ATI’s Radeon 9500 Pro graphics card

WE’VE FOLLOWED the story of ATI’s slow march to leadership in the graphics hardware world closely. The R300 chip, which powers ATI’s high-end Radeon 9700 Pro card, has given ATI an indisputable lead in terms of features and performance over perennial rival NVIDIA. R300 features a rich array of datatypes, including high-precision floating-point color throughout its pipeline. This newfound precision will enable graphics hardware to encroach on the world of cinematic rendering traditionally owned by slow, software-only renderers.

Translation: it’s really, really cool.

Now comes the pivotal step in ATI’s march. Today the company is shipping its new sub-$200 graphics card based on the R300 chip, just in time for the Christmas shopping season. This card, the Radeon 9500 Pro, directly targets the heart of NVIDIA’s lineup: the GeForce4 Ti 4200. The 4200 has dominated the middle of the graphics card market since its introduction this past spring. Can ATI’s new card knock the GF4 Ti 4200 off its perch? Keep reading to find out.

Introducing the Radeon 9500 Pro
First things first. In order to understand best what the Radeon 9500 Pro is all about, you’d do well to go read my swanky intro to next-gen graphics chips, which explains exactly how and why these new chips are a step ahead of anything you’ve seen before. Then you’ll want to go read my review of the Radeon 9700 Pro. Since the 9500 Pro is based on the exact same ATI R300 chip, nearly everything I said about the 9700 Pro’s capabilities applies here, and I’ll refer to that article as needed throughout this review.

Once you have your prerequisite reading finished, allow me to dispel some notions you may have about the Radeon 9500 Pro. A few weeks back, ATI announced the 9500 Pro to the world and gave out test cards to select media outlets (read: not us; we’re too geeky-wonky with the in-depth stuff). At that time, you may have seen some benchmark scores for the 9500 Pro. Trouble is, those scores aren’t representative of what you’ll get with the finished product. Those early sample cards were simply Radeon 9700 cards underclocked with two of their four memory controllers disabled. As a result, those early test cards had only 64MB of memory and a different board design from the final product, which has 128MB of memory. Just keep that in mind, in case you had some preconceived notions about the 9500 Pro’s performance.

Speaking of board designs, let’s take a look at the production Radeon 9500 Pro card. This puppy is dressed up in ATI red, just like the 9700 Pro, but its memory chips are lined up across the top of the card, and the auxiliary power connector has moved. (Yes, you’ll need to plug an additional power lead into the 9500 Pro to give it enough juice to run. ATI includes a power adapter cable in case you need one, just as with the 9700 Pro.)

The Radeon 9500 Pro is a different card than the 9700 Pro

The usual array of VGA, S-Video, and DVI ports

The 9500 Pro’s memory chips line up in front of the aux power connector So that’s what she looks like. Here’s what you need to know: the 9500 Pro runs at a 275MHz core clock, and it has a 128-bit DDR memory interface with a 540MHz effective clock rate. Hence the cheapness versus the Radeon 9700 Pro, which can run as much as $399. We’ll discuss the exact implications of the 9500 Pro’s specs in a couple of pages.

Radeon 9500 Pro cards apparently just started rolling off the production line, if our review unit is anything to go by. Have a look at the manufacture date:

Fresh from the oven Anyhow, let’s see how this brand-new specimen performs.

 

Our testing methods
As ever, we did our best to deliver clean benchmark numbers. Tests were run at least twice, and the results were averaged.

Our test system was configured like so:

  VIA P4X400
Processor Pentium 4 2.8GHz
Front-side bus 533MHz (133MHz quad-pumped)
Motherboard VIA P4PB 400
North bridge VT8754
South bridge VT8235
Chipset drivers 4-in-1 4.43
Memory size 512MB (1 DIMM)
Memory type Corsair XMS3200 PC2700 DDR SDRAM
Sound Creative SoundBlaster Live!
Storage Maxtor DiamondMax Plus D740X 7200RPM ATA/133 hard drive
OS Microsoft Windows XP Professional
OS updates Service Pack 1

The test system’s Windows desktop was set at 1024×768 in 32-bit color at an 85Hz screen refresh rate. Vertical refresh sync (vsync) was disabled for all tests.

We used the revision 6.13.10.6200 drivers for the ATI cards and NVIDIA’s Detonator 40.72 WHQL drivers for the NVIDIA cards.

We used the following versions of our test applications:

All the tests and methods we employed are publicly available and reproducible. If you have questions about our methods, hit our forums to talk with us about them.

 

The competitors
You’ll notice that we’re testing the 9500 Pro against a range of cards. We’ve included a Radeon 9700 Pro card, plus a plain ol’ Radeon 9700. The Radeon 9700 is another new card from ATI, and it’s nothing more than a 9700 Pro that runs at a slightly lower clock speed and sells at a slightly lower price. That card will be interesting to watch, because its 275/540MHz clock rate is identical to the 9500 Pro’s, but it has twice the memory bandwidth thanks to its quad 64-bit memory controllers. The 9500 has only two 64-bit memory controllers, so the contrast will tell us a lot about how memory bandwidth affects performance.

However, the most important matchup here—and the one to which we’ll devote most of our attention—is the Radeon 9500 Pro versus the GeForce4 Ti 4200, because they’re direct competitors. You’ll note that we’re using the new AGP 8X-capable version of the GF4 Ti 4200. (The 9500 Pro supports AGP 8X, too.) This card has 128MB of memory, and it runs at core and memory clock speeds of 275MHz and 512MHz, respectively. This is the card the 9500 Pro has to beat in order to fulfill its mission.

Finally, remember that we’re stuck once again reviewing an R300-based product with DirectX 8-class applications, at best. The 9500 Pro will be most impressive when it can make use of its floating-point color precision and the like, but the software to benchmark performance with FP color just isn’t here yet. We’ll be testing the 9500 Pro as most folks will have to use it for the time being: as a DX8-class chip.

Fill rate
Graphics performance very often comes down to pixel-pushing power at the end of the day, and this kind of power (fill rate) is generally a function of some basics of chip design and clock speed. The table below shows the key capacities and clock rates of the most common new GPUs, so you can see where the 9500 Pro fits in.

  Core clock (MHz) Pixel pipelines  Peak fill rate (Mpixels/s) Texture units per pixel pipeline Peak fill rate (Mtexels/s) Memory clock (MHz) Memory bus width (bits) Peak memory bandwidth (GB/s)
GeForce4 MX 440 8X 275 2 550 2 1100 512 128 8.2
GeForce4 Ti 4200 8X 250 4 1000 2 2000 512 128 8.2
Radeon 9500 275 4 1100 1 1100 540 128 8.6
Radeon 9500 Pro 275 8 2200 1 2200 540 128 8.6
Radeon 9000 Pro 275 4 1100 1 1100 550 128 8.8
GeForce4 Ti 4400  275 4 1100 2 2200 550 128 8.8
GeForce4 Ti 4600

300

4 1200 2 2400 650 128 10.4
Radeon 9700 275 8 2200 1 2200 540 256 17.3
Radeon 9700 Pro 325 8 2600 1 2600 620 256 19.8
Parhelia-512 220 4 880 4 3520 550 256 17.6

The 9500 Pro looks a little different from the older chip designs above, because it has eight pixel pipelines capable of laying down only one texture per rendering pass each. By contrast, the GF4 Ti 4200 has a four-pipe design with two texture units per pipe. This important difference gives the 9500 Pro twice the pixel fill rate of the Ti 4200. All told, the 9500 Pro has higher pixel and texel fill rates than the Ti 4200, and more memory bandwidth, as well.

Here’s how the numbers translate into performance in 3DMark’s synthetic fill rate tests.

The 9500 Pro beats the Ti 4200 by a fairly small margin in both pixel and texel fill rate tests. Notice how much slower the 9500 Pro is than the Radeon 9700 in the single-textured test. No doubt the 9500 Pro’s lesser memory bandwidth is holding it back here. However, the 9500 Pro ties with the identically clocked Radeon 9700 in the multitexturing test.

Here are our results for 1280×1024 resolution compared to the chips’ theoretical peak fill rates.

The 9500 Pro proves to be very efficient with multi-texturing, as are all of the cards.

 

Occlusion detection
This next test will show us how efficient the 9500 Pro is at discarding pixels that won’t be visible once the final 3D scene is rendered. ATI’s HyperZ suite of technologies aims to eliminate occluded pixels, so valuable processing time isn’t wasted. Our occlusion detection test, VillageMark, is a torture test for this sort of thing.

Here you can see the R300’s HyperZ tech in action. ATI has included a feature called EarlyZ in the R300 chip that basically eliminates occluded pixels, and the payoff is obvious. Even the faster (clock speed-wise) and more expense GF4 Ti 4600 can’t keep pace with the 9500 Pro here. Newer technology wins out over brute force.

 

Pixel shader performance
For the sake of next-generation games and 3D apps, perhaps nothing matters more than pixel shader performance. Once high-level shading languages become the norm for graphics developers, pixel-processing power will be the new performance bottleneck. These pixel shader tests will give us some indication of how these cards will perform when that day comes. We’ll start with 3DMark’s pixel shader tests, and then move to NVIDIA’s own ChameleonMark. Remember that, in every case, we are only using DirectX 8.0/8.1-class pixel shading functions—nothing terribly fancy.

The Radeon 9500 Pro outperforms the GF4 Ti 4200 by 50 to 100% in 3DMark’s pixel shader tests. The more complex Advanced Pixel Shader test widens the gap between the two.

ATI’s next-gen R300 chip simply outclasses the GeForce4 Ti chip in pixel-processing capacity, because the R300 has double the pixel shaders the GF4 Ti does. For next-gen 3D apps, it will be no contest.

 
Polygon throughput and vertex shader performance
Now that we’ve measured pixel fill rates and shading capacity, we’ll make a couple more stops in our synthetic tests before moving on to real games and 3D apps. The tests below measure polygon processing power, both in the newer, more flexible vertex shader units common to all the chips here, and in older, fixed-function transform and lighting units. The Radeon 9500 Pro has four next-gen vertex shader units running in parallel, each with a 128-bit vector processor and a 32-bit scalar processor, so the 9500 Pro ought to be very fast here.

As expected, the Radeon 9500 Pro trounces the GeForce4 Ti 4200 in vertex shader throughput. Now let’s look at fixed-function tranform and lighting, which is more widely used in today’s games. Also note, as a rule, that graphics chips with vertex shader units tend to implement T&L as a vertex shader program rather than with a separate, fixed-function hardware T&L unit.

Here again, the 9500 Pro bests the Ti 4200, but the gap is narrower.

AGP write performance
For the sake of completeness, I’ll include a round of tests of AGP texture download performance. What we’re talking about here is the ability to move rendered images from a graphics card’s local memory over the AGP bus into main memory. Games don’t generally have a need to transfer data to main memory, but applications like video processing tools and high-quality rendering programs do. Please see my article on this subject if you want to know more.

NVIDIA fixed the AGP texture download problem in its latest driver release, but ATI (and Matrox) have told us they are not currently planning to dedicate resources to address this problem. Until that happens, ATI cards won’t be entirely suitable for real-time digital video editing systems, and they will be limited in their ability to save images rendered in Direct3D-based programs to main memory or to disk. We’ll keep watching to see if the situation changes.

 

Quake III Arena
Finally, we’re ready for the game tests, where all this theory gets put into practice. We’ll start with Quake III Arena, which is too old to make use of pixel or vertex shaders. We’re testing Q3A with a recorded demo from a CPL match between fatality and Daler. You can grab the demo from our server here, at least until we find out the thing is copyrighted somehow.

The NVIDIA cards reign supreme in this older game, as the 4200 beats the 9500 Pro and the GF4 Ti 4600 even whups up on the Radeon 9700 Pro.

Comanche 4

The shader-aware Comanche 4 is another story. For the most part, this game is limited by CPU or system bottlenecks, but when the resolution increases, the ATI cards carve out a lead. The 9500 Pro beats both the Ti 4200 and the Ti 4600 in this DX8 game.

Codecreatures Benchmark Pro

Codecreatures’ cool little demo of its gaming engine software uses pixel shaders to nice effect, and the Radeon 9500 Pro handles this one a little faster than the Ti 4200.

 

Unreal Tournament 2003
UT 2003 is the first great DirectX 8-class first-person shooter, and it’s a perfect battleground for the cards we’re testing today. We tested with the cold, HardOCP’s UT2003 benchmarking utility, with both low- and high-detail settings.

As the UT2003 announcer would say (shortly before I throttle his neck violently): “Ownage!” The 9500 Pro outruns even the GF4 Ti 4600 in UT2003, demonstrating that all our theory about pixel and vertex shading power isn’t just a bunch of talk. The 9500 Pro’s technology advantages make a difference in real-world games.

 

Serious Sam SE
To keep things even, I used Serious Sam’s “default quality” add-on, so the game engine’s auto-tuning features would be held in check.

Like Quake III Arena, Serious Sam SE is an OpenGL game that doesn’t use pixel or vertex shaders, and it shows. The 9500 is slower than the Ti 4200 at all but the highest resolution. Notice, though, how the gap between the two cards grows smaller as the display resolution goes up. The 9500 Pro’s fill rate advantage shows through here.

Now, let’s look at our ever-funky Serious Sam second-by-second frame rate graphs to see how all these average frame rate numbers get generated.

All the cards perform quite similarly in terms of peaks, valleys, and the like. If you look closely, you can see the shape of the cards’ lines change as they move from being limited by the game engine, poly throughput, or driver execution (as are all cards at 640×480) to being limited by fill rate and memory bandwidth. For instance, the Ti 4200’s line changes dramatically at 1280×1024, and at 1600×1200, the Ti 4600 and Radeon 9500 Pro lines take on a similar shape. The Radeon 9700 and 9700 Pro don’t appear to be too terribly fill-rate limited at 1600×1200.

 

3DMark2001 SE

The 9500 Pro performs well in that great arbiter of forum bragging rights, 3DMark. Of course, we expected this, because we saw the 9500 Pro whup up on the GF4 Ti cards in 3DMark’s synthetic tests. Let’s see what happens in 3DMark’s gaming tests.

The 9500 Pro consistently outpaces the Ti 4200, and it steals a victory over the Ti 4600 in the Lobby test.

 

Workstation-class applications

SPEC’s viewperf suite tests a different type of 3D app: lots of polygons, not many textures, lots of wireframes, and ample use of OpenGL lighting. The 9500 Pro holds up well, nearly keeping up with its more expensive R300-based siblings.

 

Edge antialiasing
We’ll bust up our antialiasing performance analysis into two components: edge AA and texture AA. There’s a lot of theory behind the antialiasing capabilities of the GeForce4 Ti and R300 chips. If you’re not familiar with it, go here and read up. You’ll get the basics of the Radeon 9500/9700 cards’ edge antialiasing capabilities, plus screenshots of the R300 chip’s AA in action. Because the 9500 Pro is based on the same chip as the 9700 Pro, its image output, including AA, is identical to the 9700 Pro.

To refresh your memory, the R300 implements multisampled antialiasing with a programmable (non-grid) jitter pattern and gamma-corrected blends. The chip can collect two, four, or six samples per pixel. Multisampled AA is efficient because it avoids unnecessary texture reads, and the R300 adds even more efficiency by using a color compression engine between the chip and the color buffer when AA is active.

In other words: looks good, goes fast. Here’s the proof.

You can see how the GeForce 4 cards’ lines shoot downward at a much sharper angle than the Radeon cards’ as the number of AA samples increases. By the time we reach 4X AA at 1280×1024, the Radeon 9500 Pro is running much faster than the GeForce4 Ti cards. In fact, the Radeon 9500 Pro at 6X AA is faster than the GeForce4 Ti 4600 at 4X AA.

 

Texture antialiasing
Edge antialiasing is all well and good, but I think texture AA has a more dramatic impact on image quality. You can get a dose of texture filtering theory and screenshots here.

I used Quake III to test the cards’ ability to handle the various degrees of anisotropic and trilinear texture filtering of which they’re capable. As with edge AA, the 9500 Pro can handle more samples than the GeForce4 Ti cards. We don’t have results for 16X aniso for the GF4 Ti cards because they max out at 8X.

The trend here is similar to the trend for edge AA. As the filtering strength increases, the Radeon chips perform relatively better.

 

Doing the DX9 thing
I installed the Radeon 9500 Pro in my Shuttle SB51G cube, which is currently home to an early release candidate of DirectX 9 and ATI’s DX9 demos for the Radeon 9700 Pro. My goal was to find out how well the 9500 Pro could handle the floating-point color modes used in these demos, because I had some concern the 9500 Pro’s limited memory bandwidth would make these high-color modes practically unworkable. To my surprise, the 9500 Pro ran all of the demos with nary a hiccup or slowdown. Some absolutely gorgeous rendering is possible on the 9500 Pro in real time, and it’s hard to believe this kind of power is available for under $200.

In case you missed it, I’ll post again here some of the screenshots I took from ATI’s demos. All of these demos look just like this, and run fluidly, on the Radeon 9500 Pro.

 

Conclusions
I structured this review so that—I hope—you could get a clear sense of the Radeon 9500 Pro’s capabilities. I won’t belabor the point now. The Radeon 9500 Pro outperforms its chief rival, the GeForce4 Ti 4200, in nearly every important way. Only in older games can the Ti 4200 snag a win or two. The 9500 Pro has significantly more computational power, in terms of both pixel and vertex processing, than either the GeForce4 Ti 4200 or its big brother, the Ti 4600. Its eight-pipeline design gives the 9500 Pro real-world performance advantages, and the whole of the R300 chip is simply more efficient than the GeForce4 Ti GPU. The more advanced features you turn on—shaders, edge antialiasing, texture filtering—the more the Radeon chips jump ahead of the GeForce4s. And the Radeon 9500 Pro has amazing cinematic rendering capabilities waiting to be unlocked when DirectX 9 arrives in earnest.

It’s no contest. NVIDIA’s product line is a generation behind, and with the debut of the Radeon 9500 Pro, there’s little reason left to buy a GeForce4. I would take a Radeon 9500 Pro over a GeForce4 Ti 4200, easy, but don’t stop there. I’d rather have a 9500 Pro than a GeForce4 Ti 4600, too. The Ti 4600’s few advantages in older games aren’t as impressive to me as the 9500 Pro’s merits.

ATI says the Radeon 9500 Pro will jump out of the gate with a $20 rebate on its retail list price of $199. That kind of pricing puts the 9500 Pro nearly on par with the GeForce4 Ti 4200 8X, and I’d expect street prices to be lower than list, especially once ATI’s manufacturing partners like Hercules and Tyan get rolling. At prices like that, the 9500 Pro should become very popular, almost overnight. Also, consider this: with NVIDIA’s high-end GeForce FX slated to arrive no sooner than February, it could be four to six months before NVIDIA has a proper, mid-priced answer to the 9500 Pro. That reality will leave a lot of folks asking: why wait? The 9500 Pro is a compelling reason not to. 

Comments closed
    • Anonymous
    • 16 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 16 years ago

    seek help

    • Anonymous
    • 16 years ago

    There is more to cleaning out old video driver besides regedit.
    You need to pull that gerbil outta your ass…..

    • Anonymous
    • 16 years ago

    Fools rush in.
    wait a while and the cards get cheap and actually work.

    • Anonymous
    • 16 years ago

    you are an idiot a complete install of the os.
    you obviously don’t know what you are talking about
    ever hear of regedit? anyway i use linux so i am superior to you anyway.

    • Anonymous
    • 16 years ago

    *[http://www.overclockers.com<]§ to the forums and search their vid card section for nvidia vs ati threads, you\'ll see how big this debate really is and who comes out on top every time. NVidia rule in the driver department, but thats about it........

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    DONT BUY ANY NVIDIA CARDS OR CHIPSETS THEY JUST CRASH CASE CLOSED

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    The ATI Radeon 9500 Pro has done nothing but cause me problems to be fucking ohnest!
    my counter-strike fps is mad.. so jumpy!
    In conclusion… dont buy the Radeon 9500 pro!
    STICK WITH Nvidia

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    ATI’s radeon 9500 -9700+ series *NEEDS* a psu with 300 watts or more, dont worry thought, it ait gonna blow your psu up 🙂

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    I wanted to upgrade to Sapphires 9500 Pro from my old Geforce2MX.
    The Performance was really cool and the cooling noise was not so loud.
    But the quality of the driver was poor: I couldn’t get the refresh rate to anything higher than 60 Hz, even with Rage3DTweaker or HzTool.
    The other thing was, that there where display errors with several games, DirectX and OpenGL. In a Counter-Strike map the ceiling textures where missing/black and although I had AGP aperture to maximum available RAM sometimes games where stuttering.

    I will make one final test and reinstall the whole system that I haven’t done yet (win98se). If that fails too I return the card to my dealer and get a GF-ti4200 instead.

    Needless to say that my coolerfree GF2MX works slower but flawlessly…

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    I have went through 5 video cards in about 2 months. I started with a three of nVidia boards GeForce 4ti 4200 and two different MFG of the 4600 and I had nothing but problems. Lockups one right after another and finally returneing them.

    I them bought a 9500 Pro and my system was working wonderfully. Everything ran perfect, but then I got greedy and wanted to try the 9700 Pro and my machine went to hell again. This time much worse. I could turn on my computer without going into windows XP in Safe mode and then rebooting normally. After I finally got it loaded it would lock up in UT2003, Counter-strike and Generals.

    I have tried installing new drivers, old drivers, forcing 2X, slowing my ram speed; it was doing better but the performance was going below the 9500 Pro I once had. So I got fed up and returned it for another 9500 Pro. So far so good.
    ======
    Dual PIII -1.0 1gig ram, Tyan 230T MOBO, 17 Viewsonic, Sound Blaster Audigy.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    i’m on my 2nd 9500 pro try.. first card was crap so i sent it back, got the new one in and my computer is crashing left and right (no problems with my geforce3), updated drivers, still crashed.. reformatted, still crashed, put into another computer, still crashed.. but i’m still playing with it. i’m not one to give up on ATI just yet…btw… anyone know what the power supply requirements are for the 9500 pro? thanks

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Your problem is not ATI 9500 But that shit called Asus p4s8x-x that sucks. I’ve had the Same problem and i solved whith a downgrade(bus AGP 4x) Asus P4s533-E and it also woks whith PAPE PE (bus AGP 4x) i’m waiting for a bios revision for Asus p4s8x-x soon!!!!!!!!(sucks a lot).

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    i to own own the a dreaded radeon card 9500 pro (prostituted raduis orfice)

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    i own two computers both have epox ep-8rda+ motherboards with same os windows pro. same ram 512, same hard drive 40gb, 420 watt power supply the rest does not matter. the big difference is one has a geforce ti4400 no problems what so every good driver support great graphics not one problems the other computer has yeah you guessed it ati radeon 9500 pro.. not very good graphics my geforce kicked its ass. very poor support with bad drivers with consistent problems. blank screens in games, very dark play back in all 25 games i own.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    As a matter of fact I do own a Radeon I want a different card, they’re drivers do suck, they can’t seem to get them right, they fix one thing, then another thing is broken.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    I have 3 PCs and in two of them I have the nvidia geoforce cards and in one the ti 4200. In my latest venture I installed an ATI 9500 pro and then compared the visual quality and there is no doubt that the ATI 9500 outperforms the nvidia cards especially when it comes to the visual aspects. I then did a little surfing and discovered that what I was seeing was more than just anti-nvidia rhetoric the card (the 9700 pro in particular) simply does nvidia in and thier new offering the GF FX although faster has a lot of issues that make it not worth the bother such as serious overheating. I only wished I had purchased the 9700 Pro instead but the 9500 does not take much of a back seat. HG

    • steelhead
    • 17 years ago

    I recently built a new system with p4 2.53 ghz,asus p4s8x board, 512 pc2700 ram and a 9500pro card. I’ve got big problems with games hanging up and a beeping sound from somewhere internal. The more data that is processed the more it beeps. I’ve spent a great deal of time with ati help and installed new drivers for my board and card but nothing works. I put an old ati 7000 pci card in it and the beeping went away.

    What am I doing wrong? What is left to do?

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Fan Noise on 9500PRO

    I’m considering purchasing the ATI Radeon 9500 PRO for a quiet PC. What is the noise level of this card?

    Thanks

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    im going to be purchasing a new computer very soon and am stuck with the whole Radeon/GeForce issue. This article totaly helped in my decission except….The damn AGP problem. Why the hell wont ATI consider fixing it? does anyone have any leads on that, because im an avid digital video editor and a 20meg a sec compared to a 120meg, is a huuuuge jump. I dont want to buy an ATI anticipating an upgrade taht will never happen. if not i might just have to….icantsayit….go down the GeForce path!

    Help me!!!

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    i own a club radeon 9000 pro 128 mb ddr
    …..
    it sucks!
    the chip is great and if programmed correctly can do amazing thinfgs but the drivers suck big time!i cant get any game working unless i hack the registry settigns…

    It sucks man every time i need to change a game i must remember in what settings the game is compatible with my card and except from all of that the windows device manager recognizes my card as powercolor radeon9000 pro evil commando…

    Club-3d also suck more than ati developers!

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    FACT 11: The ATI CEO(?) confirmed that the R350 WILL be out Q1 2003.
    FACT 12: Many Nvidia followers will fall in love with the GFfx do to the suck and blow mechanism.
    FACT 13: GFfx will replace many erotic toys, including the rubber doll.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    all you people suck! I own a voodoo2 sli mode!!!!!!!! heheh

    FACT 7: geforcefx will be almost a yr old before released.
    FACT 8: Radeon has better IQ
    FACT 9: Radeon OWNZ
    FACT 0: Nvidia marketing is very poor, immature and dirty.
    FACT 007: James Bond prefers Ati.. The way it is playing..

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    As of Nov 29th, ATI has linux drivers for their Radeons!

    • ChangWang
    • 17 years ago

    Hiya,

    Over the weekend I upgraded from a Ti 4200 to a 9700 Pro. So far I have yet to have any issues with over 40 titles (old and new) that I have tried so far and I still have about 30 more to go. Guys, give it up. ATi has done a pretty bang up job in the driver department of late. I did have to do a re-format before I got all the speed outta the card, but thats to be expected when changing from one company to another.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    FACT 1: ATI are owning Nvidia in frame rate
    FACT 2: Nvidia tries to frighten us with DoomIII fps predictions
    FACT 3: Next Nvidia chipset needs large active heat sink
    FACT 4 :Nvidia likes to promote vapo-ware lately
    FACT 5: Many happy users and supporters of ATI cards
    FACT 6: ATI competes very well on price

    What is the issue?
    (And I currently own a GF4 Ti)

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Talking about assembly lines… the GFFX looks like an assembly line disaster – what a Frankenstein of a graphics card.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    edit to below, last line:
    …the GFFX isn’t at the end of its assembly line…

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    I have around 30 games, and play at least one of the demos in PC magazines (CGW, PCG, MaxPC, etc.) every month (this month it’s Impossible Creatures and Links 2003, and I’m still enjoying last month’s Madden 2003 demo).

    The only problem I’ve had was with a certain shadow setting in the NOLF2 demo that would cause a hang in a cut-scene, and with enabling 3D model characters in Grim Fandango. Neither problem rendered the games unplayable, and I have yet to encounter a game that wouldn’t play on my Radeon 8500.

    But nVidia fans still love to cling to their “perfect drivers” fallacy. I just loved the video that’s going around the net showing the GeForceFX crashing twice, including one BSOD, during a 5 minute presentation on a European gaming show (the link provided by 195 below). No driver is perfect, but if you follow the instructions usually contained in the readme file, neither ATi nor nVidia owners would have many problems with their drivers at all.

    But to actually defend nVidia this time (in regards to the GFFX BSOD), the GeForceFX is still around two months or more away from going on sale; I’d blame the guy who decided to take an unfinished card to show the public more than I’d blame the drivers. You don’t walk into the middle of an automobile assembly line, jump in a car, and expect to drive away with no problems; the GFFX isn’t at the assembly line, and they have people taking it out for a spin.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    AG195

    you are starting to show your true ignorance. is that all you have to fall back on? ATi’s drivers appear to be better than Nvidia’s at this time

    check this out §[< http://www.giga.de/help/helpnite/grafik2.wmv<]§ so I guess it is time for you to open mouth and insert foot HOW DOES IT TASTE!!!!

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    ATi users just like to deny that ATi still sucks in the driver dept. They play maybe one or two games, say that they have no “issues,” and then supposedly ATi’s driver “issues” are non-existent. Yeah, whatever…

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Telling ATI fanboys their drivers suck is like telling linux fanboys their OS is too hard to use.

    The ATI fanboy says “Why, that’s not a problem, all you have to do is remove your AGP driver!”

    The linux fanboy says “Why, that’s not a problem, all you have to do is type ls /lib/libc-* rpm –install -pv compat-NS-libstdc++-6.21-2.9.0.0.i386.rpm! | /y”.

    Then they both go back to wondering why their respective computing interests just won’t take off with ordinary people.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    [q]But I guess when GeForce owners have a problem it must be their fault, while when Radeon owners have a problem it’s the ATi fault.[/q]
    For the most part, YES.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Can you be any more vague, 190?

    Of course ATi drivers aren’t perfect, just like nVidia’s drivers aren’t perfect. “Non-issue” means that you’re just as likely to have a problem with a nVidia driver as with an ATi driver. Just as [url=http://66.224.5.66/board/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=59]ATi owners[/url] have problems, so do [url=http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?s=b90103ce7554809537ac224c261c7f3b&forumid=26]nVidia owners[/url].

    But I guess when GeForce owners have a problem it must be their fault, while when Radeon owners have a problem it’s the ATi fault.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    [q]ATi’s drivers are a non-issue when considering whether or not to buy an ATi product, and have been a non-issue for a while.[/q]
    Is that why people went back to using their NVIDIA video cards after having problems with their new ATi video card? “Non-issue” my ass.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    “One thing I liked about ATi was that they were trying hard.
    Unfortunately, my mom wants a GF4 ti4200 and who am I to complain or else I’d just blow the whole idea of having a new computer.”

    Well my dad, he likes ati and hes stronger than your mom.

    how old are you child? Or should I say how unfortunate you are? Ok, I bought your sorry ass drivel. Whats next dicknose?

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    One thing I liked about ATi was that they were trying hard.
    Unfortunately, my mom wants a GF4 ti4200 and who am I to complain or else I’d just blow the whole idea of having a new computer.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    375mHz! The Radeon 9900 essences frequencies promote
    Author: unika publication time: 2002-11-26 11:26:55 ITNOW

    ATi in April, 2003 issue next generation of graph chip Radeon 9900, will use the R350 graph essence, the enhancement 0.15 micro &#31859;&#21046; regulation, essence speed 375mHz, will match 128-bit 128/256MB DDR-II reveals saves, reveals saves operating frequency 400MHzcDdr (equivalent 800MHz), anticipated Radeon 9900 will use reveals saves the band width optimization technology, moreover, ATi in the end of next year will issue the R400 graph chip will use 256-bit DDR-II reveals saves.
    §[<
    http://itlab.itnow.com.cn/articles/20021126/2002112611265513255-1.shtml< ]§ Recently some news indicated, ATi R350 by the naming will be Radeon 9900, will use 0.13 microns craft production, core frequency 375mHz, reveals saves uses 128-bit 128/256MB DDR-II reveals saves, reveals saves frequency 400MHzcDdr, will estimate in the next year second quarter surface city. But ATi the next generation of product R400 graph chip will be published in the end of next year, will be able to use 256-bit DDR-II reveals saves. §[<http://www.myit365.com/new/show_hangqing.asp?ID=5888< ]§ ATi new movement: R350 the official naming is Radeon 9900 According to news which most newly transmits, after continues Radeon 9700 Pro (R300), ATi the next generation of graph chip R350 official name is will named Radeon 9900, Radeon 9900 will be able to use 0.13 micro &#31859;&#21046; regulation, by will have the possibility continues to use 0.15 micro &#31859;&#21046; regulation. The Radeon 9900 essences / reveal save the operating frequency are higher than ATi at present Radeon 9700 Pro, simultaneously same with ncVidia GeforcecFx, will match DDR-II reveals saves, but stemming from will reduce the cost the consideration, Radeon9900 reveals saves the band width maintains at 128-bit, will not be able to use 256-bit reveals saves the band width. At the appointed time, nvidia GeforcecFx will meet the powerful competitor. §[<http://www.zenha.net/news/20021126_20.htm<]§

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    ramjet73 –

    No, #180 is not me (AG #171). I can at least spell “ahead” and “guarantee” correctly. I also don’t make shit up. Isn’t “light years a head” (hehe spelling ;)) just a bit of an exaggeration?

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    [quote]170 –

    Tell that to the millions of people who bought NVIDIA cards over the past 4 years. People wouldn’t keep buying them if the image quality sucked–or, could it just be due to ATi’s driver issues? Hmm…

    I’ve owned a TNT (Canopus Spectra 2500), and currently own both a GF2 and GF3 (both VisionTek). The 2D/3D image quality is excellent on all of them[/quote]

    I can guarentee you that no matter how good the I/Q of the Nvidia cards are, the ATi cards are light years a head.

    Each Generation of Nvidia cards promises better IQ but the problem is everyone else is at least 1 step a head

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    For a moment, I thought it was Yoda.

    • shaker
    • 17 years ago

    [b]”new Radeon ( R350) was baptized Radeon 9900. His(her) core would be etre engraved(burnt) in 0.13 microns can – and the used memory would be for knocks sure by the DDR2. This one should thus have frequencies of functioning higher than intended NV30.”[/b]

    Forgive me, but I found that amusing. (a translation, I assume)

    All yuor base are belong to us.

    Heh.

    I’ve owned a Rage 128 card, and it was buggy and slow in a lot of games. The present drivers are light-years beyond those days. I think that ATI actually listened to the myriad of complaints and pretty much has addressed the issue. As it’s been said here, the best hardware can be crippled by crappy drivers.

    (Note to ATI: Look into testing your cards on machines with un-installed nVidia hardware and drivers.)

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Ati has been in business since around 1985 I believe. Nvidia was formed in 1993.

    It seems to me that the majority of the people who have problems with ATi drivers own nVidia cards (which I guess that’s why they’re having problems – ATi drivers only work in ATi cards :))

    ATi’s drivers are a non-issue when considering whether or not to buy an ATi product, and have been a non-issue for a while.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Many nVidia fans don’t want to hear it, but ATI is now more than one development cycle ahead – the 9700 Pro is not an anomally. ATI drivers have improved dramatically and will continue to do so. Besides their strong committment to catalyst driver development, ATI is seeing increasing numbers of developers now designing games with the Radeon 9700 Pro as their reference card, instead of nVidia’s Ti 4600. This will only help to improve ATI’s already-excellent catalyst drivers.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    ATi R350 the official naming is Radeon 9900? – 2002-11-25 12:25:32.467 P rabbit infant |
    According to news which most newly transmits, after continues Radeon 9700 Pro (R300), ATi the next generation of graph chip R350 official name is will named Radeon 9900, Radeon 9900 will be able to use 0.13 micro &#31859;&#21046; regulation, by will have the possibility
    continues to use 0.15 micro &#31859;&#21046; regulation. The Radeon 9900 essences / reveal save the operating frequency are higher than ATi at present Radeon 9700 Pro, simultaneously same with ncVidia GeforcecFx, will match DDR-II reveals saves, but stemming from will reduce the cost the consideration, Radeon9900 reveals saves the band width maintains at 128-bit, will not be able to use 256-bit reveals saves the band width. At the appointed time, nvidia GeforcecFx will meet
    the powerful competitor.
    §[<
    http://news.mydrivers.com/page/dir17/2002,11,25,8488.htm< ]§ ATi the Radeon 9900 graphs chips operating frequency forestalls to divulge - 2002-11-25 14:50:59.997 P rabbit infant | ATi in April, 2003 issue next generation of graph chip Radeon 9900, will use the R350 graph essence, the enhancement 0.15 micro &#31859;&#21046; regulation, essence speed 375mHz, will match 128-bit 128/256MB DDR-II reveals saves, reveals saves operating frequency 400MHzcDdr (equivalent 800MHz), anticipated Radeon 9900 will use reveals saves the band width optimization technology, moreover, ATi in the end of next year will issue the R400 graph chip will use 256-bit DDR-II reveals saves. §[<http://news.mydrivers.com/page/dir17/2002,11,25,8491.htm#null< ]§ ATi the Radeon 9900 graphs chips operating frequency forestalls to divulge UNIKA hardware news net - UNIKA P rabbit infant.11 months on 25th 15:20 Reading number of times: 550 ATi in April, 2003 issue next generation of graph chip Radeon 9900, will use the R350 graph essence, the enhancement 0.15 micro &#31859;&#21046; regulation, essence speed 375mHz, will match 128-bit 128/256MB DDR-II reveals saves, reveals saves operating frequency 400MHzcDdr (equivalent 800MHz), anticipated Radeon 9900 will use reveals saves the band width optimization technology, moreover, ATi in the end of next year will issue the R400 graph chip will use 256-bit DDR-II reveals saves. §[<http://unika.net/readItem.php?id=12118<]§

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    I like living in the past. I’d still be 21yrs old. Ati drivers are frickin awesome!!!! Im running xp on 8500le clocked at 275\275 and my 3dmarks are well over 10000. hmm. Image quality has always been superior that of any geforce and hey I can play all my games without problems… all the geforces have no improvement to IQ at all. same technology, no improvements other than speed.. yay, big fricken deal..My 8500 runs smooth for me and will be definetly awaiting my 9500pro to piss on your ti crap series parade… Why dont we go neck and neck, I’ll bring my system to a generic location, like a motel or something and lets compare shall we? I’ll bet you friggin nvidiots 1000 dollars that all my games will run equal to or faster than a geforce3 ti500 and with better IQ!!!!!!!!!!! Lets see where your aa will compete against my af? sharper images……..can you say shooter?

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    #170 –

    Tell that to the millions of people who bought NVIDIA cards over the past 4 years. People wouldn’t keep buying them if the image quality sucked–or, could it just be due to ATi’s driver issues? Hmm…

    I’ve owned a TNT (Canopus Spectra 2500), and currently own both a GF2 and GF3 (both VisionTek). The 2D/3D image quality is excellent on all of them.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    You must be very anal my friend because using your logic about how Ati sucks because you perceive that they have bad drivers would leave me to beleive that Nvidia must suck really bad because their drivers have just as many problems.

    And wether you like it or not Nvidia has had IQ problems that date back all the way to the Riva 128 days. Even rendition’s Vertite 2K series had way better image quality… Dam boi you think Nvidia would have figured it out by now

    Riva 128 image quality sucked it even has rendering errors in Jedi knight that are not resolved to this day..
    TNT image quality sucked
    TNT-2 image quality sucked
    TNT-2 Ultra image quality sucked
    Gforce 256 image quality sucked
    Gforce2 image quality sucked
    Gforce 3 image quality sucked

    I would definately venture to say that even a Savage 2000 has better image quality than any of the cards listed above….

    Oh lets not talk about how each series of detonators make older chips in the same family perform worse… that is really kind of odd now isn’t it?

    Talk about being anal

    the GforceFX is going to be a year late and worse yet it will not be able to outperform the radeon 9700 in some situations especially when it comes down to highres high color AA and Ansio settings

    [q]
    #157 –

    Are you that frickin’ anal? I could post over a hundred ATi driver problem links from the Rage 3D forums if I wanted to, but there’s no reason to. Just go there and read. Is this supposed to be some contest now? Get a life.

    You’re right. The ATi driver issues (I never said “sucks”) are BS, that’s why I won’t buy an ATi video card. [/q]

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    [q]…it sounds like a lot of you care more about who makes the card rather than how the card works and most importantly, the price of the card.[q]
    Given ATi’s past reputation, is it any wonder? When I see the MANY driver complaint issues listed over on the RAGE 3D forums, I just shake my head.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Im really excited about the 9500pro. I have the Asus ti4200 and just feel ripped off as i paid 600 canadian. and to think that the 9500 pro kicks my cards arse for 300, who would be so stupid to pass this up?? hmmm. Im not fanATIc nor an Nvidiot, though Ati has really made a turn around with drivers, compatibility and performance. CHEAPER.. fanATIcism here I come, heheh..

    • d0g_p00p
    • 17 years ago

    AG #166. True ATi does have the superior product. However the hardware is useless if the drivers do not function correctly, and this is the case with ATi. Also if you think $399.00 is the correct price for you to play the game at the highest setting, then more power to you.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    man, I cant believe some of you peeps. ATI obviously has the sepirior product ATM and the only thing you can bring up is the drivers, which is a thing of the past. I could care less who makes the product as long as the product is worth my money. Fuck the company name could be “ass muncher” for all care as long as it gives me the power to play the newest games at the highest settings and for the right price… it sounds like a lot of you care more about who makes the card rather than how the card works and most importantly, the price of the card.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    [q]and the list goes on and on and on and on and on…[/q]

    Yeah, but most of the problems people are having with NVIDIA drivers tend to be user error, especially when it comes to the 60 Hz refresh rate problem. That problem is easily fixed, and isn’t a NVIDIA driver problem at all, but rather a WinXP problem.

    In all of the years of owning NVIDIA cards (since 1998), the only “OFFICIAL” drivers that I found to be somewhat buggy are the latest WHQL 40.72 drivers and the 23.11 drivers. The 23.11 drivers compromised stability for speed, so, it’s no suprise people bitched about lockups and “loop errors.” No one forced them to use these drivers.

    But, this debate over drivers is pointless, since there are no REAL numbers on which company has a higher rate of driver problems.

    • d0g_p00p
    • 17 years ago

    Thats great. Could you ATi lovers please be a little more original and stop calling people who use nVidia cards “Nvidiots”? it just shows your stupidity and puts you in the same league as Linux fanboys who love to spell Microsoft as Micro$oft.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Yeah Chameleonmark is a great game, even more fun than SiSoft Membench and almost as good as Bapco. Idiot.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    What is “ownage”? The word doesn’t exist.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    if you wanna see ownage go check out the ChameleonMark benchmark… thx

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Yes, 10% lead = ownage. Idiot.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    UMM how much did the TI4600 cost when it first came out?!!? $200? I dont think so, how about $400, thats about right. So next time you guys think about comparing cards ake sure you are comparing the mid-range to mid-range(mainstream) and High-end to high-end. Besided the 9700 non-pro, which is gonna be the same price as the 4600 will have no problem wiping the floor with it… Right now im gonna get me a 9500pro and be happy with it while the Nvidiots wait for their precious GFFX

    /rant

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    #157 –

    Are you that frickin’ anal? I could post over a hundred ATi driver problem links from the Rage 3D forums if I wanted to, but there’s no reason to. Just go there and read. Is this supposed to be some contest now? Get a life.

    You’re right. The ATi driver issues (I never said “sucks”) are BS, that’s why I won’t buy an ATi video card.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    the point is that when it comes to FSAA and ANSIO it does own the 4600 and better yet when it comes to newer games it does own it as well

    wether you like it or not it is good for Ati to have taken the lead position as it will force Nvidia to give us more features in their products…..and it will cause better competition

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    never used a GeForce

    upgraded video cards twice (Rage to Radeon to 9000)

    never had a problem with drivers.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    But the 9500 Pro doesn’t beat the 4600 all around, look at the actual game scores.

    The 4600 takes Quake 3 by better than 50%, Serious Sam by better than 20%, ties in Comanche 4 and loses in UT2k3 by about 10%. Where’s the ownage?

    • Pete
    • 17 years ago

    blazin’ 141: have CPU’s increased in speed and capability any more dramatically in the past the years? I don’t think so. Until I see you designing your own affordable ray-tracing supercard, I’ll continue to ignore your pie-in-the-sky dreams. Sure, we’d all like ray tracing and full dynamic lighting at 16×12 in 128-bit color, but it ain’t gonna happen for a long time.

    148, I guess the 9500 Pro’s beating a 4600 pretty much all around isn’t a translation of its superior specs into superior performance, eh? Maybe nVidia’s own Chameleon Mark can show you the R300’s potential. I stress potential, because there aren’t that many games out that even stress shaders. Look up some Aquanox benches, I’m sure the R300 beats the NV25–THG probably has some graphs. If it’s modern, popular games you’re after, the 9500 Pro beats the 4200 pretty soundly even before factoring in AF and AA.

    139, for those of us upgrading, the 9500 Pro offers a better path than a 4200/4600, if you’re willing to spend the money. And, as I’m concerned with 2D quality and AF, I’d likely pick an 8500 over a 4200 as my next card, to supplant my onboard GF2MX. Not all of us have GF3’s, you know. 😉

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    That’s old news #150 and #151.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Finally, it will be interesting to see what ATI is up to come February. Word on the street is that ATI

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    I’m not here to prove anything, Droopy. The fact remains ATi still have driver issues–and, it’s enough for me to steer clear from buying one of their video cards.

    BTW, I didn’t label myself a “fanboi.” You did, as that’s all you ever seem to say about people who make negative points about ATi. It’s a lame tactic and doesn’t phase me at all. Defending ATi seems rather silly, given their past/present reputation. This is still an issue with many people, and a lot of us just don’t care to be burned again. Re-read some of the posts here, as well as posts on other hardware forums. There’s no denying it. I stated that ATi have gotten better, but they’re far from perfect as you seem to think.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    138, the “the much faster, much more precise, and fully floating point shaders the 9500 Pro sports over the GF4Ti” in synthetic tests have about the same relevance in actual games as Sandra memory scores.

    • shaker
    • 17 years ago

    I find myself agreeing with the folks that advocate “starting over” when upgrading (especially going from ATI to nVidia, or vice versa). Most of us are not likely to wipe our HDD’s when upgrading a vid card, so various remnants of a driver set may be in place even after “removal”. I remember trying to install a GF MX in a freind’s machine that previously had an ATI Rage card installed, and found it impossible to do (she did NOT want her HDD reformatted). It seems to explain the “ATI drivers suck” issue, too, as nVidia has been ruling the roost for a while. When people attempt to “cross over” to ATI, the nVidia driver remnants cause problems. Microsoft is probably part of the blame also, as driver removal is generally incomplete, and the Registry becomes corrupted with vid card entries over time. That said, since I’m running a Radeon 7500 right now, and have no wish to wipe my HDD, I’m leaning towards another ATI card. Gee, do I smell a minor conspiracy here? (i.e. each of the “big 2” vid card companies leaving registry “bombs” for crossover customers?)

    Say it ain’t so… say it ain’t so!

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    I think the ATI driver thing is more FUD now than anything. That might have been a problem in the past but from most people I spoke to that have 9700 cards the drivers arent really a problem.

    • droopy1592
    • 17 years ago

    Rock Solid Nvidia Drivers Rock Solid Nvidia Drivers Rock Solid Nvidia Drivers Rock Solid Nvidia Drivers Rock Solid Nvidia Drivers Rock Solid Nvidia Drivers Rock Solid Nvidia Drivers Rock Solid Nvidia Drivers Rock Solid Nvidia Drivers Rock Solid Nvidia Drivers Rock Solid Nvidia Drivers Rock Solid Nvidia Drivers Rock Solid Nvidia Drivers Rock Solid Nvidia Drivers Rock Solid Nvidia Drivers Rock Solid Nvidia Drivers Rock Solid Nvidia Drivers Rock Solid Nvidia Drivers Rock Solid Nvidia Drivers Rock Solid Nvidia Drivers Rock Solid Nvidia Drivers Rock Solid Nvidia Drivers Rock Solid Nvidia Drivers Rock Solid Nvidia Drivers Rock Solid Nvidia Drivers!

    Is that all you can say AG 139?

    Fact is, I’ve had tons more problems with the latest NVidia drivers than with the latest ATi drivers, and many others have problems with them. Find some other reason to claim superiority with being a fanboi

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Maybe because Damage doesnt have any problems with ATI drivers…… why even try to highlight something if it doesnt exist.

    And ive seen my fair share of problems with different nvidia drivers the last half a year or something.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    I don’t believe it… Damage actually did a report without bashing Adobe Acrobat in the process.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    [q]The nVidiots are a way too slow dying breed….[/q]

    Nah. We just know that there’s no reason to upgrade right now. If you want to waste $350+ for just faster AA and AF, then go ahead. I’m perfectly happy with using no AA at higher resoulutions.

    BTW, not everyone plays UT2003.

    My GF3 is going to be enough for me until the GF FX comes out. If you’re still running a GF2 or lower, a nice upgrade to a GF4 Ti 4200 would be they way to go, as it’s cheaper than a 9500 Pro–plus, you get NVIDIA’s rock solid driver support. ATi driver support may be improving, but people are still complaining about them on this web site, as well as many others. Those complaints are valid, and are enough to keep most of us “nVidiots” from making a big mistake.

    It appears Damage is biased towards ATi these days. He completely ignores ATi’s driver issues. I’m somewhat curious to know what he would be saying about the GF FX if it had came out before the 9700 Pro. Would he be biased toward NVIDIA, or be sucking up to ATi? You be the judge.

    • Pete
    • 17 years ago

    136, you must’ve missed the much faster, much more precise, and fully floating point shaders the 9500 Pro sports over the GF4Ti, in addition to the rest of the article.

    As for blazin’s “commentary,” I’d like to see him try to convince someone 640x480x16 bilinear on his pass-thru Voodoo 1 is not a flying leap backwards from 1600x1200x32 16xAF trilinear–with pictures, not words.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    The nVidiots are a way too slow dying breed….

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Discounting anisotropic filtering performance, which the GF4 is just horrible at, ATI has come up with a $200 rough equivalent of the GF4 4600, which coincidentally enough is also selling for about $200 these days.

    4 extra pipelines, 30 million or so more transistors, and the only improvement over the 10 month old GF4 4600 is speedier anisotropic filtering, outside of which the ATI card loses.

    AF makes this a slightly better card than a GF4 overall. But coming out nearly a year later at $200, it ought to mop the floor with the GF4 in every department by 20% or more, or else be simplified and cheap. It’s neither, and I’m unimpressed.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    AG132, I’d say that the Geforce 1 was a big leap, the GF2 GTS was basically an overclocked Geforce 1 DDR 🙂 (well, it had extra pixel pipelines also, but it wasn’t revolutionary or anything)

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    First of all, the fact that you guys are comparing a Voodoo with a 9700pro is mind boggling to say the least. Second, if you think the IQ of the voodoo 1 is the same as the 9700, you obviously haven

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Blazin said:
    I challenge anyone at Nvidia or ATI to produce a card that makes an revolutionary step forward, like the original voodoo did back in the mid 90’s. They’ve had enough time to do this yet all they can muster is these small evolutionary steps.
    hopefully someone at Nvidia/ATI reads this board and accepts my challenge, i’ve stated in previous posts what I want all they have to do is deliver it.

    …The Radeon 9700PRO came out at $400USD (2/3 the price of a complete buget system), runs any game at 1024x768x32 with full anisotropy and 4xFSAA, supports DX8 features which are just starting to be used, and supports DX9 features which CAN’T be used because DX9 isn’t out and DX9 games won’t be out for months! Its core is larger than the core of an AthlonXP and it has more transistors than a Pentium 4. GeForceFX will be faster, more complex, and more feature rich. You’re telling us that video card makers need to speed up development??

    These are the cards so far which could be considered “major steps” in the development of graphics: Voodoo, GeForceGTS, GeForce3, Radeon9700.

    Making the “next big thing” is not simply a quick decision, like “hmm, let’s make a 1 billion transistor 0.01 micron graphics board with support for DX2 and 10 simulaneous monitors, and make it run Doom III at 200fps at 2048×1536 with 8xFSAA, and have it on the market in 6 months.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    ETA early, mid Dec ATI Radeon 9500 Pro 128M video card retail boxed AGP 8X!
    (Part – ATIRADEON9500PRO)
    Price: $ 199

    NVIDA GEFORCE4 GF4 G4 128MB TI 4200 VIDEO CARD (OEM)
    (Part – BARE-VGA4200128OEM)
    Price: $139

    eVGA nVidia Geforce4 TI 4600 128MB
    (Part – EVGA)
    Price: $210

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    #67 said
    everytime the radeon9500pro beats the Geforce4 ti4600,even
    if the diference is just as small as 1% the author flame Nvidia.. “owned” ..

    but when Geforce4 ti4600 won 4 of 5!!! benchmaks in 3dmark2001se .. by more that 1000!!! points in 3dmark
    the author comments were..
    “The 9500 Pro consistently outpaces the Ti 4200, and it steals a victory over the Ti 4600 in the Lobby test”

    jeezz.

    Well, if you think about it, the 9500PRO is supposed to compete with the Ti4200 or possibly the Ti4400. If it was on par with the Ti4200 we would EXPECT it to be beaten by the Ti4600. However, in some tests it actually surpasses the Ti4600 (which costs significantly more at the moment), so that’s unexpected, and deserves mentioning. The author recognizes this, and thus makes the connection that the 9500PRO is performing at a level which it isn’t expected to obtain, and thus deserves merit.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Nice review. I especially liked the close up pics of the card. Good work. Looks like ATI are following suite with Nvidia and providing a wide range of solutions for customers with different price budgets. NV30 will cripple the R300 but give it a few months and the buzz will start all over again until either ATI or Nvidia’s stocks go way under and one of them go under for good!

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Does it make porn look better?

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    i[blazin sucks]

    HEH

    😛

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Blazin, run GLQuake… run around a map.. then load Tenebrae and do the same thing….

    it sure as hell made ME go wow, and that simply wouldn’t work with a <Geforce level videocard.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Blazin, you just don’t seem to be able to grasp that it’s not a question of it being “difficult” at the moment, it’s physically IMPOSSIBLE, silicon cip fabrication is still a rapidly evolving technology, it’ll get where you want it to be eventually, but until then compromises HAVE to be made, you can have a FAST chip that needs cooling (and stick a zalman semi-passive cooler on it) or you can have a slow chip that runs without a fan…. take your pick…

    I’d like a holodeck, but I’m not going to bitch at Nvidia or ATI because they haven’t released one yet, the technology simply doesn’t exist yet.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Blazin, the Voodoo1 wasn’t a step forward in features, it was just a step forward in SPEED, the frickin’ VIRGE could do the majority of what the Voodoo1 could do (except, notably, bilinear filtering, which I’m sure you turn off since it’s blurry!)

    OTOH, the Geforce 3 introduced some real innovations beyond that…

    In addition, try running Formula 1 GP 4 on a machine with a Geforce 2MX _AND_ getting more than 20fps….

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    g{

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    blazin, congratulations on falling back on personal attacks!

    at HIGH resolutions, AA techniques DO look smoother, at lower resolutions OTOH, there aren’t enough pixels for the image itself AND the AA, so detail is lost in the AA’ing process and things DO look fuzzy as a result.

    IOW, you’re right, but only at low resolutions, NOT at high resolutions.

    and even if you know what AA is, you still clearly don’t get what “washed out” means 🙂

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    looks like the power connector would get in the way if you wanted to put some ramsinks on there – at least on the first chip anyway

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    If you think antialiasing makes an image look washed out, then you clearly don’t know what “washed out” actually means, (hint, it’s related to colour saturation)

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    AG109 here again, What I’m trying to say is.

    at low resolutions, the AA pixels will be be visible and noticable, whereas at higher resolutions they aren’t noticable on their own, but do improve the image.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Am I the only person that thinks Blazin is using a 486DX2 @ 66Mhz with a Diamond Stealth 2MB and a 4MB Voodoo1 ?

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    g{

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    blazin, I recommend you take a break from “blazin”.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Nice job on this review. I was looking to see the advantages of the 9700 Pro vs. the 9500 Pro, but the real surprise is the plain vanilla 9700 card. It appears to consistently outperform the 9500 Pro card and is priced much lower. Am I seeing this correctly? If so, the plain 9700 is a sleeper bargain (I’ve seen it for $90.00 after MIR).

    Happy Thanksgiving!!

    • geogeek
    • 17 years ago

    [i]

    since when is overclocked hardware and fancy gimicks noone uses new technology? [/i]

    And the problem with [b]this[/b] is that your perception of “fancy gimmicks ‘noone’ uses” in fact matches the definition of “Minimum Requirements” for most modern games.

    To summarize, these are useful tools (not fancy gimmicks) that are widely used (by more than just “noone”.)

    ~geogeek

    • geogeek
    • 17 years ago

    [i]I reccommend boycotting both nvidia and ATI until they are cabable of producing hardware worth buying.[/i]

    The problem, of course, is that most people feel vertex shaders, pixel shaders, and antialiasing all running extrememly fast [b]are[/b] worth buying.

    ~geogeek

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    *[

    • superchode
    • 17 years ago

    I wonder if #98 has played BF1942.

    • muyuubyou
    • 17 years ago

    I hear a lot of complaints here about ATI drivers. I’ve never had a problem with my Radeon 8500.

    If something sucks in this world, is Nvidia drivers for Linux (at least, they sucked last time I checked).

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Hear, Hear!!!
    #95 BLAZIN said it all…………

    <<<<<<<<<…..realize these video card manufacturers have been using a “same shit different smell” approach since 3dFX released the original voodoo chipset…..>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Right on, 95.
    That’s why for Textwork I use my trusty 256k Trident card—-and when its time for all-out FPS Gaming I load my kickass Voodoo-1 w/4MB and frag away.

    I’ll upgrade when something better than Voodoo comes out, not until. I don’t follow the easily-fooled mob (most of the posts here).

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    lol so your saying your trusty GF2MX(aka GF1) doesn’t do that already? Awwww poor baby… -_-

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    AG93 Catalyst 2.4 = 6200

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Hi;

    I’m just to lazy to go thru 3pages of bashing’s.

    So here is my question :

    Have You tried to use the new 2.4 drivers to in addition to the old 6200 you used for the test.

    Anandtech and hardware.com have used the new drivers and have (far) better framerates and on top the maximum framerate @ 1024×768 are now higher than with an Ti4600. Until now even the R9700Pro was slower than the Ti4600 at low resolutions, mainly due to the high CPU-usage of the drivers. Now with the new drivers this seems to be corrected (at least with the R9500Pro).

    can You confirm this?

    Thanks

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Are you high #91?
    Have you NEVER used high sample anisotropic filtering?
    What about antialiasing?

    I LOVE anisotropic filtering and AA, but my ti4400 takes a dive if I throw them both on, even at 1152×864.

    The 9500 PRO beats it up soundly with the options on.

    I could give a damn if it only runs at 110fps in Q3 (and 80 with AA). . .
    I play UT2k3 now!

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Wow, a $200 card with the performance of a $100 card (Ti4200)…

    Bonus: ATi drivers

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    *[http://www.mwave.com<]§

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Jeez, atidriversuck, your shoulders are about to tear through your own anus. You just keep on Mozillaing along with those spiffy detonator drivers – but don’t imply for a second that they are without their problems and faults. Users are being advised to rollback from the latest detonator drivers there.

    • Mr Bill
    • 17 years ago

    Very nice usage of X-Y graphs Damage. Way better than Anandtech’s review. I almost thought you should go to a log scale axis on the vertical. Put in some results for the Matrox G series and you could point out they necessitated a log performance scale. Ah, heh heh heh.

    • Coldfirex
    • 17 years ago

    Thats an old drivers set.

    Why dont you ask people about their impression of Nv’s latest drivers?

    • atidriverssuck
    • 17 years ago

    Well, you are just a big… basher, you big basher you.
    Go suck somewhere else, sucker.
    ——
    Yes, my evidence is totally unfounded. There’s a whole bunch of ATI bashers out there with nothing much to say, and who don’t favour reliability or stability, and just like to oppress the companies that show promise coz they feel like it (or own nvidia shares), and don’t have any valid reason to. None at all. They just loooove to bash for the hell of it.

    And all you can say is go suck somewhere else, sucker? That is your argument? Hmmm. In the meanwhile, I’ll run Mozilla when I want to without worries about unstable 2D caused by broken drivers.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Well, you are just a big… basher, you big basher you.

    Go suck somewhere else, sucker.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    [quote]Someone said Trident has a 256k chip I can add to it but I figure why bother. Because for top games like Quake I use my nice Diamond Voodoo-1 with 8meg and it really rocks. It cost me $150 and I intend to get my money out of it.[/quote]

    ROFLMAO….

    I think ill buy one of these babies cuz of my slow CPU.

    • droopy1592
    • 17 years ago

    AG 79, shut up. I will make sure I use my Curtis Mathis TV in your honor.

    [b] Happy turkey day, you chumps!!!

    Have fun and drive safely.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    No one needs these ridiculous new cards anyway, people just buy for bragging rights.

    I have a very nice video card, had it for a couple years and see no need for wasting money on a new one. Its plenty good for Text and gives about 16 colors but 256k ram is pretty slow in fast games, Someone said Trident has a 256k chip I can add to it but I figure why bother. Because for top games like Quake I use my nice Diamond Voodoo-1 with 8meg and it really rocks. It cost me $150 and I intend to get my money out of it.

    • nihilistcanada
    • 17 years ago

    #77 stupid is as stupid does, or in your case stupid post’s.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    ATI cards don’t work very well.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    [q][i]Dogpoop said…[/i]
    I have been using nothing but nVidia cards in my gaming systems because of the stable drivers, good performance, and feature set. I have tried a Ati Maxx, Radeon 7500, and I recently tried a 9700 Pro. As usual the nVidia card went back into my system. ATi has definitely improved their drivers, however I still had problems with the 9700. BSOD’s, lockups, etc same old crap again. I would really love to see ATi with the same quality drivers as nVidia, if that were so I would prolly be using ATi cards in my gaming system. However I will stick with my 4600Ti and wait for the next rev of the Geforce FX.[/q]

    The problem is that nVidia’s drivers leave all sorts of crap lying around in your registry that interfer with the ATI drivers (or any other video drivers for that matter). People who do a thorough cleaning (or reinstall their OS) before installing ATI drivers usually have no problems. In these cases it is the nFudia drivers that cause the problems – not the ATI drivers.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    *[

    • IntelMole
    • 17 years ago

    /me waits for Radeon 9700 to reach that $200 price point, so he can snag that instead 🙂

    AG67, get some glasses yourself! Did you notice that all the games the GF cards won in are, let’s see… OLD!!!

    If you want to buy a GF4 Ti4600 to play pac-man, go ahead mate…

    That’s what Scott was getting through. You will get better use of the R300 chips in newer games…

    Besides, it’s not as if the GF chips handed the R300 its head or anything… we’re a few percent in Q3A and the others…

    Oh, and most of them were at suck-ass resolutions, I’d call that a driver issue myself, since half the time, the Radeon then pulled ahead when bandwidth limitations come more into play…

    Anyways, nice review Damage, can’t wait for my new, R300(+)-powered comp…

    Yep, still saving :-P,
    IntelMole

    • Pete
    • 17 years ago

    Great review as usual, Damage. I just have two points to bring up (which may have been raised already, I haven’t read the other comments). One, IIRC, UT2K3 doesn’t rely on shaders for much of anything. I recall one of their devs saying they included shader routines as an alternative, but they didn’t really speed things up that much. I may be wrong, or the shader routines may help free up the CPU for intensive online matches. Two, you should remind people that the R300 doesn’t support AA in 16-bit games, just to warn people with old favorites. (I’m surprised no one has asked nV if they’ll support 16-bit AA.)

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    umm Star Wars Galaxies is an DX9 game to those who think DX9 games will years to make. ATI is changing the BS trend that is, to release a game according to the hardware you have now as apposed to hardware you WILL have. I think ATI is pushing game developers harder than b4 cuz there really is not excuse for making a DX8 game anymore. I mean the hardware is out and kicking on all cylinders on the consumer level.

    • d0g_p00p
    • 17 years ago

    [q]As for the fools stating that ATi’s drivers suck…..yeah right do any of you guys actually own any Ati Radeon, 8500, 9000, 9500 or 9700 cards? I seruously doubt it.[/q]

    I have been using nothing but nVidia cards in my gaming systems because of the stable drivers, good performance, and feature set. I have tried a Ati Maxx, Radeon 7500, and I recently tried a 9700 Pro. As usual the nVidia card went back into my system. ATi has definitely improved their drivers, however I still had problems with the 9700. BSOD’s, lockups, etc same old crap again. I would really love to see ATi with the same quality drivers as nVidia, if that were so I would prolly be using ATi cards in my gaming system. However I will stick with my 4600Ti and wait for the next rev of the Geforce FX.

    • atidriverssuck
    • 17 years ago

    ::publically thanks ATI for the wonderful service they are doing to keep Nvidia’s cards more reasonably priced::

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    [q]Looks like Nvidia is on the verge of experiencing the same downfall as 3dfx. Late to the market… and relatively crappy current products.

    Playing the catch-up game is really hard.

    Few people will be buying the gf fx, and few people will even consider a gf4 come next year.

    Nvidia is in trouble.[/q]

    Wrong on all counts. Just because NVIDIA is “late to the market” doesn’t mean they’re dead. They didn’t invest all that money into the GF FX for nothing. I, for one, will wait until the GF FX comes out, as will MANY others. I, like MANY others, are happy with our GF3/4 video cards, and have no intention of wasting our money right now on a new video card (9500/9700 Pro) that offers only faster AA and AF. Yeah, it’s nice to brag about having the fastest video card, but I just don’t see any REAL advantage of buying a 9500/9700 Pro RIGHT NOW unless you’re running a GF2 or older Radeon. Even a GF FX is overkill for current mainstream systems. Who was it that said the CPU was the bottleneck in their current system? And I believe it was a P4 running at 1.7 GHz, with a 9700 Pro installed. Rediculous…

    BTW, DX9 features of both the 9700 Pro and GF FX are all hype. These video cards will be ancient once DX9 is fully implemented in most video games. So, there’s no reason to get excited about DX9 other than to brag.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    i have a 8500 and it’s pretty good. but i would gladly give it up for gf4ti4200 anyday. nothing brings ease to my mind like nvidia drivers. may not be a totally true statement, since ati drivers have improved since 8500 launch, but it just does.

    • nihilistcanada
    • 17 years ago

    What about overclocking? Seems it has the same basic core as the 9700 so maybe it can do 300+ or so?

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Small nit: the specifications comparison table should list the Geforce 4 Ti4200 AGP 8x at 275 MHz core, with 1100 mpixel fillrate, and 2200 mtexel fillrate.

    You are now returned to your regular course of fanboy love 🙂

    Protomech

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Looks like Nvidia is on the verge of experiencing the same downfall as 3dfx. Late to the market… and relatively crappy current products.

    Playing the catch-up game is really hard.

    Few people will be buying the gf fx, and few people will even consider a gf4 come next year.

    Nvidia is in trouble.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    ATi’s drivers are MUCH better now than they were in the days of the rage128 days which gave me many a headache. I was going to get a GF2 GTS but bought a RadeonLE for the good 2-D quality and great price, l do get an occasional bluescreen, and some texture corruption in some older games, but other than that it’s been great. If ATi can bring their drivers up to nVidia’s level, then I just might stick with ATi a bit longer when I upgrade Q2 2003. =)

    • droopy1592
    • 17 years ago

    I like ATi but I will admit I could never get the DX9RC0 to work properly. I had to safe mode that shit away because I couldn’t see nuffin!!! But it will be fixed by the time the real DX9 comes out, I hope.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    This is good news. NVidia will have no choice but to lower prices on Ti4200 and Ti4600. It’s great for everybody except NVDA shareholders.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    [quote]Wait, you mean to say we have the option to choose reading a review or sleeping?

    TR never told me this! All this time! Such a waste![/quote]

    yeah i forgot to mention the last choice. Furious Masturbation while reading the review.

    • monaco
    • 17 years ago

    Huge, huge thanks go out to Damage and TR for making the Q3 demo used in this review availible. Plus, the graphs are easier to read now, too. Word.

    • indeego
    • 17 years ago

    Wait, you mean to say we have the option to i[

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    [quote]such a disappointment that a good card like this is straggling like it is in Q3. Looks like ATI needs to get their drivers in extra, extra good shape here 🙂 Guess whose OpenGL drivers John Carmack treats as golden?(it isn’t ATI…)[/quote]

    or you fuckin dense? lol go read some more reviews or go to sleep dumbass.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    AG#50 not really i still kick ur butt

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Are Nvidias engineers out to lunch or something? I remember someone say they have the best in the business…..

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    AG46, sucks to be -yuo-! :^)

    • Freon
    • 17 years ago

    Yeah, darn. It only gets 110fps at 1600x1200x32 in Q3. I’m *crushed*.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    such a disappointment that a good card like this is straggling like it is in Q3. Looks like ATI needs to get their drivers in extra, extra good shape here 🙂 Guess whose OpenGL drivers John Carmack treats as golden?(it isn’t ATI…)

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    [quote]When will ATI have the slower AIW cards like say a AIW 9500pro?[/quote]

    I dont think they will. AIW cards are not meant to be cheap…

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    who cares about high res gaming.. only have a 17 inch monitor.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    When will ATI have the slower AIW cards like say a AIW 9500pro?

    Paul

    • shaker
    • 17 years ago

    Actually, I upgraded the drivers for my Radeon 7500 with ATI’s latest, and picked up about 800 3D Marks.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    /me spots more knee-jerk reactions than at a physiotherapists.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    first I have a 8500 so why would I even consider buying a Ti anything?

    The 9500Pro looks promising and I may get it but I think I can wait until Feb 03 to see what ATi does.

    As for the fools stating that ATi’s drivers suck…..yeah right do any of you guys actually own any Ati Radeon, 8500, 9000, 9500 or 9700 cards? I seruously doubt it.

    ATi is getting better and this is a good thing cause I seriously doubt that a lot of people want to pay $400 to $500 for a GFX card right? More competition = better prices for everyone.

    Fact is the 9500 Pro Smokes the TI 4X00 cards in high res AA and AF gaming.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Well i just purchased an Abit Geforce 4 440mx , i am a casual gamer and thought it would be perfect for windows xp and my Abit Bd-7 II Raid motherboard, especially given nvidia solid driver database.

    Nothing but complete Bollucks. One fuckin restart after another with 40.x drivers and unreal tournament 2003 and nview bollucks. I will never buy an nvidia card again.

    Thats Brings ATi back in my good books since there drivers can’t be any worse than nvidia current crop. And i thought WHQL certified drivers meant something under windows xp. Looks like Ms as looking after nvidia or else they won’t get there x-box chips very cheap.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    ATI drivers have worked fine for me (at work). NVidia drivers have been giving me fits (at home). Guess what my next video card will be?

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Oopsies, #16 — grammar mistakes are slippery.

    [quote]was 11 frames faster than [i]than[/i] a monitor [/quote]

    [quote]Third, no spelling or grammar mistakes at all! 🙂 [/quote]

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    u can pick up a 4200 for $109 bucks.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Nvidia drivers always worked great for me.. been ATI drivers that have always giving me trouble, even the newest one. Even when i had a Kryo and Kryo II I wouldn’t get BSOD.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    fuck AG 34 you beat me to it fukar 🙂

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    [quote]What’s not to like? I’ll tell you. ATi’s drivers.[/quote]

    umm the ATI drivers are what helped make the chip 25% faster from what it was before(as promised). Go check out the Anandtech review. Also the new Nvidia drivers suck ass hardcore, DO NOT GET THEM… thx

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    The 9500 Pro looks like a pretty good card and is priced in such a way that it is accessible to us mere mortals. I know a lot of people still consider ATI’s drivers to be a question mark, but there’s no denying how frequently they’ve been coming out with new driver sets in the last year or so. And after having tried the version 40.xx drivers from Nvidia and quickly finding myself reverting back to the 30.82 drivers, I’m not so sure that Nvidia is on track with it’s drivers in recent times. If the next official driver set from Nvidia doesn’t deliver and fix all of the game incompatibility problems that I’m seeing with 40.xx, I might jump ship back to ATI.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Gerbil 25 = half-wit

    So, tattos bother you as a form of “lowest common denominator” marketing, but the nearly buck naked, uber-breasted, pixie woman demo nvidia’s been using to show case the abilities of the gf fx doesn’t bother you?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    WOW, go ATI

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Nvidia is bashed… good good, now we need to want for Hammer, to get some balance on the hardware side of things.

    If only MSFT had some viable competition 🙁

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    The cards available at newegg are not the “Pro” cards.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    R2P2: They are advertised on Newegg: 64MB version, $164 and the 128MB version, $189. Both are available with free shipping. Not sure if Best Buy has them in stores yet.

    • R2P2
    • 17 years ago

    What’s the word on availability? We know ATI didn’t give Damage the card, so they must be buyable, but are they going to be hitting Best Buy soon, or just online stores?

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    What a huge Intel ad…

    The new benchmark graphs are a lot nicer. ATI is on a roll now, let’s see if that still stands in a month. I’m not too excited for NV30.

    – euro gerbil

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    > What’s not to like? I’ll tell you. ATi’s drivers.

    That, and their lowest common denominator marketing. I’ll buy from a vendor that doesn’t advertise with tattoos, thank you.

    • GodsMadClown
    • 17 years ago

    Blah. I’ve got news for you, buddy. If retailers don’t have it [b]now[/b], then it is not a christmas product. The christmas rush starts in two days. The shelves are already set. All that is left is for the customers to roll in.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Shaker wrote:

    [q]Fast, and not likely to get “slower” when DX9 hits. What’s not to like? Ti 4×00’s just became obsolete.[/q]

    What’s not to like? I’ll tell you. ATi’s drivers.

    ‘Nuff said.

    • droopy1592
    • 17 years ago

    I like ATi and all, but the competition is making for great products at good prices. Someone said PC sales have been picking up lately. Motherboard producers are kicking them out faster now than the rest of the year. I wonder if PC makers are getting ready for the Christmas rush.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    to Thresher:

    What I wanted to say is that Nvidia corporate image as a “market leader” is still there and that will keep helping sales for a while. To have the “best card” even when it’s very expensive (and maybe even not profitable) is one of the best working marketing strategies.

    Nvidia won’t notice this leadership loss in some months (in Jack’s market). They have some time to react.

    Muyuu

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    On the last page:

    [q]I would like to thank caffeine for making this review possible.[/q]

    LOL! A nice conclusion to a fine review.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Anyone want to buy a barely-used Ti4200? Argh..

    • Thresher
    • 17 years ago

    i[

    • indeego
    • 17 years ago

    [quote]That reality will leave a lot of folks asking: why wait? The 9500 Pro is a compelling reason not to. [/quote]

    uh, because a ti200 is “good enough” still?

    If you hadn’t. bought. a . 4200. already. why. buy . now?

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    First, it’s really refreshing to see a review of a brand new product that bashes it as badly as this article did. 🙂 Sure, the prose was all praise, but I counted no fewer than [i]sixteen[/i] graphs and charts that put the 9500 Pro in last or 2nd-to-last place. Good show!

    Second, I make a motion that Quake 3 Arena should be hereby abolished from inclusion in any future review. It has simply outlived its usefulness as an indicator of anything important. Very few people run monitor refresh rates over 100Hz, and yet the slowest framerate at the highest resolution of any card reviewed here (which was the 9500 Pro, incidentally) was 11 frames faster than than a monitor at that refresh rate can even display. All those hundreds of extra fps in Q3A are simply wasted, both on the monitor, and as reading space in this and every other review that includes it anymore.

    Third, no spelling or grammar mistakes at all! 🙂

    • indeego
    • 17 years ago

    Heh I mistakingly clicked on the i[

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Well, the Nvidia guys are doing a great job at the chipset front. Maybe it’s too much for them to keep both fronts up to date.

    BTW I still prefer the 8500 for barely 70$

    • Aphasia
    • 17 years ago

    Depends if you will use the dx9 and ppp(pixel-pushing-power)…

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Which is more bang for the buck? 8500 or 9500 Pro?

    I now know what will be “Santa’s choice” for cards this year.

    Muyuu

    • shaker
    • 17 years ago

    Fast, and not likely to get “slower” when DX9 hits. What’s not to like? Ti 4×00’s just became obsolete.

    • MagerValp
    • 17 years ago

    Too bad I can’t afford to give myself any Xmas presents to myself this year (moving to a new place in 2 weeks :), cause the 9500 Pro is exactly what I’ve been waiting for. Finally I’ll be able to upgrade my old Matrox G400Max 🙂

    • Forge
    • 17 years ago

    I jumped ship when the 3Dfx boat started sinking, and the Nvidia boat is feeling none too stable these days. With almost all the founding fathers gone back to SGI or on to greener pastures, who’s running the till at -[<3dfx<]- Nvidia these days? Delayed products, endless hype, a new product launch which looks like it will barely match a released product..... Voodoo5 and GF2 GTS, all over again.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    ATI has taken the 1st place. That’s for granted. We may now, but this will translate Jack Homeowner in some 6 months. That gives Nvidia some time for reaction.

    ATI may be taking a significant share of the geek market, but that’s not significative. Let’s face it: brand name and company confidence is not something that may flip in a couple of weeks, not even here, in the geek market. Nonetheless, you might argue that some of these cards are aimed at the geek/enthusiast/gamer and will never make it to Jack’s desktop.

    If you don’t believe me, look how those Nvidia fanboys say “I will wait”, “I can wait” and stuff like that. If there is some 3Dfx dej

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Wow.. is that an impressive jump or what!

    When I saw the 1st Anandtech review I was thinking.. hmmm just keeps up with Ti4200 so couldn’t see it being that “big winner” for the mass sector.
    After reading the latest review and I were looking to buy a mid band card I wouldnt hesitate to buy the 9500Pro.

    I’d say ATI have cracked it!
    Speed – AA/AF Quality – Price.

    And with all these new bandwidth calculations floating around you’ll probably find it’s got more bandwidth than the NV30 .. hehe

    • Freon
    • 17 years ago

    The 9700 (non-Pro) and 9500 Pro look pretty impressive for the price. I’m still iffy on their drivers, but with Nvidia’s complete lack of answer I may end up biting the bullet anyway.

    I think I’m done spending more than about $250 on a graphics card, although I am willing to blow about $200 every year. I might just grab one of the previously mention ATI cards and just plan on buying another card next Decemeber around the time Doom 3 is out.

    • kyboshed
    • 17 years ago

    Wel I wouldn’t write off Nvidia just yet, they’ve lost this round for sure but I think the war is far from over.

    I do hope that at least some of Nvidia’s employees are working on NV30’s successor though.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    *[

    • R2P2
    • 17 years ago

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t the older games where the GF4s did relatively better also OpenGL games, and the ones where the R300-based cards 0wned Direct3D? I’m thinking ATI’s OGL drivers could use some tweaking.

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    *[

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    dont see any nv30 reviews….and looks like ati got the market cornered now….impressive…. (first Post)

    -Nelliesboo

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This