or a laptop. (And a car so it'll probably be a while before I can upgrade)

Guys between the 9500 and 9600, 9500 seems to scale well than the other. I had the same doubts until someone pointed me to this link:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1812&p=1

It is possible that ATI later could optimise their drivers to boost 9600, I can't really comment on this because I'm not really an expert on drivers ;-( but still looking at the figures you realize 9500 is more faster than 9600. So in a nutshell, I have decided to go for the 9500 if I fail to reach 9700.

Btw, any of you have an idea about any game which might require 256MB instead of 125MB? If not now at least in the near future?

Thanks.

"ATI - 3, NVIDIA - 0"

integspec wrote:Btw, any of you have an idea about any game which might require 256MB instead of 125MB? If not now at least in the near future?

Thanks.

256mb can be usefull in UT-2003, when you play at 1600*1200 with FSAA and AF enabled and play a map with huge textures. But then again, this settign is only playable with a R9800Pro or FX5900 Ultra.

So 256mb on a card not that fast is useless marketing Sh*t