Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Ti4600 vs 9700 Pro: who's the image quality king in FS

Recommended Posts

I usually run at 1792 x 1344 x 32. Which card would look best in FS? I'm guessing they will perform similarly. And when does NV30 debut?Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

The 9700 will probably look better, but that's if you can get it working. I've heard quite a few stories of users having trouble with the 9700 and FS2k2. While some people have got it to work great, I wouldn't take the risk. Get yourself a Ti4600 and you'll love it.The NV30 will most likely be out in small quantities before the holidays with a larger release sometime in the 1st quarter of next year. Ryan-Flightpro08 :-cool VATSIM Pilot/ControllerZLA ARTCC Senior Controller (C-3)SAN TRACON Lead [link:www.taxiwaysigns.com|Taxiwaysigns.com] Scenery Designer-----------------------------My "Home Made" System Specs:Intel Pentium 4 2.2GHz ProcessorTurbo Gamer ATX Mid-Tower with 420W Power SupplyEPoX 4G4A Motherboard with Intel 845G ChipsetVisiontek XTASY GeForce4 128MB Ti4600 (Det 30.30 Drivers)512MB PC2100 DDR RAM40GB Matrox 7200RPM Hard DriveWindows XP Home Edition SP1*No CPU or GPU Overclocking*3dMark2001SE Score: 11298-----------------------------Click [link:ftp.avsim.com/library/esearch.php?DLID=&Name=&FileName=&Author=Ryan+Fretwell&CatID=Root]Here to Download my New American Eagle POSKY CRJ-200!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I certainly seem to have spent an inordinate amount of time over the last few weeks reading about user's woes with the 9700 Pro. I don't quite recall a time where I have read about so many problems with a new piece of hardware. That is not to say the majority of purchasers have not got their cards working without difficulties because I am sure they have. But the posting rate in the various forums regarding issues with this card is higher than I have ever seen. Perhaps if you insist on a 1.3 revision 9700 Pro card you might stand a chance of getting it to work flawlessly. Personally I would sit tight for another few months and re-assess the market then.But let's face it Noel - you are the type of person who wants the very best it is possible to get. Seeing as you have been so careful up to now in picking the right bits and pieces, a few more months isn't going to hurt (too much). In a few months time, I very much doubt the current Radeon 9700 will be the most coveted gamer's graphics device - and that is not to suggest that the NV30 neccessarily will be either. But it is definitely worth the wait to see if the NV30 does live up to the hype. Personally, the only caveat I have regarding the NV30 being the best card by end of year is that it does not have any significant bugs or compatability issues. I think the mind blowing performance of NV30 is, however, something we can take as a given right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NV30 is expected in December in limited quantities, and it will be widely available early next year.If you have a good videocard now, and don't absolutely need to play all your games at max detail with full FSAA and AF, wait for the NV30. Even if it is actually slower than the R9700, at least the price of the 9700 will have dropped by then.. Also, chances are that by the time the NV30 is released, ATI will have something new as well, maybe a faster version of the 9700 with faster memory and higher clockspeeds.If you really need to upgrade now, the Radeon9700 is a much better choice than the GF4. The advantages it offers today are better performance and higher image quality. It also supports DX9 (GF4 is only a DX8 card) and a number of advanced shader features not available on the GF4, meaning that it will be able to run all the next-generation games comming out next year, with full detail and effects.I wouldn't worry too much about the drivers. ATI drivers require some knowledge to install and tend to be a bit more sensitive to user-error. Make sure you uninstall any old videocard drivers. When updating ATI drivers, always make sure you uninstall the old ones before you install the new updated driver. Also, the card is power hungry, so if you get a 9700, make sure you have a good power supply and a quality mainboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were benchmarks out of Tawain recently on either Tomshardware.com or Anandtech.com that showed the NV30 having twice the performance of the 9700. No kidding. It was a small article presented from another publication on either of those two websites. One of the things that they noted was the possibility of FSAAX4 @ 1600x1200 with no loss of framerate performance but it was using something like QuakeIII. I'll try and look for it and post it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but those are just wild rumours made up by someone looking for attention "Hey look at me! I've got NV30 benchmarks!!"Looking at the leaked hardware specs of the NV30, it will most likely be slightly faster than the Radeon9700, but not even close to twice as fast. I doubt anyone has even got a working NV30. There may be a couple of very early and semi-working boards inside the Nvidia headquarters, but those are for testing the chip for bugs and trying things, they would not give them away to some hardware site in Taiwan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Image quality. The never ending question.Image quality can best be defined as what ? That is the question.1. No jagged lines;2. Sharp textures on the ground;3. True 32 bit colour;And all of that on a good monitor (it counts too) at the highestresolution and fps possible.This is my personal opinion on image quality in FS. What the 9700 does on that matter is worth mentioning: it doubles, triples the performance when you use antialiasing and anisotropic (depending on your setting of course). And antialiasing reduces jagged lines and anisotropic sharpens textures. So, if you can't go any higher than 16x12x32, the Radeon9700 is definitely the best choice for image quality (as per the abv definition). Without those features (antia or aniso) I doubt there is any discernable difference under fs2002. I don't have either card.I have a GF3 200 which I run at 2048x1536x32 (without AA or aniso).Pierre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your perspective, and my gut reaction would have been the same as yours if I had seen a post like mine. I usually check out both Anandtech.com and Tomshardware.com at least twice a day for hardware updates. Both of those sites are the most highly regarded sites on the web in terms of computer hareware. I don't think they would accept "wild rumors" from "someone looking for attention." Anyway, here is the link I obtained from Anandech.com. There is also one available on Tomshardware.com.Again, overall the NV30 appears twice as fast as the ATL 9700Pro. It is three times as fast as the current 4600ti. http://www.pcpop.com.cn/view.asp?type=news&id=7722Have a good day,Robbie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, that page is very old. It was put out at about the same time that the NV30 first taped out several months ago. Back then, there were not even any functional boards out, so it was completely impossible for them to get any board to run benchmarks on, not even Nvidia had working boards. There simply did not exist a working and functional NV30 chip at the time that those "benchmark results" were put out.It was later found out that the results were not from actual benchmark results. Rather, those scores were based off of the compiled (and false) rumors that the site ReactorCritical gathered some time before that. For example, those rumours included DDR-II memory on a 256-Bit bus, giving the card a bandwidth of over 30GB/Sec. The latest rumours now are a 128-bit bus and DDR-II, giving the card about 16-18GB/s of memory bandwidth. I'd like to know where on Anandtech you found that link. In the main news section? or in the Community forum? HardOCP is pretty much the only big hardware site that would throw up a link to something like this on the main site.Also, just by looking at the results, you can see that they are not realistic. There's no CPU out today that would be able to score 27000 3DMarks, no matter how fast the videocard.Same with their Quake3 results. Quake3 relies on the CPU for much of the geometry calculations. 600FPS is not possible on current CPUs. If there truly was a card that performed three times better than the Radeon9700, you would still not get much higher results than with a 9700, because the card would mostly sit and wait for the CPU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article I referred to was post two months ago. How do you know there were no functional boards out? If you want to play the rumor-mill card, I have heard rumors that several functional boards have been out for quite awhile. However, due to oversupply of current Nvidia chips, it would not have been wise to release the NV30 because to do so would mean lowering the value of the current Nvidia chips ever further. But rumors are rumors, so I will stick to information obtained from legitimate sites:I see no direct connection between the benchmarks I presented and information from ReactorCritical, rumor, or otherwise. Please post the link referring to the benchmarks I presented and any direct source of information you have discounting them. Thanks,Robbie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Looking at the leaked hardware specs of the NV30, it will >most likely be slightly faster than the Radeon9700, but not >even close to twice as fast.Sorry, but that's just not correct. The NV30 might not be twice as fast as the 9700, but it will be far more that "just slightly faster." Obviosuly, we won't know until it's released, but my money is on it being far better than any GPU we've seen. Ryan-Flightpro08 :-cool VATSIM Pilot/ControllerZLA ARTCC Senior Controller (C-3)SAN TRACON Lead [link:www.taxiwaysigns.com|Taxiwaysigns.com] Scenery Designer-----------------------------My "Home Made" System Specs:Intel Pentium 4 2.2GHz ProcessorTurbo Gamer ATX Mid-Tower with 420W Power SupplyEPoX 4G4A Motherboard with Intel 845G ChipsetVisiontek XTASY GeForce4 128MB Ti4600 (Det 30.30 Drivers)512MB PC2100 DDR RAM40GB Matrox 7200RPM Hard DriveWindows XP Home Edition SP1*No CPU or GPU Overclocking*3dMark2001SE Score: 11298-----------------------------Click [link:ftp.avsim.com/library/esearch.php?DLID=&Name=&FileName=&Author=Ryan+Fretwell&CatID=Root]Here to Download my New American Eagle POSKY CRJ-200!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two months is a long time. The article was posted on the 20th of Aug.Just because Anandtech linked to it does not mean it's legit.See this article, posted one week earlier:http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1678&p=1It sais the NV30 had just only taped out one week earlier, which would mean the 7th. Do you seriously think there would be working NV30 boards just two weeks later? If there were, NV30 would have been released in September. There were no working NV30 boards on the 20th of august.Also, see the final words section of the Anandtech article. The NV30 will be SIMILAR to the R300, with faster clockspeeds and some more features basically. Not twice as fast. It will be slightly faster, and offer more features, which is what you'd expect since it's comming out later. But if you think the NV30 will be twice as fast as the Radeon9700, you will be very dissapointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny how everyone thinks the NV30 will be some kind of magic chip and be much faster than everything else...just because Nvidia's chips have always been faster in the past the have to be the fastest now too, right?What everyone forgets is that the design of the NV30 started almost two years ago. Originally, David Kirk said that the NV30 would perform 2.5-3x faster than the GF4, with about double the vertex throughput. That, is a card that would be about as powerful as the Radeon9700. Any major change in the design would cause a 6-9 months delay. The Radeon9700 design started at about the same time, which means that the NV30 is DELAYED.NVidia is about .5 generations behind right now, As Carmack has stated.The chip will have about 120m transistors. The R9700 has around 110 milllion. There's only so much you can do with an additional 10m transistors. Just adding a second TMU to each pipe would easily use up all of those 10m transistors. Say they went with a 128-bit memory bus, that would give them room for the more advanced shaders that the NV30 is rumoured to have.Let's take a look at what we've got:R300: 8x1 pipes/tmu's, 19+GB/s memory bandwidth, fully DX9 compliant pixel and vertex shadersNV30: 8x2 architecture (recently speculation about it being a 4pipes x 4 TMU's has been going on), ~16GB/s memory bandwidth, slightly more advanced pixel and vertex shaders.To all those who think the NV30 will be some sort of miracle-chip, all I can say is, wait and see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you are making leaps in this argument based on your beliefs rather than hard data. The article you posted was composed PRIOR to the benchmarks I posted, so I suppose direct evidence, suggesting that the subsequent NV30 benchmarks are not legitimate, does not exist.Based on you line of reasoning, the AMD Clawhammer should have been released on time this Fall since Anantech and Tomshareware had articles and pictures of a that chip up and running in February of 2002. However, that chip won't be released until after March of 2003, over a year later. That is an example of a piece of hardware that was up and running months before the NV30 and will not be released months after the NV30. But, rational debate won't win out on this sort of argument, only hard data will - because this kind of discussion could go on and on. I have presented hard data, and you have presented nothing but supposition.The Anantech article and discussion was made PRIOR to the NV30 benchmarks is simply and educated guess. Obviously, the NV30 benchmarks posted AFTER the article you referenced do not support either your or their supposition. Talk and rumor are just that, talk and rumor Benchmarks are benchmarks and are the litmus test of the computing hardware world.I'll state it again in clear language:Please find one piece of DIRECT evidence suggesting that the NV30 benchmarks posted on Anandtech.com are not legitimate. Thanks,Robbie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1711&p=3about tapeout:"After the verification process is complete and the layout is done then comes the elusive tape-out. This is the preparation of everything necessary to be sent out to the foundry for actual production of the chip. About 4 weeks later you get your first chip or A0 silicon as it is often referred to as. "It takes FOUR WEEKS from tapeout, until you have a chip that possibly would work. Your benchmarks were posted only two weeks after the chip taped out.Also in that article, dated September 23rd, 2002, they were not shown a working NV30. Only one runing under simulation.ALSO, the benchmarks are not posted ON Anandtech. You may have found the link there, but the benchmarks were posted on PCPop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you are making leaps in this argument based on your beliefs rather than hard data. The article you posted was composed PRIOR to the benchmarks I posted, so I suppose direct evidence, suggesting that the subsequent NV30 benchmarks are not legitimate, does not exist.Based on you line of reasoning, the AMD Clawhammer should have been released on time this Fall since Anantech and Tomshareware had articles and pictures of a that chip up and running in February of 2002. However, that chip won't be released until after March of 2003, over a year later. That is an example of a piece of hardware that was up and running months before the NV30 and will not be released months after the NV30. But, rational debate won't win out on this sort of argument, only hard data will - because this kind of discussion could go on and on. I have presented hard data, and you have presented nothing but supposition.The Anantech article and discussion was made PRIOR to the NV30 benchmarks is simply and educated guess. Obviously, the NV30 benchmarks posted AFTER the article you referenced do not support either your or their supposition. Talk and rumor are just that, talk and rumor Benchmarks are benchmarks and are the litmus test of the computing hardware world.I'll state it again in clear language:Please find one piece of DIRECT evidence suggesting that the NV30 benchmarks posted on Anandtech.com are not legitimate. Thanks,Robbie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you prove that the benchmarks are real? Your benchmarks are not hard data; anyone can make a graph and write "NV30" on it.Why don't you explain how a chip with only 10M more transistors can perform twice as fast as the 9700?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no magic number that says that you have to have wait exactly four weeks to prepare a chip for production. That was just a point made in reference to an approximate time in the article. There areengineering samples of the chips well before they are mass produced. Again the engineering sample of the AMD Hammer was available back in February of 2002 and that chip won't be mass produced until March of 2002.In the following article, they mention that the NV30 was ALREADY taped out and that article was written back on August 14th almost a week prior to the benchmarks I provided through Anandtech.comhttp://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1678&p=2In the article you referred me to, they had the chip up and running!In their words, "The IKOS lab was our next stop, where we got to see NV30 running..." In fact, Anandtech wanted to run gaming benchmarks but they did not want to intrude, as noted in the article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how I can prove the benchmarks are real other than to go to Tawain myself. If I had to do that sort of thing every time I saw a benchmark, or a link to a benchmark posted on sites I considered legitimate, then I could never believe anything.The facts are that Benchmarks were provided though a link on Anandtech.com and that it was well within the timelines provided to have a legitimate NV30 up and running. See my above posts.It is your opinion that the link provided on Anandtech.com is not legitimate, but I assume it is - since it is still there. You mentioned earlier that the NV30 benchmarks provided were simply based on rumor based on something you read, but when pushed, you were not able to provide evidence that that was the case.>Why don't you explain how a chip with only 10M more transistors can >perform twice as fast as the 9700?ANSWER:The same way I can explain that there are currently Athlon chips running at over twice the speed of older Athlon chips with the SAME number of transistors. I am sure you can make the deduction, or I hope you can!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason there are Athlon chips that runs at over twice the speed of older ones, is because the clockspeed has been increased.The NV30 will run at about 400 MHz, which is only 75MHz faster than the R300.Just because the link is still there doesn't mean it's legit. :)Also you haven't answered where on Anandtech you saw the link. If it was slammed up on the frontpage or if it was hidden in the discussion forums...I'm afraid we're getting nowhere. I can't seem to find out where I read that the benchmarks are fake, and I don't think there's anything you can do to prove to me that the benchmarks are legit.Becausse I simply think they were posted to early for anyone to have a working NV30 chip, and I also think the results are way to high to be real.All we can do is wait and see how the NV30 performs. When it's actually out, we'll know how it performs. Until then, it's all speculation.But when it's released, remember what I told you about its performance :-lol:-beerchug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I found another site with the same graphs:http://zive.cpress.cz/H/PCtuning/AR.asp?AR...D=1&EXPS=&EXPA=That was posted 6.8. 2002, or one day before the confirmed date of tapeout. It's in Czech though, so I have not idea if they say anything about the benchmark results in the text. Using TranExp.com translator, the title of the page with the benchmarks is translated into "What bude achievement NV30?" which doesn't tell much...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The reason there are Athlon chips that runs at over twice the speed >of older ones, is because the clockspeed has been increased.You above point is circular. Why does one chip run faster than another? Because the clockspeed has been increased. Why has the clockspeed been increased? Because the chip runs over twice as fast.Again, you argument about the number of transistors and benchmark results does not hold true in all cases. Remember the Cyrix 333Mhz processor? It had more transistors than than the equivalent Pentium 2 333Mhz but the Pentium 2 ran over twice as fast on Direct3D benchmarks. Why, because the Pentium 2 had more transistors running floating point calculations.>Also you haven't answered where on Anandtech you saw the link. If it >was slammed up on the frontpage or if it was hidden in the >discussion forums...I didn't know you asked, but here it is-http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.html?i=17067&t=wn>I'm afraid we're getting nowhere. I can't seem to find out where I >read that the benchmarks are fake, and I don't think there's >anything you can do to prove to me that the benchmarks are legit.I guess you must have made it up then. Based on your line of reasoning, that is a legitimate way to argue.>Becausse I simply think they were posted to early for anyone to have >a working NV30 chip, and I also think the results are way to high to >be real.Again, that's your opinion with nothing to back it up.>All we can do is wait and see how the NV30 performs. When it's >actually out, we'll know how it performs. Until then, it's all >speculation.>But when it's released, remember what I told you about its >performanceAgain, I posted benchmarks earlier today that were linked on a legitimate site. See above.Have a good evening. We'll continue this tomorrow if you'd like.Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the link is on the news section of Anandtech, but they don't exactly say they are legit. They say "PCPop has posted some benchmarks of....." so it's no guarantee that they are legit."Again, that's your opinion with nothing to back it up."Not only my opinion. The general opinion on most messageboards was that the benchmarks were fake, and then someone posted a link that proved that they were fake. I haven't found that link.Though I didn't find that particular link, I found some other information of interest.Here's an interesting thread in the Anandtech forum:http://forums.anandtech.com/arcmessageview...y&keyword1=nv30Note this reply:"I posted a translation in the video forum if you want to read it. The graphs are dated August 6 and are from here: http://zive.cpress.cz/H/PCtuning/AR.asp?AR...D=3&EXPS=&EXPA= They seem to just be estimates and not benchmarks. "So I'm not the only one who claims that those are just projected results based on expected hardware specs. Also, the actual graphs are dated Aug. 6, as he points out. It's a shame none of us speak Czech, because they probably explain what the results are on the site. But that's whre the graphs are actually from. PCPop were not the first ones to have the graphs. You can see on the PCPop graphs, that they have the name "PC Tuning" on them. That's the name of the hardware site where they are taken from.I'll once again link to this Anandtech article:http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1678&p=1, and in particular, this:"The first NV30 silicon taped-out last week, this is no less than three months behind schedule."The article was posted August 14th, so "last week", like I said before, must be after (or possibly on) the 6th.If the NV30 taped-out on the 6th at the very earliest (more likely later that week), how could a fully working board have reached the Czech hardware site on the 6th of August for them to benchmark?I mean, they must have finished working on the chip in Taiwan early morning, slapped it onto a circuit board in a matter of minutes, and flown it from Taiwan to Prague in a supersonic jet for it to reach the site in time for them to post benchmark results on the same day.If Nvidia had just recieved their first fully working chip, do you think the first thing they would do, would be to send it to a Czech hardware site for them to post benchmark results?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect what happened is that once the chip was off the table and in a working sample board, they ran a few bench marks, got excited about the results, and one of the guys sent it to his buddy, and from there it leaked.Here's some more information about this card:http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5833Interesting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it will need 1 GHz DDR-II memory to compete with the 9700, because of the narrower memory bus compared to the 9700.It's higly unlikely that benchmark results would be leaked the very same day that the chip taped out.Actually it's almost completely impossible, and here's why:"After the verification process is complete and the layout is done then comes the elusive tape-out. This is the preparation of everything necessary to be sent out to the foundry for actual production of the chip. About 4 weeks later you get your first chip or A0 silicon as it is often referred to as."http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1711&p=3Fact1: It takes four weeks (another article said two weeks) from tape-out to having an actual working chip.Fact2: The benchmark results were posted on the same day as the chip taped-out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this