9700 Review Feedback...

[pelly]

Well, the review is now complete. From beginning to end, I was as objective as possible and truly believe the card was given an unbiased review...

Regardless of what I think, I'd like to know what you thought...

The good, the bad, and anything else that comes to mind...
( keep it clean folks )

:D

[5150 Joker]

I just have a simple question: Rather than use your own extreme settings (6x AA/16x quality aniso) why didn't you use the settings provided by the "Main Settings" tab to run tests? It'd be more standard to use the slider rather than custom settings since non-hardcore users are not likely to use custom settings IMO. Also, what method did you use to obtain your framerate counts for games like BF1942?

Edit: Just noticed that you used FRAPS.

A comparison with the Geforce 4 line would've been nice to illustrate the card's obvious advantage over them when eyecandy like AA/Aniso are enabled. You should've also used performance aniso alongside quality since visually it is hardly distinguishable from the quality setting and gives much less of a performance hit.

I'd also have to disagree with your conclusion, a faster processor coupled with a 4200 would still limit you to resolutions of 1024x768 especially if you wanted to use extra features like AA/Aniso. If you look at the CPU scaling that Anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1683&p=22) did you can clearly see that the Geforce 4 Ti series quickly tops while the radeon continues to climb. Even a so-called "mediocre" 1600xp processor coupled with a 9700 would easily outperform a 4200 so I believe your conclusion is severely biased and misleading.

[Xophile]

I was really surprised when I read the conclusion! Every single review of the 9700 Pro have given the card a very high grade for it's performance and for it's image quality. Which really isn't so surprising since the 9700 Pro really THE fastest card around as of today, no point in arguing about that.

What really makes me mad is to see such a low score/bad conclusion on a nVIDIA site - surprising? I don't think so. People just have to stop standing up for a single company. This is NOT football, things just doesn't work that way in the computer industry. In this area people must learn to choose the product which has the leading performance/price ratio no matter WHO is making that CPU, motherboard, graphics card etc.

I also found it VERY strange that you decided to benchmark a card like the Radeon 9700 Pro on a XP 1600+. The reason for this is "Far too often test configurations use the latest and most expensive processors available. The fact of the matter is, not everyone can afford or has access to this hardware. Using a more common processor speed, the benchmarks will give us an accurate depiction of how a standard system will perform with the latest generation of high-end graphics cards.

A person you can spend about 400 $ on a graphics card sure won't have a problem getting a WAY more faster CPU. It just doesn't make any sence.

These are just my opinions of course and I must really thank Sean "Pelly" Pelletier for doing this otherwise great review!

By the way, please excuse my English - I'm from Sweden

[pelly]

Ok...thanks for the feedback thus far...

To address a few of the points made:

The reason why an XP1600+ was used is that it was the only processor I had available at the time. Although it would be nice to purchase a high-end processor at whim, it could not be done in time for the review. The fact that it was used does add an important aspect to the review. I cannot even begin to count the number of times I have been asked by someone with a 1600+ or slower processor, "Will my system be faster if I get more-expensive card A versus cheaper card B"?

The fact remains that there are an incredible amount of people gaming with XP1600+ or slower processors. Marketing ( by all companies ) might suggest to these people that the best perfomance upgrade optionis to buy the fastest, most-expensive card on the market. My point, is that a fast graphics card matched with a high-end processor will be a better option ( for games AND apps ) than the fastest graphics card and a slower processor.

Had the review been of a Ti4600, I would have said the same thing. Better yet, I will say the same thing. In my opinion, you are better off purchasing a Ti4200 and using the extra $200 to buy a 2400+ if you are currently running an XP1600+ or lower.

5150 Joker,
I think you misinterpereted what I was saying about this. By no means am I saying that when using an XP1600+, the 9700 Pro and a Ti4200 will perform the same! Rather, I am saying that a person with an Xp1600+ would have a faster system if they used $350 to buy a Ti4200/XP2400 combo instead of solely buying a 9700 Pro.

Those with a fast processor should buy the 9700 Pro and enjoy some insane FPS!

Thanks again to those who gave feedback...I look forward to hearing more...

:D

[5150 Joker]

Originally posted by pelly

5150 Joker,
I think you misinterpereted what I was saying about this. By no means am I saying that when using an XP1600+, the 9700 Pro and a Ti4200 will perform the same! Rather, I am saying that a person with an Xp1600+ would have a faster system if they used $350 to buy a Ti4200/XP2400 combo instead of solely buying a 9700 Pro.

Those with a fast processor should buy the 9700 Pro and enjoy some insane FPS!

Thanks again to those who gave feedback...I look forward to hearing more...

:D

I understand what you're saying and I'm contending your assumption. I pointed out the CPU scaling chart conducted by Anandtech that clearly shows that a Ti4600 (which is a more premium card than a 4200) tops out very quickly compared to a 9700. What this means is that even if you couple the 4200 with a fast processor you will not see much of a gain. However, if you couple a so-called slow processor like the 1600xp with the 9700 vs a 4200/1600xp combo you WILL see a significant difference--especially once you go above 1024x768 and enable AA/Aniso that would justify the higher premium of a 9700 pro. Also, you failed to show any sort of evidence to back up your claims and rather just made a blanket assumption.

If a user with a relatively "mediocre" processor is looking for a solid upgrade that will last them awhile, the 9700 pro is the best choice bar none. If you are going to compare two different cards, then at least do an apples to apples comparison and mention the recent reviews of cards like the 9700 (non-pro) or even the 9500 compared to the 4200. Value and performance wise they defeat the entire nvidia line.

[ATI LoVeR 9700]

Pelly in your conclusion, you didn't mention the Radeon 9700 free AA or Aniso. You just said that the TI 4200 is a better choice with no back-up. Performance drops when you put AA on with a GF4, but not a Radeon 9700.

I think that the power of this card was worth mentioning. It's a Direct X 9 card too and would last longer than a 4200. CPU wise, a 1600 is fine for a Radeon 9700. Even if you put all the eye-candy up, performance is still awesome.

I'm a little dissapointed in the conclusion. And disapointed in you as you talked too much in the review! You hate it when we talk to much on the forums! ;)

[pelly]

When the major content of the review was written, the 9500 and vanilla 9700 weren't even announced...

The "budget-card" of the time was/is the TI4200, so it was chosen for the comparison...

You can easily "fill in the blank" with any low-cost/high-performance card and get the same idea...

:D

[5150 Joker]

Originally posted by pelly
When the major content of the review was written, the 9500 and vanilla 9700 weren't even announced...

The "budget-card" of the time was/is the TI4200, so it was chosen for the comparison...

You can easily "fill in the blank" with any low-cost/high-performance card and get the same idea...

:D

The fact remains that your conclusion is incorrect and misleading. Also, given that this is a brand new article, you could always go back and edit the conclusion.

[pelly]

Why on earth would I edit the conclusion?

:confused:

As far as your reference to Anandtech's comparison...that is for one game engine. To truly see how everything pans out, you should also look at Battlefield 1942 or another very-CPU intensive engine.

I will be reviewing an Abit Ti4200 OTES in the future, and will also ( Hopefully ) be buying a 2400+. As luck would have it, we will be seeing first hand who is correct in this case...wow, that worked out way too well...

:)

Until then, we can move on to new topics for discussion...

:D

[5150 Joker]

Originally posted by pelly
Why on earth would I edit the conclusion?

:confused:

As far as your reference to Anandtech's comparison...that is for one game engine. To truly see how everything pans out, you should also look at Battlefield 1942 or another very-CPU intensive engine.

I will be reviewing an Abit Ti4200 OTES in the future, and will also ( Hopefully ) be buying a 2400+. As luck would have it, we will be seeing first hand who is correct in this case...wow, that worked out way too well...

:)

Until then, we can move on to new topics for discussion...

:D

You seem to be missing the point. If you use a CPU limited game then obviously the video card used plays a very minor role in the final numbers, so all you'd be doing is producing more skewed results by hailing the 4200 as a great choice when all you've done is increased cpu speed for better performance (even though the 4200 is already the bottleneck). As for battlefield 1942, if you turn on AA/Aniso to overcome any kind of cpu limitation you'd encounter, then what you'll see is the 4200 chugging to a halt. I know this firsthand since I had a Ti4600 that would choke at 1280x960 and max details. If I dared to use even 2x aniso it'd kill my framerates (on a 2.5 ghz P4 mind you). Put a 9700 pro/non-pro/9500 on the same or even slower cpu (1600xp) and you'll see vastly better results. The fact of the matter is the 4200 is older and slower technology. It was good for it's time but now that the R300 core video cards are here, there's simply no logical reason to pick a GF4 based card.

It's disappointing to see that this website will never outgrow it's one-sided nvidia bias. Every site should aspire to be neutral in their reporting even if they are fan sites.

[pelly]

Wow....
For a second, I thought we were having a rational conversation....Evidently, you are a die-hard ATI fan and missed every point I've made so far...

I said TONS of good things about the card....the only gripe I had was the price ( only for non-high end systems ). Here, I made "the mistake" ( wow...this is insane ) of suggesting a TI4200 as a budget alternative...when in fact, it could have been ANY budget card.

In the back of my mind, I knew this would happen....Despite taking on the review....despite saying it was the fastest damn card in the world, despite taking the majority of everyone suggestions for the review.......people like you still point fingers....

Oh well....hopefully, there will be a few people who will like the review and respect the many hours that went into it...

:rolleyes: :(

:D

[5150 Joker]

Originally posted by pelly
Wow....
For a second, I thought we were having a rational conversation....Evidently, you are a die-hard ATI fan and missed every point I've made so far...

I said TONS of good things about the card....the only gripe I had was the price ( only for non-high end systems ). Here, I made "the mistake" ( wow...this is insane ) of suggesting a TI4200 as a budget alternative...when in fact, it could have been ANY budget card.

In the back of my mind, I knew this would happen....Despite taking on the review....despite saying it was the fastest damn card in the world, despite taking the majority of everyone suggestions for the review.......people like you still point fingers....

Oh well....hopefully, there will be a few people who will like the review and respect the many hours that went into it...

:rolleyes: :(

:D


Sorry but I'm not a die hard ATi fan. Infact, as you obviously decided to ignore, my last card was a Ti4600. If you look at my post history here, you'll see I used to actively post in the Nvidia Graphics Cards forum when I owned it. Prior to the 4600 I owned a Geforce 1 DDR and a TNT2 before that. Given that this is my first ATi card I am very pleased with it's performance, stability and value and would like to see ATi given a fair chance.

[pelly]

Given that this is my first ATi card I am very pleased with it's performance, stability and value and would like to see ATi given a fair chance.


From the review:

After using this card for a number of weeks, I can honestly say that I have mixed-emotions regarding its value. For those who can afford to buy the latest and greatest hardware the moment it comes out, purchasing a new-generation card such as the 9700 Atlantis Pro is a no-brainer. Regardless of their system specifications, the 9700 has a great deal of headroom to offer and can be carried through multiple system upgrades as a result.

Despite this issue, I must admit I was extremely impressed with this product. I hope this graphics card is a sign of things to come as the card exhibits incredible speed and quality. Aside from the one situation with the heastink assembly, the product and drivers proved to be very stable and always performed exceptional. Although I will forever be a fan of NVIDIA products, I certainly can respect the fantastic job ATI has done in developing the 9700 Pro. For those interested in purchasing the card, the Sapphire brand offers the same great product as ATI-branded cards with a slightly cheaper price.



And you're problem is???

:confused:

:rolleyes:

[5150 Joker]

Originally posted by pelly
From the review:

After using this card for a number of weeks, I can honestly say that I have mixed-emotions regarding its value. For those who can afford to buy the latest and greatest hardware the moment it comes out, purchasing a new-generation card such as the 9700 Atlantis Pro is a no-brainer. Regardless of their system specifications, the 9700 has a great deal of headroom to offer and can be carried through multiple system upgrades as a result.

Despite this issue, I must admit I was extremely impressed with this product. I hope this graphics card is a sign of things to come as the card exhibits incredible speed and quality. Aside from the one situation with the heastink assembly, the product and drivers proved to be very stable and always performed exceptional. Although I will forever be a fan of NVIDIA products, I certainly can respect the fantastic job ATI has done in developing the 9700 Pro. For those interested in purchasing the card, the Sapphire brand offers the same great product as ATI-branded cards with a slightly cheaper price.



And you're problem is???

:confused:

:rolleyes:


Are you now going to completely ignore what we've been discussing all this time? My problem is with your conclusion mentioning the 4200 as a viable alternative. You seem to be retracting that opinion now to an extent but the fact remains it's still present in your article. Don't act so coy man, just fess up and edit the article already. Anyhow, I've made my point, it's really futile arguing any further. Cya.

[MtViewGuy]

I have my concerns that your review could mislead some people.

Personally, your suggestion of getting as an alternative a GeForce4 Ti4200 chipset card with a faster CPU puzzles not a few people. The Sapphire Radeon 9700 Atlantis Pro is designed specifically as a high-end gaming card, not a card for the mainstream market. It would be much better to compare this card against a good quality card that uses the nVidia GeForce4 Ti4600 chipset.

If you've seen the reviews in Anandtech, Sharky Extreme and Tom's Hardware, they always do comparison tests for graphics cards using the same motherboard and CPU. This makes for a much more fair comparison, and it shows in its intended market, the Sapphire Radeon 9700 Atlantis Pro will run rings around any GF4 Ti4600 card.

I would suggest you do this comparison review again in mid-late November 2002 when the Radeon 9500/9500 Pro/9700 cards become widely available. In my opinion, the closest direct competitor to the GF4 Ti4200 is the Radeon 9500/9500 Pro series.

Just my €0.02.

[thcdru2k]

lighten up on pelly man..he just made one of the most comprehensive r9700 reviews on the web. cut him some slack.

[Mono]

Well, I guess i'm somewhat of an ATi fan, but I thought your review was good. Only thing i'd like to point out (hehe) is that in ut2k3, the min fps usually dosn't happen much in gameplay.. rather just during the first few seconds the game starts off, or if you have less ram it's more apparent. That's all, good job :)

[Ratchet]

Originally posted by thcdru2k
one of the most comprehensive r9700 reviews on the web
you're joking, right (http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/radeon9700pro/) ?

[thcdru2k]

no i'm not..

WE're TALKING ABOUT ACTUALLY BENCHMARKS. who cares about the press release mumbo jumbo that gets release that every review about the r9700 already has. you think anyone really cares how truform or smoothvision works if they're isn't some good benchmarks behind it? you can read all that crap from ati's website. try to find 1 review that uses as many games as pelly used, or heck 2 reviews that used as many games.

[pelly]

Thanks man...I'm glad to see someone noticed my efforts into making the review "different"... :D

What did people think of the gameplay video samples? ( especially NOLF 2 )

Is it worth trying to use these in future reviews? ( using a tripod and a more direct-angle )

Regardless of whether it is good or bad, I appreciate the feedback guys...thanks and keep it coming...

:D

[thcdru2k]

the videos definately are a great change from benchmark numbers. people can compare the smoothness to their own systems. obviously iq can't really be define, due to limitations, but i think they are great.

[saturnotaku]

Say it ain't so - 3dmark 2001 and Quake 3 in your test?!?!?!

Shame on you, pelly! :p

Overall, a job well done. Excellent that you used NOLF2, UT2k3 and NFS:HP2 - all modern games that people are playing right now. :)

[Nazgul]

Originally posted by thcdru2k
no i'm not..

WE're TALKING ABOUT ACTUALLY BENCHMARKS. who cares about the press release mumbo jumbo that gets release that every review about the r9700 already has. you think anyone really cares how truform or smoothvision works if they're isn't some good benchmarks behind it? you can read all that crap from ati's website. try to find 1 review that uses as many games as pelly used, or heck 2 reviews that used as many games.

Except simply testing it on several games does not make for a "thorough" review. The AA and AF were only tested at their absolute maximum levels. Sure, it's nice to see how far a card can be pushed, but when your competition can only go up to 4x for AA and 8x for AF, it'd be nice to get scores that can actually be compared to something. Speaking of which, it'd be nice to see the card compared to it's competition. This competition would NOT be the recommended GF4 Ti 4200, but rather the 4600. The 9700 is a high-end card. XP1600 or not, the natural alternative is another high-end card, not a budget card.

A thorough review would have included scores for different levels of AA and AF so folks could see where their own personal sweet spot is(e.g. the % change from 2x to 4x and the change from 4x to 6x are not usually the same). A thorough review would have included comparison scores of other cards, at equivalent settings(up to 4xAA and 8xAF, etc). A thorough review would have also in cluded at least one faster cpu, as that's what it takes to truly show the power of the 9700.

Now, I'm not trying to say the review was bad, and I'm not trying to say it was better or worse than another. I'm disappointed that the review made it so easy for someone who's looking for bias to say "look! he did everything he could to get the lowest scores possible!" But if the goal was to show how the system would look on the average gamer's system(and I take serious issue with the premise, since someone willing to spend $350 on a video card is almost certainly going to have a faster cpu than an XP1600 by now), and the conclusion was that such a person is better off with a 4200 right now, then some evidence should be presented to support that. The 4200 is a better value for the dollar? Show me. Show me scores for the 4200 at the same settings, show me how much extra performance the 9700 is giving me for the extra money I spent. Let me make the decision if it's worth the expense.

Whether the nvnews review of the 9700 was thorough, biased, fair, whatever, isn't really my problem with it. In the end, it just wasn't very useful.

[pelly]

Wow...I can't stand when people post rants without taking the time to actually read what has already been said...

In short, my whole point was that a person looking to upgrade an aging system would be better off ( in my opinion ) buying a "budget" card like the Ti4200, 4400, or 9500 and using the extra money ( $125-$200 card vs. $300-$350 ) to buy a high-end processor like the XP2400+.

For those looking to rant...feel free...just do us all the courtesy of reading the thread you're posting in...

:rolleyes:

[Ratchet]

Originally posted by thcdru2k
no i'm not..

WE're TALKING ABOUT ACTUALLY BENCHMARKS. who cares about the press release mumbo jumbo that gets release that every review about the r9700 already has. you think anyone really cares how truform or smoothvision works if they're isn't some good benchmarks behind it? you can read all that crap from ati's website. try to find 1 review that uses as many games as pelly used, or heck 2 reviews that used as many games.
did you actually read the Beyond3D 9700 review I linked to?