visualsee
10-04-2002, 11:40 PM
I've used the Ti4600 and the Radeon 9700 with the new R8 release and I must say, the 9700 kicks butt in OGL mode! I'm very impressed. Redraws are FASTER than in Lightwave! :)
View Full Version : Radeon 9700 Pro works great with R8!
|
|
LucentDreams
10-05-2002, 12:00 AM
wanna send me the TI4600 then I'd make due ;)
Per-Anders
10-05-2002, 12:24 AM
ok so now i'm confused... which is the better graphics card to go for? and which model of which card? (price isn't an option with this particular thing)
LucentDreams
10-05-2002, 12:31 AM
most people are on the nividia line I believe, but I'm not sure which is acutally better, especially with the new dual planes feature causing problems with some cards and such.
MJV
10-05-2002, 12:46 AM
I have an ATI8500 and the dual planes option is greyed out using WinXP.
Per-Anders
10-05-2002, 12:52 AM
hmmm... ok i really need to know what's what with these cards. on spec the ati 9700 pro is the better card... but what's it like to use in real life? and how compatible is it (dual planes)... currently it's a toss up between ati's top of the consumer line 9700, and nvidia's gf4 ti 4600... someone make this clear for me please? i need something that will handle huge ammounts of data fast, don't wanna see any slowdown. let me know soon... might go out and order a custom pc tonite, and i'd like to be getting the right graphics card to go with it (seeing as i'm having to go to the dark side)
LucentDreams
10-05-2002, 01:31 AM
both should do great jobs, but iff possible find one that does in fact support dual planes, as that will help prevent slowdown in mor complex scenes. (if your moving a really complexobject is won't make a difference, but if your moving a simple object in a complex scene, it should fly as if it was only ths simple object.
MJV
10-05-2002, 01:58 AM
Originally posted by mdme_sadie
hmmm... ok i really need to know what's what with these cards. on spec the ati 9700 pro is the better card... but what's it like to use in real life? and how compatible is it (dual planes)... currently it's a toss up between ati's top of the consumer line 9700, and nvidia's gf4 ti 4600... someone make this clear for me please? i need something that will handle huge ammounts of data fast, don't wanna see any slowdown. let me know soon... might go out and order a custom pc tonite, and i'd like to be getting the right graphics card to go with it (seeing as i'm having to go to the dark side)
Based upon my experience with ATI and their drivers, I won't be buying any more of their product. And when I can get around to it, I plan on replacing it with an nvidia product. What I'd really like to find is a card that supports dual monitor Open GL on WinXP. So far I haven't been able to find anyone who has this working.
hmmm... ok i really need to know what's what with these cards. on spec the ati 9700 pro is the better card... but what's it like to use in real life? and how compatible is it (dual planes)... currently it's a toss up between ati's top of the consumer line 9700, and nvidia's gf4 ti 4600... someone make this clear for me please? i need something that will handle huge ammounts of data fast, don't wanna see any slowdown. let me know soon... might go out and order a custom pc tonite, and i'd like to be getting the right graphics card to go with it (seeing as i'm having to go to the dark side)
Based upon my experience with ATI and their drivers, I won't be buying any more of their product. And when I can get around to it, I plan on replacing it with an nvidia product. What I'd really like to find is a card that supports dual monitor Open GL on WinXP. So far I haven't been able to find anyone who has this working.
visualsee
10-05-2002, 03:34 AM
I've owned just about every nVidia card since the original Riva 128 and have always been happy. I have used other ATI cards before, but have returned them all because of lower than anticipated performance or because of driver problems. After reading all of the 9700 reviews on the net and in magazines, I was quite intrigued by this new card, while at the same time skeptical.
I bought one at a local Best Buy so I could return it without a restocking fee, if necessary. In a nut shell, here is what I've found:
2d applications: Very solid. Not a single crash yet. Drivers offer slightly more colorful and a crisper desktop picture than the Ti4600. All software packages run as expected with no noticable problems or glitches.
3d games: Holy crap! All of the games work with 4x FSAA and 16 AF turned on. UT2003, Neverwinter Nights, Earth and Beyond and a few other games I play look incredible. Games are noticably faster than the Ti4600. I have not had a crash or problem yet.
3d applications: C4D and Lightwave. C4D7 ran fine on the card and didn't have any problems. C4D8 runs even better and ALL OGL options are supported (even dual planes). I worked in C4D for a couple hours tonight and tried tons of stuff without any crashes or problems. Boy, I have to hand it to Maxon, the OGL performance is very noticable!
Driver quality: I think a past problem of ATI is just about behind them. The new Catalyst drivers are very good and a step in the right direction.
Which one should you get? I recommend the R9700 for excellent all around performance. However, if you hate ATI and only use your C4D software, I'd say go for the Ti4600 or sit and wait for the NV30 part from nVidia, which will hopefully come out later this year.
My post is meant as my own personal opinion and your mileage may vary. I'd recommend that you pick up one or both of these cards from a reseller that will let you return one or both without any restocking fees. This will allow you to try them and pick the one that really does meet your needs.
I have a R9700 in my PC and a Ti4600 in my secondary PC. The R9700 is currently my card of choice. Seeing some of your favorite 3d games at 1280x1024 with full 4x FSAA and 16 tap AF is a sight to behold! :)
FYI - I do have a dual monitor setup and C4D works well on it, although it doesn't appear as if full OGL acceleration is provided on the secondary monitor (I tested a terrain graphic and rotation of it is slower on the secondary monitor). This seems to be a common theme among most of the consumer cards (including nVidia).
I bought one at a local Best Buy so I could return it without a restocking fee, if necessary. In a nut shell, here is what I've found:
2d applications: Very solid. Not a single crash yet. Drivers offer slightly more colorful and a crisper desktop picture than the Ti4600. All software packages run as expected with no noticable problems or glitches.
3d games: Holy crap! All of the games work with 4x FSAA and 16 AF turned on. UT2003, Neverwinter Nights, Earth and Beyond and a few other games I play look incredible. Games are noticably faster than the Ti4600. I have not had a crash or problem yet.
3d applications: C4D and Lightwave. C4D7 ran fine on the card and didn't have any problems. C4D8 runs even better and ALL OGL options are supported (even dual planes). I worked in C4D for a couple hours tonight and tried tons of stuff without any crashes or problems. Boy, I have to hand it to Maxon, the OGL performance is very noticable!
Driver quality: I think a past problem of ATI is just about behind them. The new Catalyst drivers are very good and a step in the right direction.
Which one should you get? I recommend the R9700 for excellent all around performance. However, if you hate ATI and only use your C4D software, I'd say go for the Ti4600 or sit and wait for the NV30 part from nVidia, which will hopefully come out later this year.
My post is meant as my own personal opinion and your mileage may vary. I'd recommend that you pick up one or both of these cards from a reseller that will let you return one or both without any restocking fees. This will allow you to try them and pick the one that really does meet your needs.
I have a R9700 in my PC and a Ti4600 in my secondary PC. The R9700 is currently my card of choice. Seeing some of your favorite 3d games at 1280x1024 with full 4x FSAA and 16 tap AF is a sight to behold! :)
FYI - I do have a dual monitor setup and C4D works well on it, although it doesn't appear as if full OGL acceleration is provided on the secondary monitor (I tested a terrain graphic and rotation of it is slower on the secondary monitor). This seems to be a common theme among most of the consumer cards (including nVidia).
LucentDreams
10-05-2002, 04:32 AM
Originally posted by MJV
Based upon my experience with ATI and their drivers, I won't be buying any more of their product. And when I can get around to it, I plan on replacing it with an nvidia product. What I'd really like to find is a card that supports dual monitor Open GL on WinXP. So far I haven't been able to find anyone who has this working.
Just goes to show that Matrox still rules on niche in the industry, Dual display on XP, not a problem at all. Works my system harder than 2000 did thats for sure, was overheating my card, it was right above my decoden card their processors are located in the same spot, not a goo placement, rearranged the cards place one NIC card inbetween and now she runs smooth as a cat.
Based upon my experience with ATI and their drivers, I won't be buying any more of their product. And when I can get around to it, I plan on replacing it with an nvidia product. What I'd really like to find is a card that supports dual monitor Open GL on WinXP. So far I haven't been able to find anyone who has this working.
Just goes to show that Matrox still rules on niche in the industry, Dual display on XP, not a problem at all. Works my system harder than 2000 did thats for sure, was overheating my card, it was right above my decoden card their processors are located in the same spot, not a goo placement, rearranged the cards place one NIC card inbetween and now she runs smooth as a cat.
Per-Anders
10-05-2002, 05:07 AM
ok... so then what's the deal with matrox cards? they're more dedicated to the job rather than being for games (i'm not likely to be playing many games on this machine). would you recommend them for working with c4d with? (which one would you recommend?). or would you say that using a nvidia or ati would be fine seeing as i'm most likely to be keeping viewports to one screen and palettes to the other, or do you find that with v8 you're spreading viewports around both screens (or do you have three screens). i'm basically looking to set myself up with as good a system as i can afford, so...
oh, what happens if you have different processors (i.e. athlons, p4's, xeons) accross a network... do you run into the same problems as having macs and pc's as in because the fpu's are different, iterated things such as thinking particles wont net render well.
oh, what happens if you have different processors (i.e. athlons, p4's, xeons) accross a network... do you run into the same problems as having macs and pc's as in because the fpu's are different, iterated things such as thinking particles wont net render well.
AdamT
10-05-2002, 05:44 AM
The 9700 clearly has the edge in terms of hardware performance. Knowing this, I just bought a Ti-4600. ATI has a very bad reputation for driver support, and their OGL drivers have always been suspect. OTOH, nVidia has an excellent reputation for producing 100% compliant OGL drivers. OTOOH, John Carmack of iD software has endorsed the 9700 for the upcoming Doom3 game. Carmack definitely knows his OGL, and he has been very critical of ATI's previousl efforts. So maybe they've gotten their act together.
Now, if the 9700 works with R8 and that's all you intend to use it for, that's great. But I just didn't feel comfortable spending that kind of money and relying on ATI's past performance. I know people have had serious problems with the 9700 running Messiah.
Another thing to consider: the Ti-4600 can be had for close to half the price of a 9700. With the pace of advancement in these video cards, it may not be a bad idea to go with second best and count on upgrading in a year or so. By then you'll probably be able to pick up a 9700 for $150.
Something else to keep in mind: there's apparently a problem running the GF4 cards on dual Athlon systems using the MPX chipset. This may be something that can be fixed in bios revisions, and you can avoid the problem by using a motherboard with the MP chipset.
Now, if the 9700 works with R8 and that's all you intend to use it for, that's great. But I just didn't feel comfortable spending that kind of money and relying on ATI's past performance. I know people have had serious problems with the 9700 running Messiah.
Another thing to consider: the Ti-4600 can be had for close to half the price of a 9700. With the pace of advancement in these video cards, it may not be a bad idea to go with second best and count on upgrading in a year or so. By then you'll probably be able to pick up a 9700 for $150.
Something else to keep in mind: there's apparently a problem running the GF4 cards on dual Athlon systems using the MPX chipset. This may be something that can be fixed in bios revisions, and you can avoid the problem by using a motherboard with the MP chipset.
LucentDreams
10-05-2002, 07:14 AM
Hmm is a matrox really worth it, back when I got mine, (i'm not really into games either) It definitely was, benchmarking right up there with the best nvidia and ATI had to offer, ahead i many areas, but the G550 was a huge diappointment hardly beating the 450 in anything, just some new software for the main part. The new Parnhelia while very impressive in its own class, especially since there is a parnhelia with 256 MB of memery soon available if not already, but benchmarks for the new card are disappointing to say the least (I love matrox support and stability) I now feel if I want to do some serious graphics I might go the route of the Nvidia or ATI line (leaning to Nvidia but not sure yet) mainly because I do still focus on 3D as I assume you do, and the 3D is where the matrox falls behind. Video is awesome, Dual display still unmatched, heck back when the 550 came out, while the matrox was a poorer card in 3D benchmarks, it was leading in dualdisplay 3d benchmarks go figure :)
Soi would I go with it, still haven't decided myself, but nvidia and ATI are so clearly ahead in the OGL DX benchmarks that I am really leaning to them myself. Video out is also important to me along with dual display.
Soi would I go with it, still haven't decided myself, but nvidia and ATI are so clearly ahead in the OGL DX benchmarks that I am really leaning to them myself. Video out is also important to me along with dual display.
visualsee
10-05-2002, 11:48 AM
I used to be a big fan of Matrox myself, until nVidia came along. I was actually hoping that the new Parhelia would kick some butt, especially after all the press. However I was quite disappointed to read the reviews that basically said "nice try, but the performance just isn't there". For 2d the Matrox can't be beat, but for 3d, they've been quite disappointing in the performance department.
I guess the only thing I can say... buy the card that both your heart and your wallet will enjoy. I may like both the 9700 and the 4600, however it really comes down to what you want to spend your $ on and what you'll be satisfied with.
I guess the only thing I can say... buy the card that both your heart and your wallet will enjoy. I may like both the 9700 and the 4600, however it really comes down to what you want to spend your $ on and what you'll be satisfied with.
flingster
10-05-2002, 02:09 PM
What about the new 3dlabs Wildcat series.
More bang for your buck...surely....but then you'd have to stump up more buck. if that makes sense. You then would get the performance that the 9700 gives you allowing you to crank up full settings, but hopefully get enterprise stability?
just a thought.
wildcat vp760 low end
wildcat vp870 - not seen a bad review yet...value for what you get.(if i had the bucks i would go for one of these...not as costly as quadro cards...but more inpressive...imo)
wildcat vp970 - most expensive...would personally get the wildcat vp870.
that said....i run a 4600 and i can't complain.
give it six months and they will all be out of date....the choice is yours mdme_sadie
More bang for your buck...surely....but then you'd have to stump up more buck. if that makes sense. You then would get the performance that the 9700 gives you allowing you to crank up full settings, but hopefully get enterprise stability?
just a thought.
wildcat vp760 low end
wildcat vp870 - not seen a bad review yet...value for what you get.(if i had the bucks i would go for one of these...not as costly as quadro cards...but more inpressive...imo)
wildcat vp970 - most expensive...would personally get the wildcat vp870.
that said....i run a 4600 and i can't complain.
give it six months and they will all be out of date....the choice is yours mdme_sadie
rirad
10-05-2002, 07:03 PM
I would love to have both card to test them, but....$$$$ :(
I know the ATI card is technoloical superior (8 render pipelines against 5 in Ti4600). The 9700 pro is the first card being 100% DX9 compliant. But since cinema is not using directX (as far is I know) it can bot make use of the programmable vertex and texture shaders. You will definitely notice the general speed increasses of the card of coarse.
Tom's hardware reviewed the card. His conclusion:
The King is dead! Long live the King! How's this for a plot-twist? The challenger Radeon - a real "Performeron" - has actually done it and usurped the throne from the former king! ATi has earned itself not only the performance crown in gaming environments, but also that of the technology leader!
Full review:
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q3/020819/index.html
I know the ATI card is technoloical superior (8 render pipelines against 5 in Ti4600). The 9700 pro is the first card being 100% DX9 compliant. But since cinema is not using directX (as far is I know) it can bot make use of the programmable vertex and texture shaders. You will definitely notice the general speed increasses of the card of coarse.
Tom's hardware reviewed the card. His conclusion:
The King is dead! Long live the King! How's this for a plot-twist? The challenger Radeon - a real "Performeron" - has actually done it and usurped the throne from the former king! ATi has earned itself not only the performance crown in gaming environments, but also that of the technology leader!
Full review:
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q3/020819/index.html
Srek
10-05-2002, 07:46 PM
Hi,
personally i would go for a nVidia Quaddro 4 card. Not the high speed versions but the ones without a fan. (i.e. 550)
Maybe they are not as fast as the 700 and up but i realy appreciate the much lower noise level and the lack of Fan problems (Graphic Adapter Fans tend to die after 1/2 a year or so in most heavily used systems in my experience).
Right now i'm using an old Geforce DDR in my private Athlon 1100 and so far no scene was to heavy for it. Granted the Quaddro 4 750 in my companys PC is realy much faster but it takes over 1 Million polygons to realy notice the difference imo
btw, you can get the Quaddro 4 (even the small ones) in a dual head version (maybe from PNY)
Regards
Srek
personally i would go for a nVidia Quaddro 4 card. Not the high speed versions but the ones without a fan. (i.e. 550)
Maybe they are not as fast as the 700 and up but i realy appreciate the much lower noise level and the lack of Fan problems (Graphic Adapter Fans tend to die after 1/2 a year or so in most heavily used systems in my experience).
Right now i'm using an old Geforce DDR in my private Athlon 1100 and so far no scene was to heavy for it. Granted the Quaddro 4 750 in my companys PC is realy much faster but it takes over 1 Million polygons to realy notice the difference imo
btw, you can get the Quaddro 4 (even the small ones) in a dual head version (maybe from PNY)
Regards
Srek
CGTalk Moderation
01-13-2006, 06:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.
vBulletin v3.0.5, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.