|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
ATi 9700 or Geforce FX
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Bunyaka
Hey everyone,
I was just thinking that I may be able to get an ATI Radeon 9700 128MB AGP card for christmas.
But I checked out Nvidia's site and there is all this stuff on the new "Geforce FX".
I have no idea when it's coming out so I was wondering if any1 here knew. If it is coming out anytime soon, should I get FX or 9700? 
if u need to know:
I'm running a 2.2ghz
120gb hard drive
512 ram
win xp
Posted by: Azgard
The card from what I read in serveral places should be released mid first quarter next year, just by looking at the 'features at a glance' its obvious the GeForceFX is way better. As for ATI I continue to ehar more and more of driver issues with their cards.
Posted by: darkknight1223
overclocking is for fish
If I were you I would wait... Ati is a load of crap
Posted by: Bunyaka
OK thanks.
any more info on the ATI would be great.
because if it does have major driver issues, ill wait.
Posted by: ZeRo_MaXwInG
It has driver issues for some users and games. The ATi9700 is by no means a slouch, its the fastest consumer card so far, beating out the GeForce 4600Ti by a fair margin. I would wait for the GeForce FX to come out if I were you though.
Posted by: Digitalphatman
Go with the ATI9700 hundred and be happy. IT is a very fast card and the the drivers are very stable and mature. THe geforcefx is a long tie away and besides when it first comes out the drivers will probably not be as good as ati's(seeing as they have had 6+ months to work on them already).
<dan>
Posted by: redwench
fast the 9700 may be, but ati has serious driver issues with all their releases. some people are lucky and dont experience problems. but its a nightmare for many people. nvidia generally releases good drivers, and fixes bad ones quickly.
Posted by: Digitalphatman
Well yes at launch i agree to a certian extent red, but now that the card has been out for 6 months or so most problems have been resolved. THat is why i say currently they ati9700 would be the best choice, b/c the drivers are very mature, in my opinion.
<dan>
plus why wait until february for what you can have now
Posted by: Bobaroo
What Video card do you have now? Can it hold you over until the GeForce FX comes out?
Posted by: Shalome
I gotta say (as I've stated before) I've never had a problem with my ATI Radeon or its drivers. They've always worked with no issues for me.... Then again, I'm not one for "bleeding edge" driver updates. I usually wait for a proven stable release to come out before downloading it.
Posted by: taco_fox
 Quote:
Originally posted by darkknight1223
overclocking is for fish
|
I think I have been insulted again...
Anyway, by the time the new GeForce comes out, I'm pretty sure a new ATi card will be out or announced. Personally, I'm going to stick with nVidia for now, mainly because of the great driver support. My GeForce 2 GTS will hold out until the next gen cards when I'll decide what to get.
Posted by: Bunyaka
ok, well i'll see if i can get the ATI 9700 now.
oh yeah my card now is a Geforce4 Mx4200...
thanks a lot everyone!
Posted by: Bobaroo
Wait you have a GF4?
Wait for the Geforce FX, there is no need to update your video card now.
Posted by: taco_fox
I agree, but only if he meant a GF4 Ti 4200. If he meant a GF4 MX 420, then he can consider upgrading now. There's a BIG difference between those two cards.
Posted by: SKYHN
I would wait for the GFFX. Of course, either way if you get a R9700 or GFFX, your CPU will be a bottleneck.
Posted by: ZeRo_MaXwInG
A 2.2 GHz P4 wouldn't be the bottleneck.
Posted by: taco_fox
Yes, it can. If you have a 9700 and you upgrade from a 2.2ghz proc to a 2.8, you'll get an increase in fps. GPUs are developing much faster than CPUs.
Posted by: ZeRo_MaXwInG
Oh. How big is the relative difference in FPS? Although the processor is 600 MHz faster, most of the load would still be on the ATi GPU.
Posted by: taco_fox
Well I'll be damned if I can find any real benchmarks right now, but the difference wouldn't be earth-shattering. However, there would be an increase, so it's considered a bottleneck.
Posted by: redwench
theres always something that is the bottleneck. you usually want the bottleneck to be the more expensive piece.
Posted by: Null Actor
Where the bottleneck is usually depends on the game itself. It can vary wildly. Traditionally, Quake engine games are bound more by the videocard (meaning performance increases more with better videocards), while traditionally, Unreal engine games are bound more by CPU.
Games like BF1942 and Tribes 2 just stress everything.
I'm presonally waiting for the Geforce FX, because I don't trust ATI. They have a bad track record, and every time I hear one person say it's improved, or they haven't had any problems running games on their <insert ATI card name here>, I find two other people who claim endless problems and eventually just bought an nvidia card.
Posted by: Bunyaka
Okay, Thanks everyone for your help! I think my decision is to wait for the GFFX...
I'll just have to see waht the price is gonna be. I should start saving up now
Posted by: Bored
Quote:
|
Unreal engine games are bound more by CPU
|
My 1.4ghz with only 256Mb ram never once had any issues with Unreal. It runs so smooth I was amazed. Battlefield 1942 is another story. Right now I think the video is the main issue.
The CPU is never a bottleneck with an AGP video card. The only information that goes from CPU to AGP is instructions. AGP video card has DMA(Direct Memory Access), which means it goes into the RAM on its own and finds the data it needs to do its job. The processor just tells it what to do, not how. Now it may be true that if the processor is really slow the AGP might be finished with what its doing if nothing new is happening video-related, but having a slower processor is not going to directly hamper the card.
Posted by: Daedleus
Quote:
Originally posted by Digitalphatman
...the drivers are very stable and mature.
|
I think this is an erroneous statement. The driver quality issue has been a thorn in ATI's side for a long time, and it's only recently that ATI has pushed toward a driver solution similar to Nvidia's Unified Driver Architecture. ATI's drivers haven't been given the chance to mature because every time they release a new card they have to write completely new drivers for them. Several months isn't exactly a long time for single-run drivers to mature when compared to Nvidia's UDA. The latest Nvidia drivers will work (and in most cases improve performance) with cards as old as the TNT/TNT2. You can't say the same about ATI.
Quote:
Originally posted by Digitalphatman
THe geforcefx is a long tie away and besides when it first comes out the drivers will probably not be as good as ati's(seeing as they have had 6+ months to work on them already).
|
This is very unlikely to be true. Nvidia doesn't have to rewrite all-new driver code for the GFFX because it will be using the same driver binary its predecessors used. UDA by its very design insures a higher stability and compatibility rate from the start.
While the 9700Pro currently does hold the top spot for high-end video cards, it does so solely on hardware performance/specifications alone. The drivers, if anything, are holding this card back, and that is its Achilles heel.
Posted by: Digitalphatman
Daedleus, u took my comments out of context there. Yes i said ati's driver's are mature and stable, but that is only b/c(as i have stated) the 9700 has been out for 6 months now. When you have time t owork on the drivers like ati has, then you better have decent drivers. Hell look at the drivers for the 8500/9100, those drivers are great and the that card can compete with the geforce 4 4200.
As for Ati's Drivers being unified being part of the reason for there less than optimal drivers, i disagree. The fact is that Nvidia releases a card, then they relese a super duper version of the cards, and finally they release the fastest card they can under the Architecture(i.e Geforce 3, First they release the Geforce 3, then they release the ti versions, then trhey release the geforce 4 which is basically the same architecture as the geforce3, with a nother vertex shader. On the other hand, ati(stupidly, imo) release a completely new architeture that they have to create drivers for.
ALso the geforce fx is still 2-3 months away. If it is completely new architecture then I stand by what I have said. Just because u put all the drivers together in one neat, little package doesn't nescarily mean that they will be good drivers.
BUt then again we can talk about a card and how great it will be ,buts its not even out yet. SO we will see how the card preforms when it comes out.
Posted by: Azgard
Not trying to bash you, but to me it does not sound like you understand the concept of unified driver architecture and what it means.
Edit: Its already been noted that the GeforceFX is going to have very little in common architecture wise compared to the previous cards.
Posted by: Digitalphatman
I never Claimed to be the smartest person in the world, and i am sure just about everyone in this thread would agree. PLease Enlighten me!!! I may be missing the point on the whole unified driver concept, or maybe i just didn't really communicate what i wanted to say.
Posted by: Azgard
Click Click and all your questions shall be answered.
Posted by: Digitalphatman
OK.. Maybe i am dense, which is all very likely, but how exactly does unified architecture work on new card drivers?
Do u still not have to write drivers for that card to work? Being that so, if u have drivers for old cards, how does that help with drivers for new cards?
I am serious(i know i sound dumb), thanks for the help
|
|
|
|
|
