Pelly, did you decide to ignore the rest of the conclusion?

[5150 Joker]

The only way to get some satisfaction on a low-end system is to turn on anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering. The higher graphics card workload won't tell in a system which performance is limited by the CPU.

or

There can be only one inference: the OpenGL part of the ATI's driver is poorly optimized for Athlon XPs compared with the polished-off drivers from NVIDIA.

or

In the DirectX Unreal Tournament Demo 2003, things are more favorable to ATI: RADEON 9700 PRO only loses to GeForce4 in the 800x600 resolution. The reason seems to be the same: poor driver optimization

Also, the only time the ti4600 can meet/exceed the 9700 using the 1600xp at most resolutions is in quake 3 but that situation would quickly change if AA/Aniso are enabled. In every other benchmark at 1280x1024 or above the 9700 wins and again, if AA/Aniso are enabled, it'd thrash the Ti4600.

This had been our "fanATIc" argument from day one. Go re-read the thread and you'll see. All you did with this post is reaffirm what we'd been saying all along: The 9700 outperforms the Ti4600 on a slower cpu in most cases, especially with AA/Aniso enabled. Not to mention you didn't even recommend a Ti4600 but rather a Ti4200 which is a noticebly slower and cheaper video card.

As ATI continues to optimize the 9700's drivers, the cpu dependancy gap will continue to close at lower resolutions on slower cpu's like the 1600xp and will further cement the 9700's lead.

[pelly]

Pelly, did you decide to ignore the rest of the conclusion?

No...rather, it appears as though you've managed to ignore their entire article, as well as the bulk of my review. Hence, we are hearing the same poor accusations from you that we heard before.

And once more, you draw attention solely to UT2003 and ignore the rest of the games tested ( where the GF4 bested the 9700 Pro...how convenient ).

I think you've made your position known by now...and this post proves that you are not willing to change your opinion regardless of what anyone says. ( claiming all along that my CPU argument was an NVIDIA-biased remark ).As such, I think you should bury that dead horse...its starting to smell....

:D

[5150 Joker]

Originally posted by pelly
No...rather, it appears as though you've managed to ignore their entire article, as well as the bulk of my review. Hence, we are hearing the same poor accusations from you that we heard before.

If by poor you mean sound logical argument then yes I'm guilty as charged.



And once more, you draw attention solely to UT2003 and ignore the rest of the games tested ( where the GF4 bested the 9700 Pro...how convenient ).

Seems you have a reading comprehension deficit, I clearly mentioned that the 9700 defeats the 4600 in all games but Q3 at resolutions of 1280x1024+ and that lead would be further compounded if AA/Aniso were enabled (as noted by the authors of that article as well). Not to mention the drivers aren't fully polished yet which was another point the authors of that article touched on. Of course you've ignored all that as expected.

I think you've made your position known by now...and this post proves that you are not willing to change your opinion regardless of what anyone says. ( claiming all along that my CPU argument was an NVIDIA-biased remark ).As such, I think you should bury that dead horse...its starting to smell....

Typical, you ignoring all the points brought up and labeling others as stubborn or "fanATIcs" who find holes in your logic. If it's a dead horse, why'd you bring it up in a news post? Did you forget already that you brought up a Ti4200 in your original post and not the Ti4600? As I noted before and I'll reiterate: The Ti4200 is a noticebly slower and cheaper card (price was one of your arguments in favor of a 4200) than a Ti4600. You are full of contradictions.

It's obvious you feel the need to salvage your credibility after it was shown how illogical your conclusion was in your review but if you're going to obfuscate the facts in someone else's review, at least do a better job of it.

[pelly]

Alright...I'll embarass you one more time...but after that, I'm going to stop wasting my time... :rolleyes:


you brought up a Ti4200 in your original post and not the Ti4600
True...however, I can count on one-hand the number of reviews where the card could not be overclocked to at least Ti4400 levels. With a number of companies now releasing Ti4200's on the same PCB as Ti4600's...combined with faster memory and better cooling...the consumer is almost guaranteed Ti4600 speeds.

Seems you have a reading comprehension deficit, I clearly mentioned that the 9700 defeats the 4600 in all games but Q3 at resolutions of 1280x1024+
Who ever disputed that higher resolutions or turning on FSAA/Aniso would have the 9700 Pro winning? Perhaps you should re-read the review you're complaining about.

It's obvious you feel the need to salvage your credibility after it was shown how illogical your conclusion was in your review
Er....Let me just ensure that I understand you correctly...You think both X-Bit Labs and I are wrong in our conclusions? :confused:


if you're going to obfuscate the facts
Ah...someone just learned how to use a Thesaurus... :D
Perhaps you should spend a fraction of the time it took you to pick that $5 word and actually read the articles you're ranting about.

For all the boys and girls watching at home, the bulk of my conclusion for my review is as follows:
The 9700 Pro is the fastest card available right now

The 9700 Pro is expensive ( rightfully so though! The fastest card available will never be a bargain...but when looking for the fastest card...this is it )

When using FSAA and/or Aniso, choosing the 9700 Pro is an easy choice

Those gaming with an Athlon XP1600+ or less would likely benefit greater from spending $350 on a fast CPU and a good budget graphics card like a GF4 Ti4200 ( Yes, there are other great cards in this price-range as well!!! ). The exception here is enthusiasts looking to run high resolutions or to use high image quality settings ( FSAA/Aniso ).


Well...hopefully that buries that dead horse for good...

:D

[Bigus Dickus]

Wow, I just read the Saphire review. After all the questions you asked on this forum, that's the review we get? Geez.

How, in God's green Earth, did you manage to make such a leap in your conclusion? You seem to be saying that a faster processor and value video card (GF4 Ti4200) would somehow be faster than the 9700 and mainstream processor (XP 1600). In other words, faster at low resolutions with no IQ enhancements turned on. In other words, faster in cases where you don't need it to be any faster.

In case you're not quite understanding this, let me lay it out clearly for you:

You already have an XP1600 processor/platform. You have three choices:

(1) Buy a Ti4200
(2) Buy a 4200 and a new CPU.
(3) Buy a 9700

The results:

(1) Games are plenty fast at low resolutions and without much IQ enhancements. Sure, framerates are CPU limited in these conditions, but they're still well above 60fps in most cases. Adding high res or AA/AF isn't really feasible because of the GPU.

(2) Games are plenty fast at low resolutions and without much IQ enhancements, a little faster than choice (1) since you have reduced some of the CPU limitation. However, adding high res or AA/AF still isn't really feasible because of the GPU.

(3) Games are plenty fast at low resolutions and without much IQ enhancements. Sure, framerates are CPU limited in these conditions, but they're still well above 60fps in most cases. Adding high res or AA/AF is wonderful, because such IQ enhancements are not CPU but GPU limited, and the 9700 has power to spare for these features, even with a midiocre CPU.

So, you have recommended to people to spend $350 on an option that doesn't let them play at high resolutions, and doesn't let them play with much IQ enhancements, instead of recommending the option (for the same cost) that does let them play at high resolutions, and does let them play with much IQ enhancements.

Yes, that's the most brilliant conclusion I've ever read.

Perhaps, if you would have simply suggested that someone with a budget limited such that they could only afford an XP 1600 to begin with might not want to drop $350 on the 9700, then maybe I could have a shred of respect for the review. Instead, you essentially said "spend $350 instead on a faster CPU and inferior GPU, and it will be faster than the 9700 on the slower CPU." Yes, Q3 at 640 x 480 would then run at 260fps, whereas on the 9700 it would only be running at 230fps. What a service you did for your readers. :rolleyes:

[5150 Joker]

Originally posted by pelly
Alright...I'll embarass you one more time...but after that, I'm going to stop wasting my time... :rolleyes:



True...however, I can count on one-hand the number of reviews where the card could not be overclocked to at least Ti4400 levels. With a number of companies now releasing Ti4200's on the same PCB as Ti4600's...combined with faster memory and better cooling...the consumer is almost guaranteed Ti4600 speeds.

Ah what a cop out. Did you mention anything about overclocking in your original review? Not to mention you can overclock a 9700 as well, so your point is null. If you haven't learned already, overclocking is a crapshoot and never guaranteed--it's obvious you're grasping at straws now.


Who ever disputed that higher resolutions or turning on FSAA/Aniso would have the 9700 Pro winning? Perhaps you should re-read the review you're complaining about.

You *never* once mentioned in your conclusion anything about aniso or AA directly. Rather you amended your weak article to include a few vague tidbits about IQ but quickly negate those merits with the following:

Given the $200 premium over other very capable cards such as the GeForce4 Ti4200, I find it a much more logical choice to use that extra money to purchase a high-end processor. The combination of a fast processor and a fast graphics card will undoubtedly best the fastest graphics card with a mediocre processor.

Er....Let me just ensure that I understand you correctly...You think both X-Bit Labs and I are wrong in our conclusions? :confused:

Who said anything about X-Bits review? I agree with their findings, it's obvious you choose to overlook the bulk of their review and instead concentrate solely on a relatively cpu dependant game like Q3 and resoultions of 1024x768. If all one wants to do is run games at 1024x768 with no AA/Aniso on old cpu dependant games then a Radeon 8500 LE or GF2 Ultra more than suffice. :rolleyes:

Ah...someone just learned how to use a Thesaurus... :D
Perhaps you should spend a fraction of the time it took you to pick that $5 word and actually read the articles you're ranting about.

Resorting to personal attacks as usual eh?

For all the boys and girls watching at home, the bulk of my conclusion for my review is as follows:

When using FSAA and/or Aniso, choosing the 9700 Pro is an easy choice

You never directly mention FSAA/Aniso in your conclusion nor do you take the time to compare it with a 1600xp class processor vs a Ti4200.

Those gaming with an Athlon XP1600+ or less would likely benefit greater from spending $350 on a fast CPU and

LOL! You never once mention anything about a 1600xp+ or lesser cpu in your conclusion. Infact, the exact sentence you wrote (which I've urged you to clear up in the past) was:

The combination of a fast processor and a fast graphics card will undoubtedly best the fastest graphics card with a mediocre processor.

Re-read the last thread about why this conclusion is wrong and should have been amended.

a good budget graphics card like a GF4 Ti4200 ( Yes, there are other great cards in this price-range as well!!! ). The exception here is enthusiasts looking to run high resolutions or to use high image quality settings ( FSAA/Aniso ).


You don't make any direct mention [or comparison] of FSAA/Aniso in your conclusion and despite most people urging you to do so, you refused to include the 8500 or the upcoming 9500/9700 as viable alternatives on a "medicore" cpu. :rolleyes:

[Joe Cool]

Do people buy a card like the 9700 Pro to run their games at low resolutions?

No. Of course not.

Is something like anistropic filtering most would leave off for any reason OTHER than too much of a performance hit - something those with a 9700 Pro hardly ever have to worry about?

No. Of course not.

With a Radeon 9700 Pro, things like high resolution gaming and anistropic filtering are effectively *standard features.*

Users with this card don't just play in high res with AF only in special occasions, so to effectively turn these *very noticeable* features down or even off in order to make ANY lesser card look better by comparision doesn't make any sense.

Heck, I can often tweak my old Radeon LE card to get similar frame rates to my 9700 Pro too, if I turn down features enough. I just have to run in a low enough resolution, make the textures blurrier, etc, etc - I *did that* in Quake 3 to get acceptable frame rates, until I upgraded.

But you know what? By doing so, Quake 3 looked like crap by comparision. And the same thing is true when you run almost ANY game in low res and without AF, compared to how well the 9700 Pro can render that same game in *high* res and *with* anistropic filtering.

It seems some people are really going out of their way to find strange ways in which old-tech GeForce4 cards can "beat" the Radeon 9700 Pro.

Cards like the 4600 may be competitive frame-rate wise when you turn off af and go to lower resolutions - but who would WANT to do that unless they really have no other choice?

Fortunately, with the 9700 Pro, you *don't* have to.

[pelly]

Folks...we're overlooking the major point of the review...and of the X-Bit article...

If the processor is the bottleneck, it really doesn't matter what high-end card you're using. As a result, those looking to upgrade their graphics should look at their entire system to evaluate the benefits a card will provide.

A good analogy would be someone trying to cram a V8 into a Ford Escort. Granted, the engine has incredible power...however, the car just can't take advantage of it.

The fact remains that 1024*768 is one, if not the most popular gaming resolution. Personally, I like to run games at 1600*1200 when possible, so the 9700 Pro is a great option ( I now have the CPU to take advantage of it ). However, the vast majority of gamers out there would not benefit from purchasing a 9700 Pro over a Ti4600 if they aren't using FSAA/Aniso on a "mediocre" CPU.

As serious hardware enthusiasts, we often have great systems with some of the latest and greatest hardware. However, we represent the minority in the gaming community. Not everyone can afford to upgrade their entire system all at once. For some, $350 might represent their budget for the year for upgrades. As such, why not take advantage of some extra horsepower and a better card so that they see improvements in performance in all applications and games?

Let it be known that I recommend the 9700 Pro to all those who can afford it and that have the CPU to use it. I even mention that users looking to hold on to a card for a long time would do well to buy this card above all others...

Oh, and Joker....for black and white proof that you're wrong about the conclusion:You *never* once mentioned in your conclusion anything about aniso or AA directly.

the Radeon 9700 Pro has a great deal of headroom to offer and can be carried through multiple system upgrades as a result.

Furthermore, those looking to run enhanced image quality settings should seriously consider this card.

As the benchmarks illustrate, this Radeon 9700 Pro has enough power to make maximum image quality settings a viable option in many games and resolutions.

[gravioli]

Originally posted by pelly
For some, $350 might represent their budget for the year for upgrades.

If they have to wait another year until they upgrade, then the 9700 Pro is great insurance. ;)

[budd_wm]

pelly, are you stupid? Did you think posting that on the front page would make everyone suddenly agree with you? Certainly you knew it would bring the arguement back. Let it go man...

[pelly]

True...I did know that the whole debate would get rolling again...though I couldn't resist referencing a supporting view from another website.

:D

Ok...I'm done on my end......hopefully, this will go away again sometime soon.... :p

:D

[5150 Joker]

Originally posted by pelly
Folks...we're overlooking the major point of the review...and of the X-Bit article...

If the processor is the bottleneck, it really doesn't matter what high-end card you're using. As a result, those looking to upgrade their graphics should look at their entire system to evaluate the benefits a card will provide.

That's not entirely true. Even if you have a processor like the 1600xp (slowest processor x-bits used) there's enough incentive to purchase a 9700 and use it for high resolution and eye candy (AA/Aniso) rather than buy a faster processor and a mediocre card that will limit you to no AA/Aniso. Keep in mind the GF4 Ti line simply cannot handle AA/Aniso very well no matter what kind of CPU is coupled with them. A 1600xp is a decent processor, it's not slow or low end by any means. Now if we were talking about something like 1000 mhz or slower then I'd agree that a processor upgrade would be the best course to take.

The fact remains that 1024*768 is one, if not the most popular gaming resolution. Personally, I like to run games at 1600*1200 when possible, so the 9700 Pro is a great option ( I now have the CPU to take advantage of it ). However, the vast majority of gamers out there would not benefit from purchasing a 9700 Pro over a Ti4600 if they aren't using FSAA/Aniso on a "mediocre" CPU.

Again, they would likely see less gains going from a 1600xp to a 2200xp processor with a Ti4200 vs a 9700 simply because the Ti4200 tops out very quickly at lower resolutions. Now add in more bandwidth using features like AA/Aniso and it'd be pitiful. You know what the end result would be? The consumer having to once again upgrade to a faster video card which ends up being more costly. If the vast majority of people only wish to play old games like Q3 at 1024x768 with no AA/Aniso then what's stopping them from buying fast a cpu and Geforce 3 or lower class cards?

As serious hardware enthusiasts, we often have great systems with some of the latest and greatest hardware. However, we represent the minority in the gaming community. Not everyone can afford to upgrade their entire system all at once. For some, $350 might represent their budget for the year for upgrades. As such, why not take advantage of some extra horsepower and a better card so that they see improvements in performance in all applications and games?

I'd agree if that was true but it's not. Also, since you acknowledge that we make up a minority of the gaming community and your article is obviously targeted at that minority, wouldn't it be more logical to assume that they already have a fast cpu? Afterall, a gaming enthusiast wouldn't be considering a 9700 pro if all they had was some 800 mhz dell. :)

Oh, and Joker....for black and white proof that you're wrong about the conclusion:

the Radeon 9700 Pro has a great deal of headroom to offer and can be carried through multiple system upgrades as a result.

Furthermore, those looking to run enhanced image quality settings should seriously consider this card.

As the benchmarks illustrate, this Radeon 9700 Pro has enough power to make maximum image quality settings a viable option in many games and resolutions.

Read what I wrote above. Your article contradicts itself by ignoring that finding by recommending a Ti4200 and never bothering to do a direct comparison. If you had benchmarked a Ti4200 and demonstrated that it was a better alternative then I wouldn't have had problems. Also keep in mind the x-bit review focused on a Ti4600 which is a more costly card and even then only performs mildly better at 1024x768 with no AA/Aniso on old cpu dependant games. Anyhow, I have nothing against you personally, but I do feel you could have worded your article better and/or used more data to back up your claims. Your refusal to even include a mention of other cards like a R8500/R9500/R9700 in your article further compounded the problem, especially since you had already amended your article to include that bit about image quality that you just quoted.

[budd_wm]

Originally posted by pelly
True...I did know that the whole debate would get rolling again...though I couldn't resist referencing a supporting view from another website.

:D

Ok...I'm done on my end......hopefully, this will go away again sometime soon.... :p

:D

Though I agree with Joker's position, I think it's time to end this debate. Nothing good will come of it. Can't a mod just lock this thread?

[pastor]

i think the whole misunderstanding comes from something wich has been hyped may be too much those time :

it's about High resolution + AF + AA : there are some people thinking those goodies ARE the required features of the up to date Graphic cards but there a lot of people thinking that it is not so important.

there is no doubt that ATI 9700 is a amazing piece of hardware (0.15 micron stuff !) .. and is brillant with HR + AA + AF but those features are not so much interesting for me.


I think that the raw power of the new GC should focus more on stuff like :

* better lookin shaders wich include bump , shininess , and reflection mapping , anisotropic filtering, real time refraction etc
* better lightning with performance free shadows
* more polygons
* more IQ
* better physics
* and it could be much farther (Deph of field, soft shadows , radiosity, real time volumetric lightning w shadows, etc ... )

the game industry is waiting for such features because it's the way to make real time hollywood.

want examples ?

* look at an hollywood movie on your DVD : the resolution is still 768 X 576 but what you see blow away what you see on your pc
Why ? ... : because realistic looking is not about textures tilled a thousand times with crisp and sharp textures even outside deph of field neither razor sharp edges everywhere


* look Doom III: u can't play it farther than 800 X 600 with decent frames rates but it already blow away any UT2003 or equivalent played in 1600X1200 +AA +AF (visual looking speaking)
Why ? ... : because ambiance is generated by more accurate lightning , shadows , multi passe textures ..etc


I'm not saying a game is not gonna look better in 1600X 1200 + AF +AA comparing to 1024 X 768 without AA and AF , i was myself an hard core quake player, but i was always playing at 1024, and it was really enough for me (... maybe for tournaments 1600X1200 would have been an advantage for efficiency, but AA + AF seems quite futile )

that's why, bigus dickus ( and other graphic card fanatics ) :
imagine yourself in 5 years and think that you was focusing on such futile bass ass chrome looking eye candies :D

May be after all , pelly wanted in his conclusion to give the choice between : pure brute power at high cost or medium power with the possibility to upgrade cpu for something more all around usefull ...

[Hellbinder]

pelly,


If the processor is the bottleneck, it really doesn't matter what high-end card you're using.


Here is the problem You *somehow* fail to understand that the above statement is total BS nonsense. FSAA+Aniso are strictly limited by the GPU. So buying a 9700 even with a CPU bottleneck will allow you to play with large ammounts of FSAA+Aniso. And yes the numbers even crush a ti 4600. There are precious few games where it does not. The 9700's Gamma corrected FSAA looks better and the aniso at 16x looks better. neither of which as stated are limited by CPU. your argument is biased and twisted.

The proof (besides its just flipping true) will be when you about face and make the exact opposite statements about the Nv30.

[_leech_]

Oh boy, the Queen FanATIc makes her appearance :D

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by 5150 Joker
Your refusal to even include a mention of other cards like a R8500/R9500/R9700 in your article further compounded the problem, especially since you had already amended your article to include that bit about image quality that you just quoted.

of course neither the R9500 nor the R9700 were available when Pelly wrote the article, and they still aren't AFAIK.

[Joe Cool]

The fact remains that 1024*768 is one, if not the most popular gaming resolution. Personally, I like to run games at 1600*1200 when possible, so the 9700 Pro is a great option ( I now have the CPU to take advantage of it ). However, the vast majority of gamers out there would not benefit from purchasing a 9700 Pro over a Ti4600 if they aren't using FSAA/Aniso on a "mediocre" CPU.

But, pelly, someone with a 9700 pro WILL be using features like fsaa, af, and running at high resolutions. And they'll be using it *whatever* their CPU is. Even a lower end one.

I have one of those mediocre CPU's, myself, and a 9700 pro. I only have a Thunderbird 1.2 overclocked to 1.4 ghz. Yet even I run almost every game I have at the highest possible resolution my monitor supports (1600x1200), and at the same time I usually have on pretty high amounts of af and fsaa.

There's no reason NOT to. The 9700 pro is so fast I can just pile those features on. And once you play a game at high res with af, or lower res's with fsaa and af, there's just NO going back.

It's been a great upgrade for me, and will still be great as I upgrade my CPU to take more advantage of the 9700's headroom.

So, your conclusion is WRONG. And it's wrong because of the above, and because most people don't just do an upgrade and stop for all time, they continue upgrading all the time - making the long-term value the 9700 Pro represents a very good one - even for people with CPU's like me.

Whether you like it or not.

[pelly]

making the long-term value the 9700 Pro represents a very good one...Whether you like it or not.

( In both the conclusion AND in a post in this very thread )
the Radeon 9700 Pro has a great deal of headroom to offer and can be carried through multiple system upgrades as a result.

Why do I even bother with some of you people???

:rolleyes:

[saturnotaku]

We went back and forth about this once and we aren't going to do it again.

[MikeC]

Originally posted by Bigus Dickus
Wow, I just read the Saphire review. After all the questions you asked on this forum, that's the review we get? Geez.

We were pressured by Sapphire to get the review posted. This is the first time in fours years of doing reviews that this has happened and I'll never let it happen again.