13 replies to this topic

[Famine]

Ok, for all you Radeon freaks out there. I'd like some honest reviews of the Radeon 9700 Pro. Normally I'm a GeForce man, but right now I'm in a position where the 128mb GeForce 4 card is no longer available and rumours have the GeForce FX card starting at around $500 which is way too fuckin expensive. Should I just break down and buy a Radeon from the unholy company of ATI?!?! Should I??? I don't know....

Opinions GOOOOOO

[Famine]

DAMN YOU BEST BUY!!! YOU'VE BESTED ME AGAIN!!! Best Buy has the 128mb cards in stock... Circuit City does not... ONLY NOW DO I SEE THE FOLLY OF MY WAYS!!! I REPENT..... GOD HELP ME I REPENT!!!!! I DO BELIEVE I BEST BUY NOW!!! I SEE WHY THEY ARE NUMBER ONE!!!

::crying::
::weeping::

....mercy

[Death]

DAMN YOU BEST BUY!!! YOU'VE BESTED ME AGAIN!!! Best Buy has the 128mb cards in stock... Circuit City does not... ONLY NOW DO I SEE THE FOLLY OF MY WAYS!!! I REPENT..... GOD HELP ME I REPENT!!!!! I DO BELIEVE I BEST BUY NOW!!! I SEE WHY THEY ARE NUMBER ONE!!!

::crying::
::weeping::

....mercy

Okie dokie, as for the whole ATI Radeon 9700 vs. Nvidia GeForce FX debate, though I am a die-hard fan of Nvidia, here are my current findings:

1) The benchmarks are about equal at the moment. Now, granted, Nvidia's drivers are godlike and have produced gigantic performance increases every few months, but as it stands right now, the 9700 and the FX are neck and neck.

2) The Radeon is expensive. The FX is fucking recockulously priced.

3) The FX is loud as fuck. Running at an almost deafening (by computer standards) 68 decibels, the fan is way too annoying. Not to mention...

4) ...that the gigantic size of the fan requires you to waste an expansion port and a power supply cable in order to make sure your GPU doesn't meltdown.

Personally, I will still buy Nvidia over ATI any day. However, as far as the FX goes, I say don't waste the money. The GF4's are dropping in price now, and provide more than enough graphics processing potential to handle any game in the foreseeable future.

[merlinski]

First of all, the Geforce Fx 5800 Ultra, the highest level card in that series, would top out at 400 according to what I heard. Thats the same as what the Geforce4 Ti4600 and ATI Radeon 9700 started at.

Second, with most games you won't see a real difference between the Fx and the Radeon. The Fx, however, will pull ahead by a lot when you get to the games that will come out in a year or two.

Right now, I think a 200 dollar Geforce4 Ti4200 is your best value and performance card.

[superadaquabat]

200 is far too much for a 4200, I got a 128mb 4400 last december for 180. I don't know much about video cards and the like, but in my opinion, you going to get what you pay for (i believe this in almost all computer hardware) The more you pay for the longer it will last, and the less you pay, the sooner you'll need/want another one. With video hardware so much further technologically than games, your decision will last for a while, I'm sure.

[Spoon]

First of all, the Geforce Fx 5800 Ultra, the highest level card in that series, would top out at 400 according to what I heard. Thats the same as what the Geforce4 Ti4600 and ATI Radeon 9700 started at.

Second, with most games you won't see a real difference between the Fx and the Radeon. The Fx, however, will pull ahead by a lot when you get to the games that will come out in a year or two.

Right now, I think a 200 dollar Geforce4 Ti4200 is your best value and performance card.

Bah, forgive me for being blunt but you know nothing.

In time, with driver optimizations, the Geforce FX will be perhaps as much as 20% faster than the Radeon 9700 Pro. In time. It's loud, expensive, and produces as much heat (60-70 Watts) as most high end processors. It's a great card if you need the bleeding edge, but it just isn't a good value at $400 when you can get a 9700 Pro for about $340. The Ti4200 is just plain outdated, and $200 is a total ripoff for it. You shouldn't be paying any more than $150 for the 128mb version. IMO the current price/performance sweet spot is the Radeon 9500 Pro (make sure it says Pro). For $190 you can get performance that is MAYBE 10% less in most applications than the 9700 Pro. Now I've always been an Nvidia fan-boy, but Ati has made great leaps in the quality of their drivers, so even I've made the switch to the 9500 Pro (which blows the shit out of the Geforce Ti4200 and Ti4400, look at the benchmarks). However if you've got the cash to burn, I'd say either pick up the 9700 Pro now, OR wait 3 weeks until ATI releases their R350 core which promises a significant speed boost to their current R300 core based line.

I've always loved Nvidia, but once the R350 comes out they'd better have a good come-back or they'll go the way of 3dfx.

[merlinski]

I don't see how I said anything that wasn't true in that last post. I personally think that the Ti4200 is the best value, and you didn't dispute anything else I said.

[Spoon]

Why is the Ti4200 a better value when it is almost the same price as a Radeon 9500 Pro and yet has only 60% of the performence?

[Famine]

Ok, well I just got PAID $80 for taking a GeForce 4400.... good value? Performace? Comments? Questions? Yeah I'm that good.

[merlinski]

Why is the Ti4200 a better value when it is almost the same price as a Radeon 9500 Pro and yet has only 60% of the performence?

The Ti4200 is as much as 50 dollars cheaper, and I've sorta been turned against the 9500 when I learned that the chips are often the ones that failed the quality standards test for the 9700.

[Spoon]

Famine: Ok for only $80 the 4400 is pretty nice, I gotta hand it to you.

Merlinski: Exactly, that is how chipmakers sort their CPUs or VPUs into the right products. Intel doesn't produce chips for each specific speed, they produce a bunch, in several levels of quality, and then sort them according to their maximum stable speed and laser etch whichever speed rating they fall into, usually leaving quite a bit of headroom for extra insurance. Nvidia does the same thing, and so does ATI. The 9700 Pro's core operates a full 50Mhz faster than the 9500 Pro, and the memory is 80Mhz faster. Whichever chips can't reliably cut those speeds (within the insurance margins at least) are designated 9500 Pro's and their memory bus is cut in half from 256 bits to 128 bits. HOWEVER, this is only using the stock heatsink and fan. With better cooling, you can often push your 9500 Pro to near 9700 Pro speeds. Also, if not enough chips fail to make the cut (as happens more and more often the more time the manufacturing process has time to mature, and yields increase), Ati (and any other chip maker) will have to simply start designating chips at random to be 9500 Pros etc, so you stand a chance of getting a 9700 Pro-capable core. Same thing happens with Intel chips, why do you think the P4 1.6A was such a good overlocker, often hitting 50% overclocks? As always, with any piece of hardware, overclocking is a crapshoot and relies heavily on luck of the draw. If you meant quality as in defects, I assure you not Ati nor any other chip maker would knowingly let ANY chips pass with any sort of defects whatsoever.

[Famine]

Famine: Ok for only $80 the 4400 is pretty nice, I gotta hand it to you.

Oh, no no no Spoon. You misunderstood me, I RECIEVED $80 for taking a GeForce 4400, as in I spent a NEGATIVE $80. I payed less than nothing..... MWUAHAHHAAHHA

[superadaquabat]

WHy did someone give you 80 bucks And a video card?

[Famine]

I'm just that good.....