ATI Radeon 9700 pro

[rob64]

I have upgrading my graphics card from a geforce 4 mx440 to a radeon 9700 pro and i was hoping that it would be supported by 1964 could you please tell me if this is correct





Specs

P4 2.4 gig
256mb ddr ram
Soundblaster 5.1 digital
win 98
geforce 4 mx440
80 gig hard disc
n64 PC adapter + N64 Pad

[iq_132]

Uhhhh....
I think that your system shouldn't have any problem running any N64 game on pretty much any decent card (GeForce 4 MX series included) with Apollo, PJ64, or 1964, but if you want to drop another $399 on a video card that will be out of date in 3 months... go right ahead :)

[Lillymon]

Just don't use OpenGL plugins. Almost all are made for nVidia cards and have little or no support for anything else.

[rob64]

By any chance would be talking about a card that not only leapfroged the whole Geforce chipset interms of fps including Doom 3 but also
can support full sreen anti alis & ansitropic filtering on any game at high fps so i hardly think that is a waste of money

[mann]

iq.... 3 months eh? outdated eh?.......ooooooh :D

[Stezo2k]

why get a 9700 when u got a GF4? u really wont notice much difference in performence :P and the radeon drivers suck

Stez

[Stezo2k]

its kinda like the P4 Vs AthlonXP war...... AthlonXP may be slower, but it rocks and is way better than P4, and the P4 may be fast, but u wont notice better performence with a P4 1.8ghz compared to a athlonxp 1800 @ 1.6ghz i think.

Athlons could be better, they just need better openGL support and better drivers.

Stez

[rob64]

bull the ati rad craps all over any geforce 4 card in terms of fps on any game plus you can play quake 3 in 1600 / 1200
6X AA 16Atf and it will still be totaly playble if you don't belive me read this

http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/S&V/radeon9700pro(4).shtml

but make sure to add the (4).shtml inorder for it to load in

[Lillymon]

Originally posted by Stezo2k
its kinda like the P4 Vs AthlonXP war...... AthlonXP may be slower, but it rocks and is way better than P4, and the P4 may be fast, but u wont notice better performence with a P4 1.8ghz compared to a athlonxp 1800 @ 1.6ghz i think.

Athlons could be better, they just need better openGL support and better drivers.

Stez
Athlon XP processors aren't slower than Pentium 4 processors. They're faster. An AMD Athlon XP 1800+ would totally demolish a Pentium 4 1.8Ghz.

And AMD has nothing to do with OpenGL. You're getting them confused with ATI.

[guve25]

Radeon 9700... especially pro version, will give you the best results... untill the end of the year at least, why not wait for NV30 first to see a comparison then buy the appropriate graphic card, sure radeon 9700 can beat the hell out of anything... but at $399.... mmm... you're burning your money u know...

and AMD is wayyyyyyyyyy much more faster than P4... EVER, if only AMD knows how to create better yield for their processor i.e, the same speed as the P4... we know who will win

so, my point is, if you want to buy radeon 9700 pro... by all means! BUY IT!!! the current king of the hill, and don't worry about the drivers, many modified drivers are available

[Method_Man]

hehe i rather wait for the NV30 since Nvidia claims that its 2 1/2 - 4 times faster than the GF4Ti4600 and the drivers are 1,000,000 times better than ATI's. According to my Computer Shopper (October 2002) the NV30 has 10 times more programmability than DirectX 9.0, meaning the it has been built beyond current requiremets. Those are the reasons why the people who got the 9700 Pro will feel sorry.

[ra5555]

I disagree with the diver issues regarding to ATI Radeon 9700, In my opinon ATI is doing an excellent job with its Radeon Series.

I strongly recommend you all to read this artical at Tomshardware http://www.tomshardware.com/business/02q3/020925/index.html

it discusses some of the steps that ATI is taking to improve their Drivers. They accually are listening to their customers.

This page talks about ATI's drivers:
http://www.tomshardware.com/business/02q3/020925/atimojo-09.html

Here is a direct Qoute from the site

"What we having been seeing however, in email and in discussions within our THG Community Forums, is that many of you are still concerned about the drivers and software that make up part of the 9700 equation.

Thanks to Chris Hook at ATI, we were able to have an exclusive chance to have a "no holds barred" discussion with Joe and Terry about these subjects. We asked some difficult questions regarding the drivers and consumers' perceptions about ATI drivers. We also received news of a new beta program that is coming soon.


After this discussion, we are even more convinced that ATI has a deeper and more genuine commitment to driver development than ever before, and if drivers are the only reason that you would not consider the purchase of an ATI product, it seems you had better re-think your position. Terry and his team know they have something to prove, and they are working very hard to deliver drivers that should not only increase in performance over time, but become some of the most stable in the industry, as well. It is hard to argue with men on a mission, so read on to see what they had to say to us.

THG - Can you guys tell me who you are and what your responsibility is at ATI?

JC - My name is Joe Chien, and I am the Director of Software Engineering, responsible for the Radeon 9700 software and the drivers.

TM - I'm Terry Makedon, and I'm the Senior Product Manager of Software on the Marketing side. CATALYST Software Suite is one of the products which I am responsible for.

THG - I find it interesting that the industry has come to the point where we actually have to have a product manager for the drivers. I think there has been a perception in the past that the drivers have been a weak point with ATI. And that is just not the case anymore, is it, Terry?

TM - Absolutely not. For any of your readers that do not know, we launched the CATALYST software suite a few months ago. CATALYST is the family name for ATI's software, which includes our graphics driver software, our MULTIMEDIA CENTER (which includes DVD, and TV players), HYDRAVISION (our multi-monitor software), and our REMOTE WONDER software (to use our remote control for your PC).

With the CATALYST launch, we have an unparalleled level of commitment to things that our customers tell us matter the most. Those are what I refer to as the CATALYST attributes, and they include things such as performance updates, stability, new features, and usability. In fact, CATALYST is focused on seven attributes. These are all based on the feedback that we are getting from our customers, whether it be OEM customers or the end users. We have decided that we are going to make the strongest commitment to provide the best software suite available in the marketplace.

Another note is that the frequency of updates for the drivers was important for our users. So, we made a commitment to provide eight to ten driver updates per year. Ever since we launched CATALYST, it is actually a six-week cycle that we are on. We are on CATALYST Version 3 right now, and we have hit our schedules to the day as planned. So, the entire software organization is working toward that six-week cycle. We want to post new drivers and introduce new bug fixes, performance boosts, new features, or what have you, as frequently as makes sense.

Having said all that, the trick is to find the delicate balance of all these attributes that ensures the driver will be of value to the most users as possible. For example, we can focus one driver release to just introduce new features, but not improve performance or increase stability. That, in my mind, is not acceptable. I would prefer to issue a driver that has some new features, as well as some new performance, as well as some new stability. To illustrate the example, look at an excerpt from the latest release notes included as part of CATALYST 02.3 posting (Below)

You can see that this driver set provided:

Performance Improvements;
New Features;
Stability enhancements;
User-Friendliness.
All as part of a unified driver set, which is fully certified from Microsoft. And this was made available just six weeks after the previous CATALYST driver was posted. "

There are a lot more extra information about ATI's drivers on the site, I incourage you all to check it out if you haven't aready had a look yet.

[rob64]

are these drivers on the site to download now because i will be reciving my card tomorrow and i will want the best drivers to put on sys

[ra5555]

Yes they are at ATI's official website: http://www.ati.com and go to the support and to the drivers section

Another note is that I am think that ATI's drivers accually states what the improvements and fixes are with each release, while you have no idea what the new Nvidia drivers does.

Here is a graphic representing ATI's commitment to improve driver performance over the long run. (from the website)

NOTE: ati is accually listening to what their customers want, I am sad that Nvidia is not doing the same...

[rob64]

RADEON 9700 PRO in Windows 98



As of July 1, 2002 Microsoft stopped accepting submissions for driver certification testing under the Windows 98/98SE environment.
Since the RADEON 9700 PRO was released after the July 1st date, ATI is unable to offer certified display drivers for Windows 98/98SE.
The RADEON 9700 PRO will function in Windows 98/98SE using the Windows ME drivers and software provided for the product.




does this mean that I don't need to get the new CATALYST RADEON (7.72) Reference Drivers or sould i get them any way.
Are they for xp or somthing??

[crhylove]

i'm waiting for the voodoo 6! w00t!!!

rhy

[LD.]

Originally posted by crhylove
i'm waiting for the voodoo 6! w00t!!!

You'll be waiting for a loooooong loooooooong time then ;)

[Stezo2k]

i think he was jokin ;)

[Stezo2k]

dont get me wrong though, radeons kick ass and are better than Nvidias latest line up, but the drivers suck, and i heard that the 9xxx series dont support Direct X 9 @ neowin.net

Stez

[Stezo2k]

(sorry for 3rd post but) this really doesnt belong in the 1964 forum, i'd say the tech talk forum would be appropiate

Stez

[DuDe]

Originally posted by Stezo2k
dont get me wrong though, radeons kick ass and are better than Nvidias latest line up, but the drivers suck, and i heard that the 9xxx series dont support Direct X 9 @ neowin.net

Stez

The 9000 doesn`t. The 9700 does.

[crhylove]

the new 9700 is the most powerful card available atm. will the nv30 trump it? probably. this will be a "good thing" (tm), though as 9700 prices will drop drastically and so will geforce 4 ti prices... :) this is the real benefit the average consumer can enjoy.

rhy

[ra5555]

another thing, although the radeon 9000 is not directx 9 compatiable, but it fully supports directx 8.1 , including the pixel shader, while the Geforce4 mx doesn't support them

[sk8bloke22]

9700 absolutely kills the gf4. obviously go for this card if u hav the cash and dont want to wait for the NV30 (which probably wont be THAT much faster). the 9700 thrashes all gf4s with AF and FSAA both on together. nothing is close to this speed, and if the drivers are still quite premature, then surely things can only get better.

[bodie]

i remember the old days when this forum was used for the purpose of discussion on a exceptionally good emulator called 1964 (funnily enough) *sighs* how times change
"where for art thou MARTIN "

[crhylove]

lol, yeah, this is definitely off topic.

:1964:

rhy

[Muskusrat]

Originally posted by rob64
I have upgrading my graphics card from a geforce 4 mx440 to a radeon 9700 pro and i was hoping that it would be supported by 1964 could you please tell me if this is correct

Specs

P4 2.4 gig
256mb ddr ram
Soundblaster 5.1 digital
win 98
geforce 4 mx440
80 gig hard disc
n64 PC adapter + N64 Pad Didn't feel like reading all the stuff but I got this videocard to and I have problems with all plugins including Jabo's Direct3D (only got the grafics good ones). I have to try 1964 in a second but don't think I will have more succes.

[MaGiX]

Originally posted by rob64
I have upgrading my graphics card from a geforce 4 mx440 to a radeon 9700 pro and i was hoping that it would be supported by 1964 could you please tell me if this is correct





Specs

P4 2.4 gig
256mb ddr ram
Soundblaster 5.1 digital
win 98
geforce 4 mx440
80 gig hard disc
n64 PC adapter + N64 Pad


**cough** SHOW OFF! **cough**
Those are some 1337 specs dude. Iq_132 dont even say this is spam because your the spam king my friend.

[Greevy]

MaGiX.. I don't know why but your nickname sounds familiar.
And btw..

EmuTalk.net
Members: 4,439, Threads: 8,074
Posts: 80,891, Thread Views: 2,304,864
Welcome to our newest member, MaGiX

You just registered and you posted replies in ~10 threads in 3 different forums.

Crazy. ???

[MaGiX]

Hehe I got time to spare right now. All my school work is done and I really dont feel like playing video games right now.

[rob64]

Thanx very much M8 im so use to having shit it makes a change to post some decent spec for once


RoB 64

[RJA]

Originally posted by Stezo2k
its kinda like the P4 Vs AthlonXP war...... AthlonXP may be slower, but it rocks and is way better than P4, and the P4 may be fast, but u wont notice better performence with a P4 1.8ghz compared to a athlonxp 1800 @ 1.6ghz i think.

Athlons could be better, they just need better openGL support and better drivers.

Stez



Wrong!

1400+ is 1200 mhz
1500+ is 1333 mhz
1600+ is 1400 mhz
1800+ is 1533 mhz
2000+ is 1666 mhz

[rob64]

I would agrre that the P 4 chip is a step ahead the Athlon
in terms of performance and stabilty.

RoB64

-----------

P-4 Northwood 2.4Ghz
256Mb DDR PC 2100
5.1 Digital Soundcard
RaDeon 9700 Pro
80Gb Maxter HD
LG 40x12x40 CRW
N64 PaD + Adapter

-----------

[Lillymon]

Originally posted by rob64
I would agrre that the P 4 chip is a step ahead the Athlon
in terms of performance and stabilty.

What? The Athlon chip is cheaper and more efficient.

I was once an Intel supporter, but the Pentium 4 turned me towards AMD. I once found a web page that descibed exactly why the Pentium 4 was so ineffcient, but I lost it. Anyone else know it (or a similar one)?

[cooliscool]

P4: Hardly up to par FPU that sse2 was supposed to help (K6-2 anyone ;)) In fpu, it hardly outperforms a p3. not good for intel. Not to mention how a 1.3ghz Tbird beats a p4 1.6.

[The Khan Artist]

I have a P4 1.6. I vastly prefer my dual-P3 866.

[ra5555]

just one suggestion. maybe this should be moved to TechTalk.

[Stezo2k]

Originally posted by RJA

Originally posted by Stezo2k
its kinda like the P4 Vs AthlonXP war...... AthlonXP may be slower, but it rocks and is way better than P4, and the P4 may be fast, but u wont notice better performence with a P4 1.8ghz compared to a athlonxp 1800 @ 1.6ghz i think.

Athlons could be better, they just need better openGL support and better drivers.

Stez



Wrong!

1400+ is 1200 mhz
1500+ is 1333 mhz
1600+ is 1400 mhz
1800+ is 1533 mhz
2000+ is 1666 mhz

Why do u think that they are called 2000+? cuz they are the same speed as a 2ghz P4, but not by mhz. how was any of that i posted wrong?

Stez

[Psycho]

I heard that the ATI drivers are so bad you cant play BF1942. Also AMD is better than P4 IMHO. Im waiting till the NV30 comes out that way I can laugh at the people who couldnt wait till the NV30 came out and are so mislead to think that ATI is good and are too hard headed to think otherwise. When Doom 3 comes out im gonna build a new system. Im think of a AMD Athlon XP 2800+ and the NV30 which should be out by the time Doom 3 is.

My Current system specs are
AMD Athlon 1.2 Ghz
448MB SDRAM
50GB HD
52X CD ROM
I have had that for over 2 years and built it myself and games are finally catching up...at least to my video card anyway.

The games im seriously looking forward to are Final Fantasy 11, Doom 3, and Quake 4.

[rob64]

Yawn

[karth95]

The reason I heard that the p4 has some speed issues is that it's pipleine is 20 steps long, so if it fails to properly interperate the instruction (some sort of predictive processing) it has to flush it out of the 20 step pipeline, where an XP chip has a 7 step pipeline, so incorrectly predicted instructions are flushed 1/3 faster, and can be reprocessed faster. The article I recall stated that the p4 has about a 10% failure rate on instructions, while the XP is about 7%, so it makes up for the missing clock cycles by pushing more calculations per cycle.
--Karth

PS... Just so you know I'm not completly AMD's whipping boy... I dislike the athlon XP in one way. I watched a buddy about 3 - 4 months ago turn a 200$ processor into a paperweight, and voided the warrenty, in about 20 seconds. He dropped it in the slot, covered it in thermal, and then instead of putting the hsf on it straight down and levering the sides into place (Diagram: \=/) He did it like this... put in the proc, put on one side of the hsf, and then levered it down on the other side....
/ (heatsink)
_ Processor

so when he pushed the heatsink down toward the other side, it flaked a part of the core off the processor. tiny little sliver, but it's completly unprotected, and the tiniest chip makes it completly unusable. You can get shims, but that isn't comparable to the intel chip with the large, solid heat spreader on top.

[Whobetta]

P4 3ghz coming out next month, HYPERTHREADING will rule!

[Doomulation]

Originally posted by Whobetta
P4 3ghz coming out next month, HYPERTHREADING will rule!
Bah to P4... :plain2:

[The Khan Artist]

Originally posted by Whobetta
HYPERTHREADING will rule!

IF they can sort out the inherent caching problems. Otherwise, it could even be slower than normal with many different programs running at once.