Radeon 9700 & 9000 launch

[frankymail]

Man, I almost got my shotgun out to kill him; I get he's a VERY lucky bastard

About the Radeon 9700: There were rumors of it using a 128-bits memory bus, other saying that it would use a 256-bits memory bus; well, the truth is that it will be using a 256-bits memory bus (according to the INQ).

Heat: And I though my Parhelia was running hot Guess the Parhelia will still be ONLY be watercooled , and the phase-change system will be reserved for the Radeon... man, the heat-exchanger was almost finish and now I have to go back to the drawing board... Life's a bithch ain't she

[crente]

how much? :c)

[Fogel]

ATI Radeon 9700 @ Anandtech
ATI Radeon 9000 Pro @ Ananadtech

[Guru]

Originally posted by Fogel
ATI Radeon 9700 @ Anandtech
ATI Radeon 9000 Pro @ Ananadtech

Damn you beat me to it!

BTW these reviews don't even show up on the front page yet!

[Guru]

Damn ~399$ and 249% faster then the gf4 ti 4600 in q3 1600x1200 AA tests!

We end, once again, with Quake III Arena and the Radeon 9700's 249% performance advantage. Granted that at 1600x1200 this is more of a memory bandwidth test than anything, which the Radeon 9700 has about twice what the GeForce4 has, but it's still impressive.

[103er-Fan]

Originally posted by Fogel
ATI Radeon 9700 @ Anandtech
ATI Radeon 9000 Pro @ Ananadtech

Anybody know why they couldn't release real fps results? Their results are only how much faster it is compared to the Ti4600 (and how much slower the P. is )
Also I am disappointed that they didn't show any FSAA pictures, the same with Aniso Filtering: No pictures, not even benchmarks.
I mean who is buying such powerful cards today and plays with the settings Anand used for benchmarking? When I used a Radeon 8500 for a few months I always played with Aniso Filtering, even though I was "only" on an Athlon 1000. And why the FSAA benchmarks in 1600x1200?! I know that it would look awesome, but they even said that you have to go down to 1280x960 to get smooth gameplay, so why didn't they tested it in this resolution? Another strange thing is that they didn't included any comparisions to 16xFAA, I would like to know how ATIs 6x FSAA and Matrox' 16xFAA would be compared.
The same for image quality, I mean I rushed thorugh the review because I am a bit busy at the moment, but I couldn't see any words about the image quality.

I hope Anand releases a better review of it, though I would call this only a preview, because of the strange testing methods.
Anyways, I think the performance is impressive, much better than I thought (to be honest I thought it would be only slightly faster than the Ti4600), and this is with early drivers..... Hmmmm, I finally ordered my P. yesterday and I will still be happy with it, though the R 9700 is around 100% faster and won't be more expensive

[Guru]

Tom tested them as well!

9000 series

9700 series

[Guru]

Originally posted by 103er-Fan


Anybody know why they couldn't release real fps results? Their results are only how much faster it is compared to the Ti4600 (and how much slower the P. is )

As stated on THG

There's no denying the fact that the specifications of Radeon 9700 promise a very fast graphics card. While full blown test samples are unfortunately still a few weeks away, we were given the chance to test a prototype and compare its performance to a GeForce 4 Ti 4600 in an identical system.

[Schorsch]

Another information about the price: www.heise.de reports that the Radeon 9700 will be sold for 400 € in Germany - that is cheaper than the Parhelia...

[dZeus]

though manufactured by Hercules, right?

How do Hercules 2D filters compare to ATI's?

[Fogel]

Originally posted by 103er-Fan
Anybody know why they couldn't release real fps results? Their results are only how much faster it is compared to the Ti4600 (and how much slower the P. is )

This is what Anandtech stated in the benchmark.

Because ATI has yet to finalize drivers and clock speeds, we were only allowed to publish percent improvements over a GeForce4 Ti 4600.

If we have to wait until ATI has finalized drivers, there probably will be no real benchmark in a long time.

[103er-Fan]

Yes, now I finally noticed the benchmark reason

[Pace]

250% faster?

So, if GF4 gets 100 fps, this gets 350fps? Sign me up

[103er-Fan]

What I am still wondering... why can ATI get clockrates over 300 MHz with so many transistors in 0.15µ manufacturing while Matrox can only get 220? I don't think that the larger heatsink on the R300 samples is the reason.

[Fogel]

Originally posted by Pace
250% faster?

So, if GF4 gets 100 fps, this gets 350fps? Sign me up

I don't think GF4 get 100FPS in 1600x1200 with FSAA x4. I think it is more like 30-40FPS with GF4 and 75-100FPS with Radeon 9700. Radeon 9700 seems to have as effective AA as the Parhelia, but maybe not the same IQ.