Awful ATI 9600 pro perfomance
nothing at this link!
This topic was started by goliath,
hi,
i brought a connect3d ATI radeon 9600 pro after hearing about how good it was; i want 2 play doom3 when it comes out!
however the performance is awful; i only get 8900 in 3dmark 2001!! my GF4MX440 managed 5800!! From the reviews shouldnt i be nearing 12000?
this seems to have been a waste of money, or i have sumthing wrong with my system, which is unlikely as ive had it for 9 months and not 1 hardware prob.
This was my first ATI card and i doubt that i will buy another one; unreal tournament 2003 perfomance sucks as well:
Flyby: 125FPS
Botmatch: 45FPS
Thats at 1024*768; when i read the reviews the scores were better! my GF4MX gets 42 in the botmatch which is supposed to be as close to in game as possible!! also on the big maps even at default settings theres a horrible lag!!
I have played halo and thats pure painful so i returned it; powerpoint is a better slideslow!!!
i have never really o/cd nething as my cpu temp is always 47C+ (i have the stick cooler and 1 case fan with the PSU fan). Is there sumthing really wrong with my pc? i have catalyst 3.7.
here is the sys spec:
P4 2ghz
512DDR RAM @266mhz CL2.5
MSI 845 AR motherboard with AGP 4x
IBM Deskstar 120GXP 80gb HD
Quantum Fireball 15GB
ATI Radeon 9600 pro 128mb
LG CDRW/DVD combo
MSI 52XCDROM
Please help me!!! all i want to do is 2 play the odd game at max settings; i have had enuff crappy cards: intel 810; GF4MX now this!! i think that i will have to look at an XBOX to get good gaming... :oops:
i brought a connect3d ATI radeon 9600 pro after hearing about how good it was; i want 2 play doom3 when it comes out!
however the performance is awful; i only get 8900 in 3dmark 2001!! my GF4MX440 managed 5800!! From the reviews shouldnt i be nearing 12000?
this seems to have been a waste of money, or i have sumthing wrong with my system, which is unlikely as ive had it for 9 months and not 1 hardware prob.
This was my first ATI card and i doubt that i will buy another one; unreal tournament 2003 perfomance sucks as well:
Flyby: 125FPS
Botmatch: 45FPS
Thats at 1024*768; when i read the reviews the scores were better! my GF4MX gets 42 in the botmatch which is supposed to be as close to in game as possible!! also on the big maps even at default settings theres a horrible lag!!
I have played halo and thats pure painful so i returned it; powerpoint is a better slideslow!!!
i have never really o/cd nething as my cpu temp is always 47C+ (i have the stick cooler and 1 case fan with the PSU fan). Is there sumthing really wrong with my pc? i have catalyst 3.7.
here is the sys spec:
P4 2ghz
512DDR RAM @266mhz CL2.5
MSI 845 AR motherboard with AGP 4x
IBM Deskstar 120GXP 80gb HD
Quantum Fireball 15GB
ATI Radeon 9600 pro 128mb
LG CDRW/DVD combo
MSI 52XCDROM
Please help me!!! all i want to do is 2 play the odd game at max settings; i have had enuff crappy cards: intel 810; GF4MX now this!! i think that i will have to look at an XBOX to get good gaming... :oops:
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
Yeah everyone should buy a 9800XT :P
The fact still remains, whether you like it or not:
"from what ive heard the r9600 pro is supposed to be the best in middleweight dx9 performance. does this mean that im gna have sucky frames in all dx9 games? "
middleweight=compromise
you can't have your cake and eat it too, halo is a demanding game, and you can't expect phenomenal frame rates with middleweight cards
"from what ive heard the r9600 pro is supposed to be the best in middleweight dx9 performance. does this mean that im gna have sucky frames in all dx9 games? "
middleweight=compromise
you can't have your cake and eat it too, halo is a demanding game, and you can't expect phenomenal frame rates with middleweight cards
i am using the default settings; the game lks worse than ut2k3
my pc is way over the minimum requirements; more than double in everything
so ur saying anyone with less than a 9800 pro and 3ghz is going to have to play at low setings? thats rubbish as the majority of people still have machines with gf2mx400s; with such bad performance how can the developers hope that this game will be big on the pc?
my pc is way over the minimum requirements; more than double in everything
so ur saying anyone with less than a 9800 pro and 3ghz is going to have to play at low setings? thats rubbish as the majority of people still have machines with gf2mx400s; with such bad performance how can the developers hope that this game will be big on the pc?
I'd say its a problem with your PC somewhere, since many can play it more than well on lower end PC's. My 2100+ with 9700Pro plays it very well at full detail settings. 1024x768.
You have a 9700 Pro...graphics card is extremely important here.
http://www.avault.com/news/displaynews.asp...10172003-121837
Read this.
http://www.avault.com/news/displaynews.asp...10172003-121837
Read this.
No, they are wrong. The CPU is far from the bottleneck. There is practically no difference between those 2 processors...if you change it for a ti4200, it is apples to oranges because you'd be using a different codepath (PS1.4 vs 2.0)
You might try using the cmdline parameters to change the pixel shader version; the graphics might not be as good, but it should be less demanding.
You might try using the cmdline parameters to change the pixel shader version; the graphics might not be as good, but it should be less demanding.
im not asking for phenominal frames; i dont mind as long as its over 30fps, but it wont do that.
it cant be that demanding as i have more than a recommended system for halo, or is that a marketing ploy?
i have a amd xp (t-bred) 2000+ overclocked at 2100mhz with 2x256 corsair DDR 400mhz@ 366mhz(cpu max bus is 183) with a powercolor radeon 9600pro overclocked 471/351 i can play halo 800X600 without any problem at all (i could not play halo with the fx5600 thats i ad b4 thats i returned)
i don't see how you could not play halo..
just reinstall windows xp keep the folder my documents and setting to keep stuff like favorits and documents thats all no need to format
OK, you obviously didn't read that link I told you to.
http://www.avault.com/news/displaynews.asp...10172003-121837
Budget cards are anemic in DX9; sure they run old titles well, but so does everything.
http://www.avault.com/news/displaynews.asp...10172003-121837
Budget cards are anemic in DX9; sure they run old titles well, but so does everything.
the r9600 pro isnt in the same league as the fx 5200; it cost me 2x as much. if i ha known that the dx9 was gna be so crap i would have got the ti4200 8X; the dx7 and dx8 performs way better on that.
the article has now got me back at square 1 :knife: ; i upgraded to get doom 3 and hl2 to play properly with 10x7 and all the cool effects enabled. i think that i have wasted the £120 i spent coz the card will be horrible in the games i am waiting for.
does this mean that im gna have 2 upgrade to get doom 3 and hl2 to work?
the article has now got me back at square 1 :knife: ; i upgraded to get doom 3 and hl2 to play properly with 10x7 and all the cool effects enabled. i think that i have wasted the £120 i spent coz the card will be horrible in the games i am waiting for.
does this mean that im gna have 2 upgrade to get doom 3 and hl2 to work?
Holy shit you expected it to run doom 3 and HL2 at 1024-768 will all "cool effects" on?
The games are only out in like 6 months.
Not even my card will handle that :P
The games are only out in like 6 months.
Not even my card will handle that :P
then y was the card released? the 9500/9600 were supposed 2 play the next gen games; if they cant do that then every1 in the middle ranged segment has been duped...
id hope that if i had a 9700 pro i could run at full settings up 2 16x12; wasnt the valve person saying ati was the way to go for hl2?
id hope that if i had a 9700 pro i could run at full settings up 2 16x12; wasnt the valve person saying ati was the way to go for hl2?
