Author Topic: Which ATI Radeon would be the best fit for this system? (Read 451 times)

Wanker · « **on:** July 14, 2003, 02:05:55 PM »

My system:

AMD XP 2100+
Soyo K7V Dragon Plus(Via 266 chipset)
1 GB Crucial PC2100 DDR-SDRAM
128 MB Abit Siluro GF4 Ti-4400
SB Audigy Gamer
22" NEC Flat screen CRT monitor
Win XP Pro sp1

With this system I run at 1600x1200x32@85hz, and my FPS varies between 50-85+, depending upon what I'm looking at.

I'm interested in upgrading my video card, to take advantage of the improved picture quality of the ATI cards over the Nvidia.

Considering the speed of my CPU and the amount of RAM and the chipset of my motherboard, which ATI Radeon would you guys recommend? I'd rather not spring for the 9800 Pro if I don't have to, but would any of the lesser cards be much of an upgrade?

Skuzzy · « **Reply #1 on:** July 14, 2003, 02:19:38 PM »

If you can find a 9700Pro, they are getting cheap (relatively speaking).

Or the 9500Pro as you might be able to turn it into a 9700Pro.

The 9600Pro is clocked way slower than it can run, and if you clock it up a bit, is a nice card as well.

You have a pretty good video card, as performance goes. If you wait until,...oh September, the 9800Pro prices will probably drop quite a bit.
The 9900Pro should be out by then (personally, I will be surprised if they make it in this time frame), and prices should slide down.

BB Gun · « **Reply #2 on:** July 14, 2003, 02:22:39 PM »

Baxl - IMO, if you're NOT gonna get a 9700/9800, its not worth it to upgrade your system. Is 175 bucks worth a few extra frames? The 9500/9600 are DX9 compliant, but only a 10-15% faster than the GF4s, and not worth the upgrade price, IMO. Wait some more and save some more and go the whole 9 yards.

check this older article on Tom's Hardware for comprehensive listing:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20021218/index.html

BB

38ruk · « **Reply #3 on:** July 14, 2003, 02:46:16 PM »

banana i have pretty close to the exact system,i run 2xAA quix... and get 85 fps, but at 1600x 1200 i bet ur ti 4400 prolly get boged down, if you are runnin any drivers between 40.72 and 44.65 they had an anti aliasing problem , they would have the frame rate hit but not the image quality, personally i have tested many drivers and have found that the 30.82 drivers work the best for AH,for performance and quailty. have you overclocked the card? i run mine at 300core and 600 memory nice and stable. but i only run at 1024x768 due to monitior. i have also thought about updating but am going to wait till AH2 and see what the best deals are.. hope this helps ~~38maw~~

LoneStarBuckeye · « **Reply #4 on:** July 14, 2003, 02:55:35 PM »

I used to have an XP 2400+ processor, which I paired with a 9700 Pro. I upgraded from a GeForce 3 500, and I saw a big increase in frame rates and quality. With the 9700 Pro, my frame rates were about the same as those you are seeing now, but they were limited by my monitor's 85 Hz refresh rate and I was running 2/4 x anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering. In my opinion, ATI's AA/AIF implementation is superior to nVIDIA's, both in terms of performance hit and visual quality. Whether the eye candy is worth the $ is up to you.

One other note--I just noticed that you're running a flat-screen monitor. When I was investigating those, it seems like I read somewhere that the ATI cards' DVI output only worked properly up to 1280x1024. Perhaps your monitor has an analog input?

Just out of curiosity, how do you like the monitor for gaming? Any noticeable ghosting or other visual anomalies?

- JNOV

Wanker · « **Reply #5 on:** July 14, 2003, 03:35:01 PM »

As LSB and BBGun alluded to, the real issue for me insofar as Aces High is concerned is visual quality, not FPS. I have my FPS limited to my vertical refresh of my monitor, so I wouldn't expect anything above 85 anyway. When it comes to other games, however, I wonder just how much of a performance gain in fps I can get with the ATI over my Ti-4400, considering that the CPU may be the bottle neck.

When I was at the con last year, I remember walking by and seeing everyone's AH screens, and they looked similar to mine. They all pretty much were running GForce cards. Then I happened to walk by Fatty as he played, and I couldn't get over how much more clear and crisp and colorful his AH screen was compared to the rest. When I asked him why his looked so much better, he told me that he was running with an ATI Radeon 8500.

So, maybe it would be worth the money to upgrade just for an improved picture clarity and color pallette. On the other hand, it sounds like if I didn't go for the 9800 Pro, I wouldn't be gaining all that much in fps.

Quote

One other note--I just noticed that you're running a flat-screen monitor. When I was investigating those, it seems like I read somewhere that the ATI cards' DVI output only worked properly up to 1280x1024. Perhaps your monitor has an analog input?

My monitor is a flat screen CRT monitor, not one of the new slim flat panel monitors. Your comment about not being able to go above 1280x1024 is exactly why I'm sticking with old technology CRT monitors. I'm not going to jump into flat panel screens until the resolution and refresh rates are higher.

LoneStarBuckeye · « **Reply #6 on:** July 14, 2003, 05:13:47 PM »

Sorry, didn't see that big, bold "CRT" in your system description! BTW, those are the same reasons I'm sticking with CRTs for the time being. I've read that the image-quality cost of driving a big LCD with an analog output is considerable.

Sox62 · « **Reply #7 on:** July 15, 2003, 12:34:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by banana
As LSB and BBGun alluded to, the real issue for me insofar as Aces High is concerned is visual quality, not FPS. I have my FPS limited to my vertical refresh of my monitor, so I wouldn't expect anything above 85 anyway.

With a Radeon 9800 you can leave your refesh rate at 85hz,and have antialiasing set to at least 4x,and anisotropic filtering also enabled(which will make the game really look nice),and have virtually no drop in framerates.

I tried it with my XP2000 cpu before I upgraded to an AMD 3000XP and NforceII.

Wanker · « **Reply #8 on:** July 19, 2003, 04:08:10 PM »

Thanks to all who replied. I first went with the 9600 Pro, which was fine as long as I didn't feel the need to use 4X FSAA and 8X anisotropic filtering. When I enabled that, frame rates in AH dropped to around the 40's(I run at 1600x1200x32). In Nascar 2003, however, using that same resolution and filtering, frame rates were at an unacceptable mid teens.

So, I went back and got the 9800 Pro. Frame rates in AH are now pegged at my monitor's refresh rate (85hz), and in Nascar 2003 they are at a very acceptable mid 40's.

And the vicious cycle continues, as now my motherboard and CPU are the bottlenecks. But that's a good thing!