cvearl
03-17-03, 02:12 PM
This is my experience going from an MSI Geforce 4Ti4200 to a Sapphire 9700 NP OEM. I am not a reviewer from a big magazine or website. Just joe gamer who has been at this a long time.
I have been waiting since October (having read about the 9700 Pro) to upgrade. I have been using nVidia products since the RIVA 128 and TNT2 and have since had a Gefoce 2GTS and now a G4Ti4200.
I was really looking forward to using ATI now. In the past, prior to every nVidia purchase I have made I would first buy the current ATI offering as I am from Canada and like to see them succeed. And frankly, since the days of the ATI SVGA Wonder, I missed the desktop quality. Going from the SVGA Wonder to Riva 128, I really saw the drop in desktop quality and sharpness of text. From what I can tell now, that difference went away since the G2GTS. My last attempt was going from the Geforce 2GTS to the G4Ti4200 (I currently own) I first picked up a Retail ATI 8500-128. I did a fresh install of XP ect... but the card just could not compare to the G4Ti4200 for performance and stability in games and overall was slower. And really, I could not see a difference in desktop quality. I knew that ATI was about to release a new family so I stayed with the G4Ti4200 as a temp card to wait for the reviews. Ever since I read about the 9700/9500 products I have wanted one. Well.... Here's my experience. Keep in mind, I wanted an ATI product this time. I really did...
I brough the new 9700 NP OEM home last Friday. I did a complete uninstall and scrubbed the nVidia drivers from my XP installation. Turned off my PC and installed the 9700. Booted great and found 2 VGA devices (which I was told is normal). So far so good. I installed the latest CAT 3.2's and then the latest control pannel. System was stable.
I waited until now to get the 9700 because of the issues with Freelancer. I play alot of it so I waited for the 3.2's.
DESKTOP - desktop looked great. I was feelin good! But I really could not tell the difference between that and the G4 desktop except the red's looked a tad redder.
FREELANCER - Well I fired it up and to my relief, it ran silky smooth and at least as good as it ran on my G4. No crashes no nothing. Just like my G4. While it was no doubt running faster than my G4, I could not really tell the difference. The colors looked just as good on both cards. Happy, I turned on 4X AA and it still ran fine (as expected). But AA has never excited me that much so it really did not matter. The slight jagged edges you see from time to time while playing a game never truely bother me as much as it did some. I was too busy having fun. I know the real difference would have come from comparing in REALLY high resolutions. I know the 9700 would play better than my G4. Problem is I never go over 1024x768x32 due to crappy refresh rates on my monitor. So as it sits, no real benefit other than nicer looking AA in this game.
UT2003 - I play this alot. More than I should I reccon. I use the stat_fps command all the time and I am very familiar with this game on my G4. I always play 1024x768x32 all options set to normal. BUT! to my suprise, on the 9700, it did not seem as SMOOTH to me. Control of my guy was not as fluent. This was only slight but I felt it. I don't know how to explain it. Closest word I can come up with is stuttering when I pan my view. But STUTTERING is WAYYY to strong a word as it is so very subtle. Wierd thing was though that stat_fps was showing slightly higher framerates over what the reading usually was with my G4. I played for hours to see if it was just me. If my G4 normally got 60 fps in a map average, then the 9700 was getting 75 or so. But the slight erratic frames was annoying.I wrote it off to my imagination. The next morning, my 15 year old son got up and played UT2003 as he often does on Saturday mornings before I get up. His first words to me were "what's wrong with UT2003?". He could not explain what he felt but only that it felt not as fluid in motion but still very fast. Keep in mind, he did not know I changed the card. This kid never complains usually so at this point I knew it was not my imagination. In addition, in the 6 or so hours of UT2003 I played with this 9700, I was thrown out 2 times to a critical error screen. This never ever happend to me before.
3DMARK 2001SE - Ran all the way through. The score was 12,869 compared to my G4's 11,211. Looking into the details of both in a comparison, the 9700 was only slightly faster in most games tests. The higher score was a result of it being twice as fast with Shader and bump mapping tests. However, visually, I noticed some small flaws. There was slight "clipping" in the nature scene with the boat sitting in the water and a few (very small) texture issues on the nose of the boat in the same scene. Never seen this on my G4 before. Otherwise it ran great.
Lastly, COUNTERSTRIKE - Starting up and getting into a game was no problem. Very slight dips in frame rates from time to time but acceptable and I knew some people had that with ATI so I was not worried. It's an old game. However, leaving a game to get another server threw me out to a black screen with nothing left to do but a HARD shutdown and restart.
Summary - I could not tell the diff in desktop quality. Freelancer felt the same on both cards. UT2003 just did not feel right or at least was a touch jittery when panning my view side to side and it crashed twice (I NEVER expected that). 3DMARK2001 was a little faster but really, I can no longer see the difference after my scores broke 10,000. The only issue was the wierd clipping of the waves showing through the boat in the water (slight and brief but they were there). And lastly, counterstrike would not successfully exit to the menu for me.
All of this did not add up to me trading my $229 CDN G4Ti4200 for a $369 CDN 9700 OEM. I don't see what all the fuss is about. AA is really not a big deal to me. But I WOULD like it. Barring AA performance and quality on the ATI, I have to say that nVidia still has better drivers. Sorry but that's how it feels in real world gaming to me. YES I know the FX is a failure or dissapointment. And I know the drivers for the FX have not been good as there have been visual anomolies. But in the G4 world and ever since the G2's they have been bulltproof for me and anyone I know who has owned one. Visually speaking I cannot see the difference until AA is enabled.
I really wish nVidia had come out with a better family than the FX. I will likely get a 9600 Pro as I know it too will be faster than my G4 and my son wants my G4 in his computer. He only has a TNT2. But waiting for the 9600 Pro will probably allow for more improvements in the Catalyst drivers. They are so close now. Just a little better ATI and I'm there!
If anyone here thinks that I reached these results I described above in error, please tell me what I could have done differently.
Charles.
I have been waiting since October (having read about the 9700 Pro) to upgrade. I have been using nVidia products since the RIVA 128 and TNT2 and have since had a Gefoce 2GTS and now a G4Ti4200.
I was really looking forward to using ATI now. In the past, prior to every nVidia purchase I have made I would first buy the current ATI offering as I am from Canada and like to see them succeed. And frankly, since the days of the ATI SVGA Wonder, I missed the desktop quality. Going from the SVGA Wonder to Riva 128, I really saw the drop in desktop quality and sharpness of text. From what I can tell now, that difference went away since the G2GTS. My last attempt was going from the Geforce 2GTS to the G4Ti4200 (I currently own) I first picked up a Retail ATI 8500-128. I did a fresh install of XP ect... but the card just could not compare to the G4Ti4200 for performance and stability in games and overall was slower. And really, I could not see a difference in desktop quality. I knew that ATI was about to release a new family so I stayed with the G4Ti4200 as a temp card to wait for the reviews. Ever since I read about the 9700/9500 products I have wanted one. Well.... Here's my experience. Keep in mind, I wanted an ATI product this time. I really did...
I brough the new 9700 NP OEM home last Friday. I did a complete uninstall and scrubbed the nVidia drivers from my XP installation. Turned off my PC and installed the 9700. Booted great and found 2 VGA devices (which I was told is normal). So far so good. I installed the latest CAT 3.2's and then the latest control pannel. System was stable.
I waited until now to get the 9700 because of the issues with Freelancer. I play alot of it so I waited for the 3.2's.
DESKTOP - desktop looked great. I was feelin good! But I really could not tell the difference between that and the G4 desktop except the red's looked a tad redder.
FREELANCER - Well I fired it up and to my relief, it ran silky smooth and at least as good as it ran on my G4. No crashes no nothing. Just like my G4. While it was no doubt running faster than my G4, I could not really tell the difference. The colors looked just as good on both cards. Happy, I turned on 4X AA and it still ran fine (as expected). But AA has never excited me that much so it really did not matter. The slight jagged edges you see from time to time while playing a game never truely bother me as much as it did some. I was too busy having fun. I know the real difference would have come from comparing in REALLY high resolutions. I know the 9700 would play better than my G4. Problem is I never go over 1024x768x32 due to crappy refresh rates on my monitor. So as it sits, no real benefit other than nicer looking AA in this game.
UT2003 - I play this alot. More than I should I reccon. I use the stat_fps command all the time and I am very familiar with this game on my G4. I always play 1024x768x32 all options set to normal. BUT! to my suprise, on the 9700, it did not seem as SMOOTH to me. Control of my guy was not as fluent. This was only slight but I felt it. I don't know how to explain it. Closest word I can come up with is stuttering when I pan my view. But STUTTERING is WAYYY to strong a word as it is so very subtle. Wierd thing was though that stat_fps was showing slightly higher framerates over what the reading usually was with my G4. I played for hours to see if it was just me. If my G4 normally got 60 fps in a map average, then the 9700 was getting 75 or so. But the slight erratic frames was annoying.I wrote it off to my imagination. The next morning, my 15 year old son got up and played UT2003 as he often does on Saturday mornings before I get up. His first words to me were "what's wrong with UT2003?". He could not explain what he felt but only that it felt not as fluid in motion but still very fast. Keep in mind, he did not know I changed the card. This kid never complains usually so at this point I knew it was not my imagination. In addition, in the 6 or so hours of UT2003 I played with this 9700, I was thrown out 2 times to a critical error screen. This never ever happend to me before.
3DMARK 2001SE - Ran all the way through. The score was 12,869 compared to my G4's 11,211. Looking into the details of both in a comparison, the 9700 was only slightly faster in most games tests. The higher score was a result of it being twice as fast with Shader and bump mapping tests. However, visually, I noticed some small flaws. There was slight "clipping" in the nature scene with the boat sitting in the water and a few (very small) texture issues on the nose of the boat in the same scene. Never seen this on my G4 before. Otherwise it ran great.
Lastly, COUNTERSTRIKE - Starting up and getting into a game was no problem. Very slight dips in frame rates from time to time but acceptable and I knew some people had that with ATI so I was not worried. It's an old game. However, leaving a game to get another server threw me out to a black screen with nothing left to do but a HARD shutdown and restart.
Summary - I could not tell the diff in desktop quality. Freelancer felt the same on both cards. UT2003 just did not feel right or at least was a touch jittery when panning my view side to side and it crashed twice (I NEVER expected that). 3DMARK2001 was a little faster but really, I can no longer see the difference after my scores broke 10,000. The only issue was the wierd clipping of the waves showing through the boat in the water (slight and brief but they were there). And lastly, counterstrike would not successfully exit to the menu for me.
All of this did not add up to me trading my $229 CDN G4Ti4200 for a $369 CDN 9700 OEM. I don't see what all the fuss is about. AA is really not a big deal to me. But I WOULD like it. Barring AA performance and quality on the ATI, I have to say that nVidia still has better drivers. Sorry but that's how it feels in real world gaming to me. YES I know the FX is a failure or dissapointment. And I know the drivers for the FX have not been good as there have been visual anomolies. But in the G4 world and ever since the G2's they have been bulltproof for me and anyone I know who has owned one. Visually speaking I cannot see the difference until AA is enabled.
I really wish nVidia had come out with a better family than the FX. I will likely get a 9600 Pro as I know it too will be faster than my G4 and my son wants my G4 in his computer. He only has a TNT2. But waiting for the 9600 Pro will probably allow for more improvements in the Catalyst drivers. They are so close now. Just a little better ATI and I'm there!
If anyone here thinks that I reached these results I described above in error, please tell me what I could have done differently.
Charles.