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
No doom 3 is nvidia turf :P
hl2 should do fine but dont forget both these games are due out in months and months, long enough for even my 9700 to be considered budget :P
It isnt optimised for now as they know one thing, its that the game won't be out for a while.
And the optimisations usually go to the top end cards first as they use eye candy more and have power and features etc etc
Middle range cards are for those who can't afford the upgrade, true, but DON'T think that means you will get lots of power.
And the optimisations usually go to the top end cards first as they use eye candy more and have power and features etc etc
Middle range cards are for those who can't afford the upgrade, true, but DON'T think that means you will get lots of power.
does anyone know what kind of settings my sys will run the games at and roughly what frames i can hope for?
Also will a 2.8ghz laptop with a 128mb radeon 9000 laptop perform better than mine? that is what a friend of mine sed.
--------------------------------------------------------------
p42ghz
512 DDR 2100 RAM
msi 845 AR mobo
IBM deskstar 120GXP 80gb
COnnect 3d 9600 pro
Also will a 2.8ghz laptop with a 128mb radeon 9000 laptop perform better than mine? that is what a friend of mine sed.
--------------------------------------------------------------
p42ghz
512 DDR 2100 RAM
msi 845 AR mobo
IBM deskstar 120GXP 80gb
COnnect 3d 9600 pro
Radeon 9000's are a TOTAL JOKE for 3d power :P
a friend of mine said the 9600 pro will beat the geforce 4 ti4600 with anti aliasing. i reckon thats trife, but i may be wrong. pls correct me, but i thought the rv350 uses supersampling so gets a mega performance loss at the higher anti aliasing as it needs massive bandwidth.
thanks for any help
thanks for any help
i have 3 very like systems. what makes them diff is the gfx cards. in my oldest system (p4 2.8 533fsb 512PC2700) ive a Ti4600. in my other system, same specs but a FX5900 Ultra. In my third and newest system, ive a P4 3GHtz 1024PC3200 9800Pro XT. my ti4600 seems to play bf1942 smother than my 5900Ultra system. my 9800PXT system runs it best, smooth with 6XAA and 16XAF. Swaping out my 5900Ultra and my 9800proXT in my newest sytem for benching purposes...the ATI part scores better in 3dmark 01 (ati-18,000+ compared to nvidia-17,500+), and in 3dmark 03 (real close, both 6,000+ but the ati was higher overall than the 5900. In Aquamark bench...the Nvidia part scores best (50,000+ compared to 45,000+) so as i sit, i run the 9800pxt in my 3GHtz system just cause of pic quality. i havent really messed with the Unreal benches so ive no input there. also i havent tried halo. Call of Duty seems to run awesome on all 3 systems. as far as bottlenecks go...ive notice steady increases in bench scores when either a)new gfx card b)new faster ram c)new mobo with 800FSB and 8xagp. d)new processor P4 2.8(533) TO p4 3.0 (800) my 2 cents.
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7164263
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7164263
those differences are small
what i dont get is why there is all this hype around dx9; they still cant get a game that actually looks real! just played max payne 3. gfx were pretty good, but theres something that makes it not look quite real for some reason.
i am having a problem with AA/AF in the original unreal tournament; there are still big jaggies with 6x AA and 16x AF!! i am playing at 1024*768. also there is a problem with the lighting as there is a weird white square around the lights on maps; more noticible on larger maps. y is this and is this a hardware/ software prob?
what i dont get is why there is all this hype around dx9; they still cant get a game that actually looks real! just played max payne 3. gfx were pretty good, but theres something that makes it not look quite real for some reason.
i am having a problem with AA/AF in the original unreal tournament; there are still big jaggies with 6x AA and 16x AF!! i am playing at 1024*768. also there is a problem with the lighting as there is a weird white square around the lights on maps; more noticible on larger maps. y is this and is this a hardware/ software prob?
i have 3 very like systems. what makes them diff is the gfx cards. in my oldest system (p4 2.8 533fsb 512PC2700) ive a Ti4600. in my other system, same specs but a FX5900 Ultra. In my third and newest system, ive a P4 3GHtz 1024PC3200 9800Pro XT. my ti4600 seems to play bf1942 smother than my 5900Ultra system. my 9800PXT system runs it best, smooth with 6XAA and 16XAF. Swaping out my 5900Ultra and my 9800proXT in my newest sytem for benching purposes...the ATI part scores better in 3dmark 01 (ati-18,000+ compared to nvidia-17,500+), and in 3dmark 03 (real close, both 6,000+ but the ati was higher overall than the 5900. In Aquamark bench...the Nvidia part scores best (50,000+ compared to 45,000+) so as i sit, i run the 9800pxt in my 3GHtz system just cause of pic quality. i havent really messed with the Unreal benches so ive no input there. also i havent tried halo. Call of Duty seems to run awesome on all 3 systems. as far as bottlenecks go...ive notice steady increases in bench scores when either a)new gfx card b)new faster ram c)new mobo with 800FSB and 8xagp. d)new processor P4 2.8(533) TO p4 3.0 (800) my 2 cents.
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7164263
But aren't these nothing more than benchmarks?
Don't games run differently than a benchmark with pre-set animations?
All those questions :)
hiya... just thought i would give u my probs i had with upgrading/changing graphics cards....
I changed from a Geforce 4 Ti4200 to an ATI radeon 9700pro and the performance was not as i had hoped for... now i had done everything the way i had read on other forums etc... remove nvidia detonators with detonator destroyers etc... etc...
I tryed everything but it just wasnt kickin out the framerates and benchmarks it was supposed to...
So please take the advise of people who tell u to re-install a fresh copy of windows cos it realy works... it may seem like a pain in the ass but it is the only thing that seems to work properly...
my 3DMark 2001 scores were, b4 formatting...
Ti4200 = 11200 ish
Ati 9700 pro = 12600 ish
after formatting...
Ati 9700 pro = 15900 ish
(All done on default settings)
As u will c there was a big difference, all for the sake of a re-format.
try it b4 u think that ur card is at fault
hope this helps :)
I changed from a Geforce 4 Ti4200 to an ATI radeon 9700pro and the performance was not as i had hoped for... now i had done everything the way i had read on other forums etc... remove nvidia detonators with detonator destroyers etc... etc...
I tryed everything but it just wasnt kickin out the framerates and benchmarks it was supposed to...
So please take the advise of people who tell u to re-install a fresh copy of windows cos it realy works... it may seem like a pain in the ass but it is the only thing that seems to work properly...
my 3DMark 2001 scores were, b4 formatting...
Ti4200 = 11200 ish
Ati 9700 pro = 12600 ish
after formatting...
Ati 9700 pro = 15900 ish
(All done on default settings)
As u will c there was a big difference, all for the sake of a re-format.
try it b4 u think that ur card is at fault
hope this helps :)
Try reformating and have the latest drivers install (mainbord and video card as well as DX). Try turning off the V-Sync and may be set the setting to balance. Try out the omega driver too cuz i found it rocks.
i score 9300 points with my AMD athlon 2400+ adn virtual channel of 512PC 2100 (266)RAM and a KT4V mobo by MSI. I use the power color Radeon 9600 pro EZ which has lower mem speed. I manage to score 10k overclocking my CPU and GPU.
My point is that the 9600 is not as bad as you thought, and by the way halo is really demanding game. Don't be disapointing by that. :wink:
i score 9300 points with my AMD athlon 2400+ adn virtual channel of 512PC 2100 (266)RAM and a KT4V mobo by MSI. I use the power color Radeon 9600 pro EZ which has lower mem speed. I manage to score 10k overclocking my CPU and GPU.
My point is that the 9600 is not as bad as you thought, and by the way halo is really demanding game. Don't be disapointing by that. :wink:
Try reformating and have the latest drivers install (mainbord and video card as well as DX). Try turning off the V-Sync and may be set the setting to balance. Try out the omega driver too cuz i found it rocks.
i score 9300 points with my AMD athlon 2400+ adn virtual channel of 512PC 2100 (266)RAM and a KT4V mobo by MSI. I use the power color Radeon 9600 pro EZ which has lower mem speed. I manage to score 10k overclocking my CPU and GPU.
My point is that the 9600 is not as bad as you thought, and by the way halo is really demanding game. Don't be disapointing by that. :wink:
wow i really need to format after 2 years lol... i only get 4000 3dmark2003 witha radeon9600pro 540 core 700ram. 2000mhz amd t-bred 512 corsair pc3200 ram .
oh well i still can play unreal 2004 at 1600X1200 hehe
