PDA

View Full Version : Radeon 9700 3DMark scores!!!

MP3Chuck
July 23rd, 2002, 02:08 AM
http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=4006732'

w00t! And that's just an alpha board!
JC Denton
July 23rd, 2002, 02:25 AM
<html>


<head>
<title>Unexpected Error</title>
</head>

<body>

<h1>Unexpected Error</h1>

<p>
The event has been logged.
Please try again in a moment.
If the problem persists, please contact <a href="http://gamershq.madonion.com/support/?support_form.shtml">our support.</a>
We are sorry for the inconvenience.
</p>
</body>

</html>
MP3Chuck
July 23rd, 2002, 02:32 AM
Ah, I get it now.

Here's the link:

http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=4006732



<!--EDIT|MP3Chuck|Jul 22 2002, 10:40 PM-->
JC Denton
July 23rd, 2002, 02:39 AM
Drool B)! But, hey, did you notice the clock on that P4? A 3GHZ P4?!?
Tanaban
July 23rd, 2002, 03:53 AM
Originally posted by Captain Kirk@Jul 22 2002, 09:46 PM
Drool B)! But, hey, did you notice the clock on that P4? A 3GHZ P4?!?
Dude come on they are gave the go ahead to realease both the 2.8 and the 3.0 P4 before the end of the year. And that CPU there has got to be a 2.54 at least on acount of the FBS
JC Denton
July 23rd, 2002, 04:00 AM
See? They don't tell us tech people anything, we're always kept in the bluggin dark. But a 3GHZ P4, how the hell will AMD cope with that if their best can only match a P4 2.1GHZ?
Tanaban
July 23rd, 2002, 04:08 AM
*shrug* Pray that they can keep up and keep the prices down for the entire industry
JC Denton
July 23rd, 2002, 04:31 AM
I can see it now...
Intel released 3GHZ P4, unfortunately for the world, this latest chip is too fuggin expensive. &nbsp;Weighing in over $300 dollars, it makes a GeForce 4 Ti4600 jealous, more on this when we return...
Tanaban
July 23rd, 2002, 04:36 AM
Originally posted by Captain Kirk@Jul 22 2002, 11:38 PM
I can see it now...
Intel released 3GHZ P4, unfortunately for the world, this latest chip is too fuggin expensive. Â*Weighing in over $300 dollars, it makes a GeForce 4 Ti4600 jealous, more on this when we return...
Umm dude hate to break it to ya but a 2.53 P4 will cost you 638 bucks at newegg no less. Where where you in the P4 sock 423 revolution where it was Rambus only and all the processors were over $400?
JC Denton
July 23rd, 2002, 04:40 AM
Very, very sad. AMD will rule the world.
Tanaban
July 23rd, 2002, 04:43 AM
They never will. Too many old PC busness people like my father stand by intel no matter what the price is.
JC Denton
July 23rd, 2002, 04:46 AM
So even if AMD made an identical chip with better performance at the same price, your pop would still go Intel? Personally, I buy both, I feel AMD serves my gaming needs, while Intel serves my "business" needs.
Tanaban
July 23rd, 2002, 04:48 AM
Yep he is intel fried on to his brain. Not me though I could care less about a company its preformance of a gamer that I care about.
JC Denton
July 23rd, 2002, 04:50 AM
I've always felt AMD is a better game performer ever since the Palamino cores came out. Do you know why he's so rock hard on Intel procs?
Tanaban
July 23rd, 2002, 05:11 AM
cause he is an old (much older and cookier than you kirk) man <_< What other reason need there be? :P
JC Denton
July 23rd, 2002, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by Tanaban@Jul 22 2002, 11:18 PM
cause he is an old (much older and cookier than you kirk) man <_< What other reason need there be? :P
LOL, anything over thirty qualifys :P!
docbaily
July 23rd, 2002, 11:45 AM
Holy Sh*t! Thats a very very nice score. But can it run Morrowind? I doubt it, heh.
Tanaban
July 23rd, 2002, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by docbaily@Jul 23 2002, 06:52 AM
Holy Sh*t! Thats a very very nice score. But can it run Morrowind? I doubt it, heh.
Come on man even the NASA super computers get bogged down trying to play that game.
K
July 23rd, 2002, 01:48 PM
Methinks the Radeon cannot handle multiple light sources with lots of polygons FOR SHIT.

Check the scores against mine:

High Polygon Count (1 light)
(MTriangels/s)
Mine: 38.3
Theirs: 46.8

High Polygon Count (8 lights)
(MTriangels/s)
Mine: 11.4
Theirs: 9.6

Did I mention my CPU is a 1GHz Athlon with a 133MHz FSB and my card is a GF4 Ti4400?

The bump mapping scores and fill rates aren't exactly that impressive either... Not very impressive IMO.

The game scores are impressive yes, but it's not much better than what a 4600 wouldn't get on the same system.

Example: http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=3566685

The overclocked 4600 gets pretty much the same results in the tests on the same system with half the system RAM.

I was hoping for a score 16000+ after all the hype. C'mon, it's supposed to be a generation more than the 4600, not just edging one over it. nVidia will be releasing new stuff by Winter (to rival the new ATi stuff) and their 4600 will severely drop in price and being only a tad slower than 9700 which would you rather go with?

Disclaimer: Hopefully the crappy scores included are due to it being an Alpha board *hopes*



<!--EDIT|Mr K|Jul 23 2002, 02:58 PM-->
docbaily
July 23rd, 2002, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Mr K@Jul 23 2002, 08:55 AM
I was hoping for a score 16000+ after all the hype. C'mon, it's supposed to be a generation more than the 4600, not just edging one over it. nVidia will be releasing new stuff by Winter (to rival the new ATi stuff) and their 4600 will severely drop in price and being only a tad slower than 9700 which would you rather go with?

Good point. Now that I've seen that Ti4600 on about the same system, then yeah, I would expect higher scores too.
Tanaban
July 23rd, 2002, 03:30 PM
Personally I dont trust those scores. There is something quiry about them. Every thing from the processor speed to some of the actual numbers. The more I look at them the more they look fake. <_<
Zombie9920
July 23rd, 2002, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Captain Kirk@Jul 22 2002, 08:57 PM
I've always felt AMD is a better game performer ever since the Palamino cores came out. &nbsp;Do you know why he's so rock hard on Intel procs?
What the heck are you talking about man? The fastest P4 Northwood available now destroy's the fastest AMD CPU available now. AMD is starting to fall behind because they are having trouble scaling thier clock speeds any higher. That shouldn't be a surprise though because of the K7 heat issues. Speaking of AMD and gaming....I just saw an article the other day about AMD processors having issues with DirectX 8.1. There was a patch to fix the problem, but Intel users don't have to download patches to make thier stuff run right(kinda like how AMD processors require a patch to run Windows 95, LoL).

The reason businesses stand by Intel is because they know that Intel processors will not catch on fire(even with no HSF) and they know Intel is stable. You get what you pay for. =0P



<!--EDIT|Zombie9920|Jul 23 2002, 07:57 AM-->
Zombie9920
July 23rd, 2002, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by MP3Chuck@Jul 22 2002, 06:39 PM
Ah, I get it now.

Here's the link:

http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=4006732
Wait for the NV30. ;)
K
July 23rd, 2002, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Zombie9920@Jul 23 2002, 04:52 PM
Wait for the NV30. ;)
Innit.

9700 edges the 4600. The GF5 (prolly) will knock out the newest ATi's.
MP3Chuck
July 23rd, 2002, 05:16 PM
But you have to realize, the test there is for an ALPHA board. Not even beta yet. No doubt they've got a helluva lot of driver and hardware tweakage to go before release.

I was very suprised at the polygon count, though. Only a couple million better than what the 8500 gets.

What I really wanna see, though, is the 9000 benchmarks and how that compares to a GF4.
Tanaban
July 23rd, 2002, 05:19 PM
The 9000 was built to replace the 8500 basically
MP3Chuck
July 23rd, 2002, 05:21 PM
Still, the performance is supposed to be better, if only some.
K
July 23rd, 2002, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by MP3Chuck@Jul 23 2002, 06:23 PM
But you have to realize, the test there is for an ALPHA board. Not even beta yet. No doubt they've got a helluva lot of driver and hardware tweakage to go before release.
I already mentioned that. I just wanted to make note.
MP3Chuck
July 23rd, 2002, 05:25 PM
Didn't see that ...
/me pours another cup of coffee :blink:
JC Denton
July 23rd, 2002, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by Zombie9920@Jul 23 2002, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by Captain Kirk@Jul 22 2002, 08:57 PM
I've always felt AMD is a better game performer ever since the Palamino cores came out. Â*Do you know why he's so rock hard on Intel procs?
What the heck are you talking about man? The fastest P4 Northwood available now destroy's the fastest AMD CPU available now. AMD is starting to fall behind because they are having trouble scaling thier clock speeds any higher. That shouldn't be a surprise though because of the K7 heat issues. Speaking of AMD and gaming....I just saw an article the other day about AMD processors having issues with DirectX 8.1. There was a patch to fix the problem, but Intel users don't have to download patches to make thier stuff run right(kinda like how AMD processors require a patch to run Windows 95, LoL).

The reason businesses stand by Intel is because they know that Intel processors will not catch on fire(even with no HSF) and they know Intel is stable. You get what you pay for. =0P
Ok, you go pay two, three hundred dollars for a brand spankin' new Intel. I'll be perfectly content with my cheap sub-two hundred AMDs. According to AMD's rating system my AXP 2100+ (2nd best) only matches up with a P4 2.1GHZ. But ya know what? That's fine by me. These days it's all the graphics cards, and the transfer rates.

On to the subject of cards, I'm not replacing the aging Prophet until I see some more specs on the NV30 and/or see the 9700 in action. Hercules is making a Prophet 9700 featuring the chipset, that may just be what I'll do.
docbaily
July 23rd, 2002, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by Zombie9920@Jul 23 2002, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by Captain Kirk@Jul 22 2002, 08:57 PM
I've always felt AMD is a better game performer ever since the Palamino cores came out. Â*Do you know why he's so rock hard on Intel procs?
What the heck are you talking about man? The fastest P4 Northwood available now destroy's the fastest AMD CPU available now. AMD is starting to fall behind because they are having trouble scaling thier clock speeds any higher. That shouldn't be a surprise though because of the K7 heat issues. Speaking of AMD and gaming....I just saw an article the other day about AMD processors having issues with DirectX 8.1. There was a patch to fix the problem, but Intel users don't have to download patches to make thier stuff run right(kinda like how AMD processors require a patch to run Windows 95, LoL).

The reason businesses stand by Intel is because they know that Intel processors will not catch on fire(even with no HSF) and they know Intel is stable. You get what you pay for. =0P
That may be, when you're talking about the fastest from each company. But look at it this way: If you compare the raw mhz to each other, AMD rips Intel apart. The AMD Athlon XP 2200+ really runs at a 1700mhz clock (or around that speed). Compare that against the P4 1.7....... should I ask which is going to be faster?
JC Denton
July 23rd, 2002, 09:00 PM
1.893 clock :) for the 2200+
Tanaban
July 23rd, 2002, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by Captain Kirk@Jul 23 2002, 04:07 PM
1.893 clock :) for the 2200+
Huh why not just push for an even 1.9? sounds better to me
JC Denton
July 23rd, 2002, 09:29 PM
The T-Breds have a clock of 2.02 or something on the 2100+.
docbaily
July 23rd, 2002, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by Captain Kirk@Jul 23 2002, 04:36 PM
The T-Breds have a clock of 2.02 or something on the 2100+.
Nice, when do they come out?
JC Denton
July 23rd, 2002, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by docbaily@Jul 23 2002, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by Captain Kirk@Jul 23 2002, 04:36 PM
The T-Breds have a clock of 2.02 or something on the 2100+.
Nice, when do they come out?
Dunno, but they're sub-two fifty I hear...