FPS... what should we expect?

[Sandtaco]

I run on an geforce 2 soo... I'm kind of concerned if my crappy card will make me lag like hell, or will the card barely affect FPS and lower the graphics? Are concerned with the amount of lag and problems with the FPS?

BTW: What's a decently priced (I have about $160 right now, but I'm going to have to pay for PS too...) graphics card that's better than the crappy geforce 2?

[afex]

i expect to get 1 million frames per second. :o

i'd wait till PS comes out to get a new video card. prices should drop alot when the geforceFX comes out.

[Warborn]

I run on an geforce 2 soo... I'm kind of concerned if my crappy card will make me lag like hell, or will the card barely affect FPS and lower the graphics? Are concerned with the amount of lag and problems with the FPS?

You'll likely have to turn the graphics settings way down to get a respectable FPS.

BTW: What's a decently priced (I have about $160 right now, but I'm going to have to pay for PS too...) graphics card that's better than the crappy geforce 2?

GeForce 3Ti uses DirectX 8.1, so you'll have the functionality of a GeForce 4 but without the power of those cards. Otherwise, I'd say a GeForce 4Ti 4200. But if you have the money to spare, definitely a Radeon 9700. Best card out there.

[Venoxile]

Wait for the Geforcefx like me, it'll be worth the 600-800$. Oh yeahhhh ^^

[Sandtaco]

When does the GF FX come out?

[Civilian]

As it stands now, in large battles, I believe the GeForce2 (I have the GF2 MX 400) would be absolutely horrible. It would probably dip somewhere in the low-teens. As was pointed out in an earlier post, once the GeForce FX is released alot of good graphics cards will see a nice drop in price. The 9700 is the best on the market right now, and you may want to consider picking it up once the game is released.

[Civilian]

The FX is supposed to be released in early-mid February.

[�io]

Yeah i'm going 9700pro or GeForce FX.

My advice wait till at least mid-Feb before buying. Prices will be lower and the FX should be around the corner so if it's not too expensive (ppfff yeah right :rolleyes: ) you might wanna check that one out.

[Dragoon412]

There was an article about the Radeon 9700 Pro for some odd reason on Slashdot today, and I wanted to strangle the people who got modded up in the comments section for being so bloody stupid.

Do this:

1. Read this thread (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1073).

2. Wait for nVidia to release the FX cards (sometime soon; before PS comes out)

3. Laugh at all the idiots who're spending $500+ on the FX

4. Spend significantly less money on the Radeon 9700 Pro, which will be less expensive at that point (I'd guess in the $200-$250 range).

5. If you can't spend that much on a video card, gut it out with the GF2 until you can, because anything less than that will be a phenomenal waste of time and money (if you read the thread from step 1, you'd see why ;) ).

[Doobz]

the Nvidia cards are MUCH better than the radeon cards.

the FX is structured much better, theres much less bottlenecking of data.

Nvidia cards have 10x better drivers, which matter a WHOLE lot. radeon drivers just SUCK.

the FX will only be 400 dollars on release, not 500.

now im gonna laugh at all the ppl who buy the crappy 9700 compared to the FX

[Navaron]

"the Nvidia cards are MUCH better than the radeon cards.

the FX is structured much better, theres much less bottlenecking of data.

Nvidia cards have 10x better drivers, which matter a WHOLE lot. radeon drivers just SUCK.

the FX will only be 400 dollars on release, not 500.

now im gonna laugh at all the ppl who buy the crappy 9700 compared to the FX"

Now that's the most fact based un opinionated post I've ever read.

[afex]

try using quotes instead of ""'s next time.

[Sandtaco]

Yeah... now that I'm even shorter on funds I might be getting the GF4 MX :p Oh well, it's better than what I have and it should last another year.

[�io]

Do NOT get MX, if you can't afford/don't want an FX or 9700pro get a TI. MX sucks.

[Dragoon412]

Sandtaco, Dio,

Like I was saying, if you can't afford the 9700 Pro, you're better off just saving your money until you can. The GF4 line costs 75% as much and has about 30% of the overall performance, plus doesn't support DX9; it's a very poor investment, especially long-term.

Think of it this way: it's the upgrade cycles that kill you. People that buy top-of-the-line every 18 months actually wind up spending about as much as those people who scrape the bottom of the barrel and have ot upgrade every year. Sure, it may be easier to manage $200 now, and it may be easier to manage $200 again a year from now, but you're better off scrimping together $300 now and sticking with that card for 18-24 months; even on an 18-month cycle where you don't save any money, you'll still get better performance.

The absolute best advice I can give right now (and this is coming from someone who custom-builds computers for a living... sorta) is that you should wait until PS is about to be released until you spend ANY money on computer upgrades. Between the nVidia FX's immminent release (speaking of which, it was ranked in Wired's top 10 pieces of vaporware of 2002 today ;) ) and the overproduction of DDR RAM, prices on the two most performance-enhancing pieces of hardware you can get are going to fall soon.

Doobz,

That post was such utter crap I can't even think of a reply for it.

[�io]

Not sure why you included me in your economics tip but i already planned on waiting till feb-march before buying, i'm gonna wait and see how much the FX is. Thanks anyway though. :)

[Saint]

When I bought my computer I considered getting a GF2, but then I said "Oh what the hell, it is on my parents." and I got the GF4. I am so glad I did because I would have had to fork out the $200 to upgrade to a higher end vid card.

[powdahound]

nVidia for lyfe :thumbsup:

[Dragoon412]

Originally posted by Dio
Do NOT get MX, if you can't afford/don't want an FX or 9700pro get a TI. MX sucks.

That's why ;)

[�io]

Yeah but i wasn't sugessting i couldn't afford a 9700pro or anything i was just telling Sandtaco that if he couldn't he should get a TI not an MX. :)

[Sputty]

a good but cheaper card is radeon 8500 or if you odn't mind spending a tiny bit more get a 9000, support DX 9

[Cao_Cao]

guys your processor has to do allot w/ it to.... You want your processor to be as equal as you can or better then your vid card... what i mean is that if your running a 1k processor and have a geforce 4, your not gonna get the best out of it, i've lived throught this before. I had to end up buying a better processor now it runs great.

Just an thought...

Peezy

[Camping Carl]

Sorry, Cao_Cao but no. Processor speed usally makes far less difference than you might think. If you've got 1.5+ cpu, you'll be fine for a while.

[Sputty]

He's talking about wait time between the video card and the processor,..he's right too. You cna have a radeon 9700 but the processor can't keep up with it and so it's a real aste of money..heh..but you're right, a 1.5+ Ghz will work fine with basically any video card

[Camping Carl]

Theoretically yeah there's a wait time, but when actually put to the test, I've never seen a really big change. A 1 ghz may not be great, but it should work just fine. You wouldn't be wasting money on a good graphics card. Then again, if you're getting a good graphics card with a cpu below 1 ghz, yeah now that would affect performance noticably. Anyway that's not my point, the point is, in order of importance:

1. RAM
2. Video Card
3. Processor

Obviously, they all need to be fairly decent, one bad one will kill performace. Bus speed's important to, but I'm not sure where that would go. I've never had the opportunity to test to many bus speeds with different set-ups.

[Navaron]

What the hell, I've got a question that could work out on here. I've found a oem 9700 pro, and it says the only dif is that it doesnt have a memory heatsink and doesn't have those little games with it. I don't know if it needs a memory heatsink or not.

Also, whats the best gaming mother board and chip combo, new amd 2800s or the p4 3.00 on what the hell ever board? Just curious.

[Dragoon412]

Actually, in a gaming environment, the video card is going to be more important than RAM, but you're right -- the system's RAM, processor, and video card are the three biggest factors in regards to system performance. One note, though: you're better off with a faster timing scheme and lower clock speed on your RAM than you are with higher clock and sloppy timing. If you don't know what that means, just get as much of the fastest RAM your system will support, plug it in, then smile and nod. ;)

As for the 9700 Pro and the like, though, a processor really isn't going to bottleneck it *that* badly. Features like anisotropic filtering and anti-aliasing can make jaw-dropping improvements in the appearance of a game, and while they heavily tax a GPU, they don't place any additional strain on a processor. Very few moderns games need a real beefy processor, because modern video cards are essentially a seperate subsystem that handles ALL of the graphics and rendering. Yeah, if you have an older card or game that uses software T&L or something to that effect, your graphic quality will be very limited by your processing power, but it's not like you should get a crappy video card just 'cause your processor's a little out of date.

[Camping Carl]

Well, first I suppose it doesn't need a heatsink. It may just depend on how much heat the other parts in your pc generate. If you buy it and it overheats....

Anyways, I get a bad feeling about that, for them to put a heatsink on it... it might not be a good idea to have it off. Also I'd say either amd or intel would be good, the intel may have a faster ghz, but amd's are excellent chips to.

[Camping Carl]

dragoon,

Yeah I suppose it's true that video card is more important than ram. :D As long as you have at least 256 mb, preferably 512mb tho.

[Dragoon412]

Nav,

The 9700 Pro OEM is essentially just an underclocked version of the retail 9700 Pro. They should, physically, be the same, so double-check on that heatsink bit. Traditionally, it's cheaper to buy a wholesale-price OEM card from ATi and then "overclock" it (which is to say, just bump the clock speed up to the same as the retail version's) to get the exact same performance for less money. But if they're stripping heatsinks off of the memory now... man, that's bad news.

As for the best gaming MB/Processor combo, personally I'd favor the P4 with a VIA 850 chipset and RDRAM support. Specifically, I'd recommend this (http://usa.asus.com/mb/socket478/p4t533/overview.htm) board -- I feel it's the finest motherboard being made, right now, and you'd be hard-pressed to find someone that would disagree (and actually had any clue what they were talking about). Asus is, quite simply, the best. They're very expensive, though, so you may want to look into Chaintek, who also makes an excellent product.

I favor the P4 for several reasons:

1. RDRAM support

2. Heat -- my last couple Athlon systems have had heating issues, namely 'cause those chips clock so damned hot.

3. Power -- Athlon chips eat power like mad, so you need a very powerful power supply to run one reliably.

4. AMD isn't particularly trying to keep up with Intel in the desktop performance market, anymore. Servers, yes, portable devices, yes, but not desktops, which is bad for consumers, but it at least makes the choice easy: P4s are the fastest thing out there right now.

[Sputty]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
What the hell, I've got a question that could work out on here. I've found a oem 9700 pro, and it says the only dif is that it doesnt have a memory heatsink and doesn't have those little games with it. I don't know if it needs a memory heatsink or not.

Also, whats the best gaming mother board and chip combo, new amd 2800s or the p4 3.00 on what the hell ever board? Just curious.
Navaron. go with the AMD it's half the price and on the msae video card as the P4 3.06 the AMD actually had higher FRs

[Dragoon412]

Originally posted by Sputty
Navaron. go with the AMD it's half the price and on the msae video card as the P4 3.06 the AMD actually had higher FRs

That's like saying: "In this one race, the MR2 beat the Viper." What track? What race? What conditions?

So... what video card? What AMD chip? What motherboard? What was the framerate, and how was it benchmarked? Who ran the benchmark? Where can I find it?

Dammit, people, quit attempting to give advice regarding computer hardware if you aren't knowledgeable about it; half these posts make about as much sense as a blind man critiquing paintings.

Anyways, the first nVidia FX benchmarks are out. They're incredibly preliminary, both due to the beta stages of the FX card/drivers and that nVidia only allowed them to run tests at specific settings.

It's interesting to notice that what the tests indicate is that while the FX card has quite a deal more processing power, it's still inferior to the 9700 Pro in terms of memory bandwidth... which doesn't bode well for nVidia, since ATi supposedly has a card on the .13u process that's ready to go as soon as the FX is, and it's certainly not going to have <I>decreased</I> memory bandwidth...

Anyways, it's really too early to draw any major conclusions -- it's all speculation at this point, but the article is here (http://www.maximumpc.com/features/feature_2003-01-03.html).

[Navaron]

Dragooon, what is a good site to buy from? I know about pricewatch, and I've gotten a ton of stuff from them, but where can I get that 9700 pro and a good customer support if its dicked up. I got burnt hard from one site I wont mention from pricewatch. I guess I just wanted to know where you buy from. I'll take a link if you don't feel like talking.

NAV

[Sputty]

Getting it form ATI.com is a good way...or any store...there's very little chance of it being bad, ATI makes it's products well but it has a warranty on it when you buy it.

[Dragoon412]

I buy from a lot of places, actually... NewEgg, CDW, Crucial (who has some of the best customer service there is, even on par with Speakeasy), etc.

NewEgg (http://www.newegg.com):
I can't recommend NewEgg highly enough. They're a very basic, no-frills kind of company. They tell you exactly what you're getting up front, they ship it on time (often for free), and they have excellent customer service and competetive prices to boot.

CDW (http://www.cdw.com):
CDW specializes in business systems, so they aren't very competetive on the high-end performance market, but for storage, keyboards, mice, speakers, and the like, they're excellent. CDW is very professional - even moreso than NewEgg. Unfortunately their prices tend to be hit-or-miss, but they're definitely worth checking out.

Now, really, between those two sites, you could buy everything you could need for a computer and get good prices. But if you want to do more bargain hunting, I'll make a couple suggestions:

1. Use the Better Business Bureau (http://www.bbb.org) religiously. As a rule of thumb, if a company isn't in good standing with the BBB, they don't get my money. If a company is in good standing with the BBB, they may still be questionable, but at least you've got some leverage if they try to rip you off -- believe me, most member companies don't want to get on the BBB's shit list.

2. If you still have reservations, check Tom's Hardware, Ars Technica, OCP, and the like's forums to see what people think. Those guys really know their stuff.

3. You can't get a video card there, but Crucial is AWESOME for RAM. Personally, I don't use them because I favor Corsair RAM, but Crucial offers some of the best customer service in the world -- the quality of their product is up in the air; I don't like it because it doesn't overclock well, and I hear people having problems with it rather often, but I also know a lot of people who absolutely swear by it, even for mission-critical applications. Plus, Crucial sells a lot of RAM, so it stands to reason they'll have more people reporting problems than other manufacturers -- more people have it. I actually use Crucial memory in one of my machines, and I've used it for years in my main machine (I've just recently switched to Corsair) without any problems.

[Navaron]

Now that's what I call a reply, thanks man.

[Zatrais]

Dragoon412

Where did you see anny GF FX benchmarks?

Annyways, the GF FX dosn't seem to hot to me now.. looks like it will choke under it's low bandwith once more than 2x AA and AF is enabeled.

Edit: sorry, my mistake, the ones from Maximum PC might be real.. the ones from a german site was false.

[�io]

Ok just wanted to see and yeah i trust your BBB now.

Buy-Rite Video Games Inc - Based on BBB files, this company has an unsatisfactory record due to unanswered complaints concerning delivery problems & product dissatisfaction. - The Bureau has requested basic information from this company. The Bureau has not received a response. :thumbsup:

If buy-rite would have been an ok company according to them i would have never went there again. :lol:

[CDaws]

Traditonaly the AMD chips and processors put out more heat than the Pentium chips and processors. So if you do build a system with AMD chips/processor then double make sure you have plenty of ventilation or add a few more case fans anywhere you can put them to help keep it cool. Or if you have the bucks get a water cooled system. :D

[Sputty]

Or if you ahve little extra money but a few normal fans point them at your computers vent area and set them to ma...it actually works...especially with my old iMac which will overheat really badly...

[Civilian]

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Previews/geforcefx/5.html

[Dragoon412]

I found this in the comments section on Slashdot by waltc, re: FX benchmarking, and thought it to be applicable not only to the new "benchmarks" but to just about everything we've heard on the FX, so far... especially the ones linked to by civilian, which were done in-house by nVidia:

These benches are more of the same passed-around mush that nVidia's been handing out since October. Wake up and smell the coffee, people--these are the same programs nVidia handed out in the October handouts for benchmarking. Did the reviewer have a gun to the back of his head, so that he couldn't mange to run *anything* else? How convenient.

By the author's own words, this was no review. There are no 6x, 8x FSAA tests, at all, although these are supposed capabilities of GF FX--there are no screen shots for comparison--in otherwords, there is absolutely nothing to prove this ever took place. There are no anisptropic filtering tests, we don't know what cpu system the Radeon 9700 benchmarked on--nothing--absolutely nothing of interest that you would normally see in a real review is present. Even if you believe the author--he says unapologetically he was under direct duress by nVidia as far as what he was permitted to show AND SAY.

Already people on the Rage3D forums are talking about how much slower the 9700P speeds are in this promotional propganda piece than they themselves can get with their systems at home.

Also....what, pray tell, would Alienware be doing with a NVIDIA beta prototype? As a small OEM I would expect that if anything Alienware would have an OEM beta version of the card--possibly. Certainly not a nVidia version of a prototype card! If nVidia needs Alienware to beta test its upcoming card this must mean nVidia hasn't even finished the prototype reference design yet and nVidia's OEMs haven't even begun production!

Here's what I think it is: a paid-for promotional piece which is designed to deter people from going ahead and buying an ATI 9700 Pro. What it most certainly is not is an actual review of the product--by the words of the author himself. What I still can't get over is that these are the very same benchmarked programs nVidia was handing out in October!

When nVidia starts sending out cards to reviewers with driver sets and saying, "Have at it--review it any way you like!" that's when I'll start listening.

Anyways, SpecialOp's right; those Athlons clock freaking HOT - I used a fan specified by AMD for my Athlon XP 1600 system, and I still had to add 2 extra case fans to keep the chip cool enough to be stable. By that point, the thing was so damned noisy, I couldn't stand to have it on. Makes me very much appreciative of my new(er) system with its heat pipe, though. ;)

[Sputty]

Donm't forget, AMD is aobut half the price and has the same speed basically

[Zatrais]

That article dosn't say a thing about actual performance of the FX... hell they used Nvidias own figures, nothing is mentioned about the hardware used in the tests that where done by Nvidia.

Neoseeker just took the figures handed to them by Nvidia...

*shrug* articles like this just confirms to me that the FX is still in trouble.. the final hardware specs on it isn't even final. Tho 1 amusing thing about that article is that it says that the difference between DDR and DDR2 is huge... well it is large but they conveniently left out the fact that cards hasn't even pushed the limit of DDR...

Dosn't seem like the FX is doing so well to me

edit: Is the AMD's still half as expensive as the P4's in the U.S? They're about the same here (norway), or rather P4's are $10 to $12 more than the corresponding AMD here. Pricewar between Pentium and AMD...

[�io]

Originally posted by SpecialOpRanger
Traditonaly the AMD chips and processors put out more heat than the Pentium chips and processors. So if you do build a system with AMD chips/processor then double make sure you have plenty of ventilation or add a few more case fans anywhere you can put them to help keep it cool. Or if you have the bucks get a water cooled system. :D

:eek:

I got 2 fans, one right on the CPU and another at the back and it's plenty. They don't cause a nuclear meltdown, they heat yeah but it's gonna blow your house up. :)

[CDaws]

I don't want to sound mean or anything Dio but, what's your point? I didn't say anything about a comp blowing up. I was just stating a fact about heat and to have plenty of ventilation or add a few case fans if you don't and trying to give some advice to the people who aren't computer savy. Besides the cooler you keep a comp the better it will perform while adding to the longivity of the unit. So the more case fans the better.

[�io]

Well i was simply saying they don't heat that much since you said you need "a few case fans". No need to get angry man. :)

[Sputty]

If you ahve alot of those water coolers. good fans and a refrigerated case then get a P4 and overclock..hehehe...you can get over 4.5 Ghz with the 3 Ghz P4....

[CDaws]

Dio, please tell me where I said that "you need a few case fans". I mentioned it as an option I didn't say you had to have them. And it really depends on what your running, if you overclock the thing and what other things you have in your case like a high end graphics card.

[Sputty]

As Dio said, no need to get angry.

[CDaws]

Who said I was angry? I didn't use the anger face, I didn't type in caps as to yell, so how is it that I'm angry? Dio took my words out of context and reworded them. I simply pointed out that he missused my words into something that I didn't say. So Sputty what's your point?

[Sputty]

You're typing angrily.

[Camping Carl]

Overall I wasn't that impressed with the fx's benchmarks. I'd like to see how it stacks up agaisnt a raedon 9700 pro.

I'm not so sure that it with dominate the market now. Isn't ati working on a new chip too? If so I doubt that nvida has made enough of a jump in speed to compete with ati.

[CDaws]

Sheesh you guys take things too damn seroiusly. I swear you can't say anthing without some one ridiculing you about it. Oh I feel that your were typing angrily. Sheesh if you took it the wrong way that's your own fault. Don't go blaming me if you can't get what people are saying and how they are saying it.

[Sputty]

Come on, I was joking and I think most people could tell that. "Typing angrily"...

[Sputty]

Cmping CArl I agree with you...also ATI has always been at the top of RAM developemnt, especially with DDR and the new DDR2 and ATI is designing a new high preformance chip too. And they ahve the 9000 and 9500 wihich both are reasonbalby poweful, the 9500 is more powerful than a Geforce 4 and is a little cheaper.

[CDaws]

PC GAMER had the benchmarks of the new FX card and they didn't get a true field test of it. Nvidia was very limiting of what they could test with it. Nvidia told them what tests they could do and what games to test it with. As it stands with the tests, go with the 9700 PRO vs the new Nvidia FX card. Less money, better software, better drivers, and not to mention the break out box that comes with it for video capture input. :D Or wait untill they work out the drivers and get a better test on the FX card so you have a better comparison.

[Camping Carl]

Yeah, I'm curious now because according to those benchmarks the fx gets close to 2 times the fps of the g4 ti4600. I've seen tests tho, where the 9700 pro gets 3 times the fps of the g4 ti4600!

[Sputty]

Yeah, ATI for has some advantages on the fact they have manufacture their cards too. Nvidia jsut has specs companies have to be within to call it a geforce 4...

[CDaws]

Go get the Febuary 2003 issue of PC GAMER, page 90 for the FX and page 94 for the 9700 PRO. Or just read it in the store. ;)

[Sputty]

I've gone with ATI for awhile so I my be biased...heh

[trickstyle]

im sticking with my ATI 8500 128meg vid card, hopefully my FPS should be alright (with a 2.4 athlon XP processor and 512 megs of ddr I should hope so) Wish I woulda waited like 2 weeks though when buying my new vid card coulda picked up the 9700 :/

[Camping Carl]

But what about ati's new card, are they even making one?

[Vimp]

2.4 Athelon??? since when were these on the market? You talking about a Athelon 2400+? Cause thats really just 2ghz which still is nothing to laugh at but its a ways away from 2.4.

[Navaron]

Yep, if you line up the FX's test against the Ge4 against the Radeons against the Ge4, the radeon actually performs better. It's scary. I don't know what it's like.

[Sputty]

That should be fine..I'm using that vid card too:groovy: and I plan on upgrading to a 2.1 Ghz Athlon from 1 Ghz P3...heh

[Navaron]

Vimp, does the 2.8 come in at 2.4? It'd be damn close.

[Sputty]

ATI's new card is still being designed so it may be a while until it's released..

[Sputty]

Heh, Athlon basing the speed they say it is on the P4's equivalant clockspeed...

[Zatrais]

Camping Carl

Yeah ATI is making a R350 card, a new card thats better than the R300 (radeon 9700)... It's been slated for 2nd quarter 2003 release, or so the talk is from the lads at rage3d.com (the release date that is, the R350 is beeing developed confirmed by ATI) The R350 chip is surposed to have better specs than the GF FX ultra

[Sputty]

Thanks for the info...I was planning on getting a new vid card around then...meaning that ATI will drop prices on all their cards...yay

[Camping Carl]

Yeah ATI is making a R350 card, a new card thats better than the R300 (radeon 9700)... It's been slated for 2nd quarter 2003 release, or so the talk is from the lads at rage3d.com (the release date that is, the R350 is beeing developed confirmed by ATI) The R350 chip is surposed to have better specs than the GF FX ultra

Thanks, tho I think that the 9700 pro may already outperform the fx! I think I'll save up for this R350 chip instead of the fx. :D

[Sputty]

I'll probably get the 9700...it's still will be a really fast card in the summer...

[Vimp]

A 2.8ghz P4 is clocked at 2.8ghz but Athelons clockspeed is not the same as the number they give it. The highest Athelon I've seen in stores so far is the 2600+ which is 2.13ghz.

However it is true that an Athelon's clock speed directly compared to a Pentium's clockspeed is not very informative as to its performance since in games and 3D rendering specificly an Athelon of much lower clockspeed compares very well with a much higher clock speed Pentium 4. This is mainly for 3d intensive games only though.

[Sputty]

Yeah, that's true...we're all to lazy to type 2100+ though, and the athlon is up to 2800 now, BTW

[Dragoon412]

AMD started using that naming scheme to show their performance relative to the clock-speed-crazed populace. Yes, AMDs are faster than Intel chips at the same clock speed, but AMD's architecture isn't capable of the same type of clock speeds the Pentium is. The Athlon really is a more efficient design than the P4, but the P4 still has more balls, now.

Think of it this way: AMD is to Intel what Porsche is to Jaguar -- both make excellent products, but while Porsche favors a smaller, more efficient turbo-charged design (Athlon), Jag tends towards big, gutsy engines (Intel). It's just that right now, AMD's kinda dropped the ball - they aren't even trying to compete with Intel for the high-performance desktop market anymore. And with the P4 reaching higher and higher clock speeds, plus the inclusion of hyperthreading :drool: Intel really is the leader right now.

I don't mean to bash AMD -- they make an excellent product, and I *do* like their chips a lot, and I'm very sad to see them taking leave of the high-performance market, but I feel that what you save in money on the processor itself, you loose in extra cooling, a larger power supply, and the increased power bills said power supply contributes to. That's to say nothing of the loudness of most cooling systems sufficient for an Athlon XP.

As for the FX vs. 9700P, it's doubtful the 9700P will be equal to the FX, but it looks like it's going to be very close, and once ATi releases the revised R300 on a .13u process, it's back to obsolescense for nVidia.

[trickstyle]

im picking up the athlon 2800+ which apparently clocks in at about 2.4 gig

[Sputty]

It's equal to that of a P4 2.8 Ghz though. It's clock speed is about 2.4 though.

[Sputty]

Intel has weaker processor than alot, Apple's G4 is way more powerful but they have even lower clock speeds and cna't get it higher. AMD is competing well though.

[Zatrais]

intels are weaker because?

Whit HT (basicly lets intel do the same as AMD, letting the cpu do more operations pr cycle) , 533FSB's, 0.13-micron, 512 KB full Speed L2 Advanced Transfer Cache (.13 micron)...

Atleast state why intel is worse if you're gonna say it.

As for the GF FX vs 9700... Remember the 9700 wasn't surposed to compete against the FX, the 9700 just performs way better than Nvidia expected. Yes the FX will be able to pump out more polygons and creating a faster framerate due to it's faster clock speed.. however the FX suffers from poor bandwith, only 16gb and thats not enough to handle everything once you go past 2x AA. When more than 2x AA and FA comes into play the FX will "choke" and not be able to get info out fast enough. The 9700 dosn't have the problem because well it has 19.6gb bandwith.

Look at the current technical specs of the FX if you need proof hehe.


Me, i prefer better AA and FA over framerates. I take better images over some extra frames thats not that noticeable =)

[Sputty]

Intel's P4 depends entirely on it's clock speed. It's CPU would be easily overpowered if AMD and the G4 were the smae clockspeed.

[Dragoon412]

Atleast state why intel is worse if you're gonna say it.

In case it isn't fairly obvious, Sputty's opinions seem largely based on fifth-hand information, like what the friend of a friend of some guy who was on this one message board heard from his brother who works as a tech at Best Buy told him. I seriously doubt you'll get any logical responses.

Remember the 9700 wasn't surposed to compete against the FX...

That's the sad part -- the 9700 and FX were supposed to be competitors, but nVidia dropped the ball and now the FX is like 4 or 5 months late. Had they been able to get it out the door on time, it probably would've been a serious contender to the 9700.

[Sputty]

Flame on....where's Hamma with his :love:

[Hamma]

:love:

[Sputty]

And my response made sense. Weaker may ahve been a bad word but what other words are there?.../me brings up thesaurus, looks at it and all the words seem as inprecise. But the only reason intel can compete is their tweaking to get really high clockspeeds. The AMD (not sure the exact numbers) had a higher FPS in most games,UT2003, comparing the 2800 and P4 3.06 Ghz on the Radeon 9700.

[Sputty]

BTW, thanks for the :love: Hamma

[Dragoon412]

Originally posted by Sputty
And my response made sense. Weaker may ahve been a bad word but what other words are there?.../me brings up thesaurus, looks at it and all the words seem as inprecise. But the only reason intel can compete is their tweaking to get really high clockspeeds. The AMD (not sure the exact numbers) had a higher FPS in most games,UT2003, comparing the 2800 and P4 3.06 Ghz on the Radeon 9700.

What you're failing to realize is that without giving the rest of the information in the benchmarking setup, what you're saying is completely and utterly useless. You don't even provide a link to anything that may be able to back up your views. Without that kind of information, you may as well be saying "I like cheese," because it's just as useful -- which is to say it's useless -- to anyone that's trying to decide between AMD and Intel.

[CDaws]

I thought about going with the AMD a few years ago during the processor wars but since I've seen the architecture of the P4 3gig chip that's what I'm going with. It's more for the multitasking and from what I've read it kinda makes itself read as if it were two processers instead of one the more apps you have open and are running. I multitask like crazy. :D Outside of this, that is my only reason.

[Sputty]

I need to get something a little cheaper...That's why I go with AMD.