R9700 tomshardware review

[JohnsonLKD]

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q3/020819/index.html

at 1024*768, sometimes it's slower than GF4... I play games on 1024*768 with 4Xs AA, sometimes Quin.

My answer is NYAH!!!

Who's gonna use 1600*1200*32 with 6x AA just to play games?

Still, I think the best gaing screen res. is 1024*768*32 with Quin. AA or 4Xs AA...

[Megatron]

You could easily run the 9700 at 1024 res(or better yet 1280) with Fsaa AND aniso enabled on the 9700 and still get better frames than the Ti4600. Thats the point to this card...all eye candy at all resolutions with smooth playable framerates.

Just because it runs so well at 1600 by no means thats all its for.You try enabling Aniso AND fsaa on yer Gf4 and feel the fps drop like a rock.;)

[JohnsonLKD]

Originally posted by Megatron
You could easily run the 9700 at 1024 res(or better yet 1280) with Fsaa AND aniso enabled on the 9700 and still get better frames than the Ti4600. Thats the point to this card...all eye candy at all resolutions with smooth playable framerates.

Just because it runs so well at 1600 by no means thats all its for.You try enabling Aniso AND fsaa on yer Gf4 and feel the fps drop like a rock.;)

Whatever I play (SOF2/JK2/Renegade/War3 my computer can make rock steady 60Fps... (I dont use refresh rate fix) I thought if R9700 can make better than this I would buy it but no. I have 19" monitor and 1024*768 works perfect on that...

If res gors higher (1600*1200) everything goes too small to read for me. Or mabe I'm just a semi-blind...

[nin_fragile14]

This card is amazing. I wish I could bring myself to spend 400 bucks, but that will never happen.

[JohnsonLKD]

Originally posted by nin_fragile14
This card is amazing. I wish I could bring myself to spend 400 bucks, but that will never happen.

Actually, me too! and it's gonna be around $500 CDN!!!:mad:

[-=DVS=-]

Originally posted by JohnsonLKD
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q3/020819/index.html

at 1024*768, sometimes it's slower than GF4... I play games on 1024*768 with 4Xs AA, sometimes Quin.

My answer is NYAH!!!

Who's gonna use 1600*1200*32 with 6x AA just to play games?

Still, I think the best gaing screen res. is 1024*768*32 with Quin. AA or 4Xs AA...


Lol its only slower on Commanche 4 :P and it rocks with AA and aniso , oh and did you saw Dungeon Siege scores :eek: :p


How can you be such big Nvidiot and say GF4 is better sheesh :rolleyes:

You should read Anands review he have more games :D

[saturnotaku]

Originally posted by nin_fragile14
This card is amazing. I wish I could bring myself to spend 400 bucks, but that will never happen.

I've already spent my money on a Ti4600 and I'm going to live with it gosh darnit, at least until the NV30 comes to the market. Then I'll make my comparisons and decide if I want to take the plunge on a video card (again) or stick it out with what I have.

But based on all the reviews I've read, the 9700 is nothing short of phenominal, especially in bandwidth intensive tests. I'd love to be able to have playable framerates in games at 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 with both FSAA and aniso enabled. That happens with the 9700 which makes it look like a very tempting purchase.

[netviper13]

With the GeForce4 and Radeon 9700, there won't be much of a difference in scores at 1024x768 with no eye candy. Why not? Because the two card are so powerful they are CPU limited at that resolution.

Turn on the eye candy and that's when the story changes. You ask who would play at 1600x1200? By God I would if I could play it at at least 70fps!

[nin_fragile14]

I actually came very close to placing an order for one, then read on Gamespot that Doom 3 was run at 800x600 at Quakecon with the R300. With only that kind of resolution, I might as well keep my Geforce 3 for now and wait and see what's available early next year. It'll be tough to hold off though.

[StealthHawk]

i might play @ 1600X1200 if i could afford a 20-22 inch LCD screen and get good framerate with full eye candy on :D

[Cotita]

ATI has made an amazing job. The card is fast, no wait let me rephrase that, this cards is INSANELY FAST.

I didn't expect that level of performance from ATI. At most I expected ti4600 performance plus DX9 features. But completely destroying the 4600 is an awesome task. I don't think that the nv30 will be much faster. Definately not a 150% greater performance like the r300 did against the geforce4 in some tests.

[JohnsonLKD]

Originally posted by DVS



Lol its only slower on Commanche 4 :P and it rocks with AA and aniso , oh and did you saw Dungeon Siege scores :eek: :p


How can you be such big Nvidiot and say GF4 is better sheesh :rolleyes:

You should read Anands review he have more games :D

It's almost same or faster than GF 4 when you use 1024*768. I dont play RPG at all. All Iplay is simulation and adventure,FPS, and RTS games. Basically, I bought this GF4 to play SOF2... Honest. Well, at 60fps I don't know the differeces...

Even with 4Xs AA on it can make steady 60fps most of the times, so I don't think I need R9700 for now.

And Lemme ask you. Do you "play" game or "watch" game?

[mavis]

Originally posted by JohnsonLKD
And Lemme ask you. Do you "play" game or "watch" game?

What kind of question is that? Of course we all like "playing" games, but it certainly makes it more enjoyable if the image is smooth and crisp (ie AA and AF enabled) - kinda like like watching a movie on a VCR or DVD player - you can see the same thing using either medium, but the DVD just looks better, hence a more enjoyable viewing experience. If you don't care about image quality, then by all means stick with your Ti4600 - it works just fine (in most cases) at decent resolution without AA and AF enabled. But if you want to run your games higher than 10x7 with AF and AA turned on, so that they look friggin beautiful, you will definately need a more powerful video card. Such as the Radeon 9700.

mavis

[Joe Shmoe]

Originally posted by nin_fragile14
I actually came very close to placing an order for one, then read on Gamespot that Doom 3 was run at 800x600 at Quakecon with the R300. With only that kind of resolution, I might as well keep my Geforce 3 for now and wait and see what's available early next year.
Didn't Carmack state that he was aiming for Doom 3 to run at 30 fps on a GeForce 3 at 640x480 with all the details turned down? The 9700 was running it at 800x600 with everything cranked up and still very smooth! :eek: Sounds like a winner to me.

[JohnsonLKD]

Originally posted by mavis


What kind of question is that? Of course we all like "playing" games, but it certainly makes it more enjoyable if the image is smooth and crisp (ie AA and AF enabled) - kinda like like watching a movie on a VCR or DVD player - you can see the same thing using either medium, but the DVD just looks better, hence a more enjoyable viewing experience. If you don't care about image quality, then by all means stick with your Ti4600 - it works just fine (in most cases) at decent resolution without AA and AF enabled. But if you want to run your games higher than 10x7 with AF and AA turned on, so that they look friggin beautiful, you will definately need a more powerful video card. Such as the Radeon 9700.

mavis

Well, I think some cares about the jaggies and blurry screen while they're playing games.

Some play Quake 3 like they're playing a 1st person view RPG! which means, they don't shoot me, they just look around and get fragged! After they got damage from me then they fire at me like a turn based game! Same as UT and Renegade...

Or maybe it just happened to me...

Anyway, when I play any game, I don't look around. I just fire the gun whenever something moves!!!

I also said that "I'm gonna stick to my GF 4 until something brakes the codecreature FPS limit!!!" (which is 100 fps)

I also wanna say, when you play a game with normal mode and when you get in to the game, you actually, notice nothing! Xcept when you stopped and looking around...

I shouldn't used the AA feature. Now I cannot even play a game w/o AA!!! Do you know what I mean?

Hope nobody misunderstands this reply...

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by Joe Shmoe

Didn't Carmack state that he was aiming for Doom 3 to run at 30 fps on a GeForce 3 at 640x480 with all the details turned down? The 9700 was running it at 800x600 with everything cranked up and still very smooth! :eek: Sounds like a winner to me.

no. 30fps with all details on with a GF3

ps i would watch DVDs over VHS even if the picture quality was the same. Dolby Digital absolutely rocks! it's like watching a whole new movie :cool:

[jbirney]

I don't think that the nv30 will be much faster. Definately not a 150% greater performance like the r300 did against the geforce4 in some tests.

Wasn't there some info floating around where nV expeced the NV30 to be x2 or x2.5 times faster than a GF4? If that is the case (and I am not saying it is) then the R300 should match up well.

[Kruno]

Yeees, it should. :D
Though the funny thing is 20Gb/s vs 48Gb/s bandwidth.
Nv30 should be 1.5x-2.0x faster than the R300.

[Fotis]

Originally posted by K.I.L.E.R
Yeees, it should. :D
Though the funny thing is 20Gb/s vs 48Gb/s bandwidth.
Nv30 should be 1.5x-2.0x faster than the R300.
Well we have one fact,radeon 9700 has 20gb/s and a big rumor on nv30 having 48gb/s.
Did I mention that r350 will have 10000000000000000gb/s??!!:rolleyes:

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by K.I.L.E.R
Yeees, it should. :D
Though the funny thing is 20Gb/s vs 48Gb/s bandwidth.
Nv30 should be 1.5x-2.0x faster than the R300.

since when does NV30 have 48GB/sec of raw bandwidth.

[Fotis]

Originally posted by StealthHawk


since when does NV30 have 48GB/sec of raw bandwidth.
It's the eveything radeon 9700 has nv30 will have double logic!!:D

[Kruno]

Ouch! I would be expecting a higher than 120fps Nature test.
Originally posted by Fotis

Well we have one fact,radeon 9700 has 20gb/s and a big rumor on nv30 having 48gb/s.
Did I mention that r350 will have 10000000000000000gb/s??!!:rolleyes:

[Joe Shmoe]

Originally posted by K.I.L.E.R
Though the funny thing is 20Gb/s vs 48Gb/s bandwidth.
Nv30 should be 1.5x-2.0x faster than the R300.
And just how will NV30 acheive 48 Gb/s of real (not effective) bandwidth? Someone pulled this 48 Gb/s of effective bandwidth out of their butt on some other forum and now the rumor has grown. :rolleyes:

Then I saw a quote from some nvidia guy trying to show how their effective bandwidth under AA would be 60 Gb/s because of Z and color compression, but the R300 would only have 24 Gb/s (20 Gb * 1.2 for Hyper-Z or something). I'm willing to bet that R300 has some sort of color compression... how else could they get such good AA numbers?

This is why it's pretty pointless to get excited over rumors: Because rumors are often wrong.

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by Joe Shmoe
Then I saw a quote from some nvidia guy trying to show how their effective bandwidth under AA would be 60 Gb/s because of Z and color compression, but the R300 would only have 24 Gb/s (20 Gb * 1.2 for Hyper-Z or something). I'm willing to bet that R300 has some sort of color compression... how else could they get such good AA numbers?

the card has 20GB/sec of memory bandwidth, that's how! add in any special modifications in hardware that help accelerate FSAA(like nvidia did with GF4) and you've got a FSAA powerhouse that should be turning out 2x the FSAA scores of a GF4 more or less.

[ErrorS]

i feel bad for all you GF4 people.. hwo you gonna manage on that POS card until Doom3 is released? :rolleyes: