Announcement

**bsdgeek** · 18 July 2002, 04:42

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.

Anand says:
"As you can see from the picture above, the R300 looks a lot like a modern-day CPU like the Pentium 3, Pentium 4 (without the heatspreader) or Athlon XP. The benefits of a FC-BGA package include the ability to route 1,000+ pins properly as well as improved cooling, which is definitely necessary for such a complex chip running at such high clock speeds." 
"According to one of ATI’s chip architects, the reason they were able to reach such high clock speeds when 3DLabs and Matrox were unable to go much beyond 200MHz was because they took a different approach to the chip design. An admittedly very “Intel-like” approach, ATI didn’t go as far as to hand pick transistors but they did a considerable amount of the R300 design by hand thus enabling them to reach decent clock speeds at profitable yields.

**GT98** · 18 July 2002, 04:48

Ouch, I read the review over at Anandtech and the benchmarks kick the ass on everything out there...then again it does have an external power supply and huge heatsink...the P is doing everything with in Specs and we have to see what OC can do to it

**SteveC** · 18 July 2002, 04:49

Maybe if we could mod P to use a PSU power connector, and put a bigger heatsink on it'd go up to 300Mhz+ ? I realise it might only last a few months, but hey, if it's worth the performance hike!

**mhm** · 18 July 2002, 04:56

From Anand:

ATI’s drivers have always been their weakness and, unfortunately, it does not look like much has changed with the R300.

Now that was a suprise

Max

**Tempest** · 18 July 2002, 05:20

Very impressive.

We can laugh at ATi's drivers and the R300's added power connector or assumed heat production, but we can't laugh at the R300's raw performance and advanced features.
And with the drivers having gotten better recently, the power connector existing mostly for stability purposes, and their chip design approach allowing higher clock speeds than competitors, there doesn't appear to be much left to laugh at.

**PeTe** · 18 July 2002, 05:27

Originally posted by mhm
From Anand:
ATI’s drivers have always been their weakness and, unfortunately, it does not look like much has changed with the R300.

Now that was a suprise

Max

And see how a you can allways try to bring someone down with a quote. But howabout THIS quote from the NEXT line....

On the positive side, we didn’t encounter any performance, compatibility or image quality issues with the current build of the R300 drivers during our time with it. The card and its drivers ran through our entire benchmark suite just fine.

Yeah, they sure do have crappy drivers.. kicking Matrox & NVidia with out any problems with the drivers.. I just wonder what problems people are having with the current ATI drivers.. i had NONE since 6025's.. and we are at 6118 now. BAH, people bash ATI drivers when they really have NO IDEA how good they are NOW.

Whole thread is just showing dissapointment on because MATROX didnt deliver and ATI did. Im asking ONE Murcer to admit that. I was expecting this from those NVidiots, but Matrox users too... its a sad day.

Pe-Te

Hmm.. witch card to get.. the 2x FASTER, LESS expensive R300 or Matrox P. . .

**mhm** · 18 July 2002, 05:37

You're not laughing when fighting with ATI drivers

No, seriously it is a superb card from ATI. A must have for all gamers looking for stunning 3D.

I would love to have part of this technology on a laptop.

Max
(who hardly plays 3D games)

**103er-Fan** · 18 July 2002, 05:38

Originally posted by PeTe
Whole thread is just showing dissapointment on because MATROX didnt deliver and ATI did. Im asking ONE Murcer to admit that. I was expecting this from those NVidiots, but Matrox users too... its a sad day.

Pe-Te

Hmm.. witch card to get.. the 2x FASTER, LESS expensive R300 or Matrox P. . .

I am disappointed, I wasn't actually disappointed by the P. when I saw the first reviews, but now to see at Anand the speed of the R300 compared to the P. this is sad indeed, especially because you can compare both chips very well (512 bit GPU, 256bit memory, 0.15µ....) and the R300 seems to show who made their job right...

On the bright side I think that Matrox still offers better IQ, also we don't know how much faster the R300 will be if you see benchmarks with all eyecandy enabled, I know that the R300 will be faster, but not up to 3 times like in raw benchmarks.

I think the choice for gamers who thought about a new graphics card is clear now.... and I guess that choice won't be the P. unless good 2d IQ and TH is really needed.

**GT98** · 18 July 2002, 05:48

Originally posted by PeTe

Whole thread is just showing dissapointment on because MATROX didnt deliver and ATI did. Im asking ONE Murcer to admit that. I was expecting this from those NVidiots, but Matrox users too... its a sad day.

Hey I'm slightly dissapointed in the Parhelia myself, but do you have to ask yourself this also...does it really matter if you get 100fps with a Parhelia or 350fps with a Radeon 9700 when usally the max refresh rate of a monitor in high rez is 85hz, which translates into 85 fps? Also its not totally fair Compairing the P and the R9700, since the P is more or less a transion card from Dx8 to Dx9 and also meets all the specs for AGP useage Without an external power supply? I think that might scare off some Customers (i.e. Your major manufactures of PCs) with that. But time will tell with that.

Hmm.. witch card to get.. the 2x FASTER, LESS expensive R300 or Matrox P. . .

Last time I checked (well in the USA) The expectant pricing was supposed to be the same as the Parhelia-$399.

**103er-Fan** · 18 July 2002, 05:53

Originally posted by GT98
Last time I checked (well in the USA) The expectant pricing was supposed to be the same as the Parhelia-$399.

Yes, but that is for the US

Here in Germany the Radeon 9700 will be available for around 400€ according to the c't, while shopmatrox still offers it for 540€ and the cheapest onlinestore would be around 460€ and 430€ bulk.

**GT98** · 18 July 2002, 06:04

Originally posted by 103er-Fan

Yes, but that is for the US
Here in Germany the Radeon 9700 will be available for around 400€ according to the c't, while shopmatrox still offers it for 540€ and the cheapest onlinestore would be around 460€ and 430€ bulk.

Thats jacked up...damn the Euro is worth the same amount as the dollar right now

**Fogel** · 18 July 2002, 06:15

One interesting thing I would like to know is the IQ/performance comparison. As the Parhelia in 1024x768 with FAA x16 can compare IQ with GF4 ti 4600 in 1600*1200 with FSAA x4.
In these conditions Parhelia get 100FPS in Q3 and GF4 ti 4600 get 40FPS. If then Radeon 9700 get 150% GF4 ti 4600 it would be 100FPS.

BTW. I can't understand why Anandtech say that Radeon 9700 is 250% faster that GF4 ti 4600 when it only is 150%. 250%-100% = 150%

**isochar** · 18 July 2002, 06:28

Originally posted by GT98

...does it really matter if you get 100fps with a Parhelia or 350fps with a Radeon 9700 when usally the max refresh rate of a monitor in high rez is 85hz, which translates into 85 fps?

Well, with max detail at 1024x768 in my Unreal Engine based games I'm dipping to 25fps at times.

**GT98** · 18 July 2002, 06:43

Originally posted by isochar

Well, with max detail at 1024x768 in my Unreal Engine based games I'm dipping to 25fps at times.

Yeah but isn't SMOOTH still?

**isochar** · 18 July 2002, 06:48

No, i get a noticeable "jerk" at the dip.

Announcement

Radeon 9700 & 9000 launch

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment