![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
9700PRO still rockin
- Thread starter MiXdNuTs
- Start date
Considering my X800Pro smokes a 9700Pro I would say, yes you are the only one who thinks that. The X800Pro is more than double the speed of the 9700.. At 1600x1200 with AA and AF you'd clearly see a difference in more than one game.
My 6800GT is even faster than that when clocked to Ultra Speeds.
My 6800GT is even faster than that when clocked to Ultra Speeds.
yeah but if you bought a 9700pro when it first came out you have to be happy about that purchase. it has been surpassed in the performance department, but is still a damn good card, and can play virtually any game at a decent res and details.
MemoryInAGarden
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2003
- Messages
- 4,067
I can play UT2004 at mostly full detail at 1280x1024 on 9700 pro with 2X/8X. Sure, I can't go to 1600x1200 and 4X/16X, but the 9700 is still a very decent card.
MiXdNuTs said:
Mixdnuts, I agree with you 100 percent. I find no reason to spend another $400 on a video card at this point in time. The 9700, while isn't gonna win any bragging contests anymore, it still performs just fine in the latest games like FarCry and Doom3. I am able to play on high quality at 1024X768 on D3 at above 40fps for the most part just fine. BFV, I run at 1280 just fine at 70-90 fps on most maps. When a game that I like ALOT comes along and my 9700-pro will not run it at a decent quality and at least 1024 res, then I will consider upgrading. Bragging rights alone is not worth $400, at least when it's my $400.
It's amussing when you hear a person going on how great his spankin new latest generation $400 video card is just find out he's running it on a POS 15" or 17" monitor at 60hz in games. Spend a little less on the card and get a descent display.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2002
- Messages
- 5,657
Yes, Im very impressed with my 9700's longevity. But my GT isnt coming so I can brag. Dont need to do that nor for any stick-lengthening. I expect I can hold onto this GT nearly as long as my 9700... and thats a good thing. The next big jump is not coming any time soon and for me I felt it was worth it. I could still hold onto my 9700 for a little while longer but I feel the 6 months or so I would have waited, will not see a large devalution in my GT to make me cry. No real price break will come at least until a refresh. Some people on this board are using the 6 month model or whatever but yeah right. Maybe between the next refreshes but both nV and ATi have not totally filled demand. When I read AMD wasnt getting PCIe until Q1... I decided F' this.
9700 still works decently and coupled with how old it is that made it quite a great buy. Without knowing people's financial means or way of thinking, don't assume so much though. Some of the bragging comments come off as laughable to some of the hard working folks. Some of you think I care what you guys think of my videocard? .... HA! It's quite possible it's less bragging rights on our side and more jealousy on theirs.
9700 still works decently and coupled with how old it is that made it quite a great buy. Without knowing people's financial means or way of thinking, don't assume so much though. Some of the bragging comments come off as laughable to some of the hard working folks. Some of you think I care what you guys think of my videocard? .... HA! It's quite possible it's less bragging rights on our side and more jealousy on theirs.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2002
- Messages
- 5,657
Ya, I guess that was one on the bragging side 
Just saying though, its not like these things are EE expensive or EE superflous. If you have the cash, it makes sense. What can play Doom3, Farcry, HL2 at 1600*1200? The 16 pipers of course. It's a worthwhile cause that does not equal bragging.
On topic though the 9700 is very respectable. It IS starting to show it's age. I do feel bad that maybe I was a bit agrressive in getting rid of it. It is very capable and now it may never see much action again. You have to fiddle with Farcry and Doom to get them up to snuff and looking good, which really isnt the end of the world. If I had to whip out the CC I probably would have felt worse. Ah well, no more. Crank and go. The 9700 is no longer in this category but it slips down into the plays everything comfortably category.
Just saying though, its not like these things are EE expensive or EE superflous. If you have the cash, it makes sense. What can play Doom3, Farcry, HL2 at 1600*1200? The 16 pipers of course. It's a worthwhile cause that does not equal bragging.
On topic though the 9700 is very respectable. It IS starting to show it's age. I do feel bad that maybe I was a bit agrressive in getting rid of it. It is very capable and now it may never see much action again. You have to fiddle with Farcry and Doom to get them up to snuff and looking good, which really isnt the end of the world. If I had to whip out the CC I probably would have felt worse. Ah well, no more. Crank and go. The 9700 is no longer in this category but it slips down into the plays everything comfortably category.
I upgraded to a 9700pro AIW just a few months ago (approx $200 US)
Its a very decent card. Yes, it runs fine at 1280x1024 2xAA/8xAF with UT2004. Most older games run fine at that or even 1600x1200. Only thing that hurts it is Doom3, which thankfully I managed to borrow a 6800GT system to play on for a few days.
No matter how you look at it, the 9700pro was a quantum leap over the previous generation, sometimes tripling or even quadrupling the 8500/GF4 line with high AA/AF/resolution. The X800's and 6800's can easily double the 9700 speeds, but its *only* around double
PS: I'd be willing to bet a lot 9700 to X800 performance difference is not due to the speeds of the core, but because of the memory boost from 310Mhz DDR to 1000+Mhz DDR3.
Its a very decent card. Yes, it runs fine at 1280x1024 2xAA/8xAF with UT2004. Most older games run fine at that or even 1600x1200. Only thing that hurts it is Doom3, which thankfully I managed to borrow a 6800GT system to play on for a few days.
No matter how you look at it, the 9700pro was a quantum leap over the previous generation, sometimes tripling or even quadrupling the 8500/GF4 line with high AA/AF/resolution. The X800's and 6800's can easily double the 9700 speeds, but its *only* around double
PS: I'd be willing to bet a lot 9700 to X800 performance difference is not due to the speeds of the core, but because of the memory boost from 310Mhz DDR to 1000+Mhz DDR3.
I beat doom3 on my 9700pro, on high settings. The card is still awesome. The only reason why I got my 6800GT is because it was only $200. My 9700pro is on my other machine next to my 9800pro. But yes it is still rockin along...
nst6563 said:
I never said it wasn't a good card. The post was is he the only one who thinks those cards "still have it" I don't think they do. Most people here aren't dreaming about a 9700 for an upgrade. Their thinking X800 series or Geforce 6800 series. So while the card is decent and quick enough for the latest titles except for maybe Farcry and Doom III. The card is in fact comming to an end to it's lifetime in terms of high quality res and AA/AF. Think about it. Anything based on the Farcry or Doom III engines are not going to run that great. Face it no game that is going to be released in the next couple years are likely to be based on any older engine. So unless something comes out based on the unreal engine don't bet on the 9700 giving you the quality settings your used to now. At best the 9700 will be a budget class card. With all the mid range and lower end cards comming out now it wouldn't be a good idea to purchase a 9700 now at all. It was replaced by the 9800Pro and the 9800XT. In terms of where that card stacks up, if you think about this generations mid range cards in ranks pretty low.
The argument of if it's good enough for you it's still good doesn't apply. If your happy with a 486 and a 33.6 modem cruising on AOL for pr0n then be happy and keep on going. But don't think that the machine "still has it" because it's got nothing but history.
A 9700 was a solid investment in it's day. The fact that it can run most of today's games really well is a testament to how badass it was when it was new. I mean think about how long the Ti4600's stayed usefull. Alot of people still run those.
My comments weren't about the fact that I had a faster card. Hell until the X800Pro came out I was running on a 9600Pro. So that wasn't it at all. I was generally happy with the cards performance except in Farcry where I found it to be pitiful at best.
With the titles out now and the titles comming out, if I had a 9700 right now I'd be longing for an upgrade. If your still happy with it, don't let anyone stop you. Your far better off then anyone running onboard video.
My only point was that the card doesn't "still have it" and that in the very near future those who used those cards for 1280x1024 with 4X AA and 8X AF are going to be dissapointed in the this next generation games.
I have three systems. Two newer, one old, none with modern video
cards. /lol
The newer computers use Athlon XP 2500, one with GF2 and one
with the 10 year old Matrox Millenium card --> hahahah it works..
I think there is life in the old cards, I still play some games with
the old box, a P3-733Mhz box using GF2.
Eye candy is nice in games, but choosing games for gameplay takes
priortiy, I don't buy games for candy only. I never liked playing in
1600x1200 because I can't see in game text for the game I like, so
I only use 1024x768.
Filtering is nice and makes the games look better, but it taxis the
FPS.
I'm waiting for 9800 pro to drop to $100, then I will replace that Matrox card and I will use that box until I do the big upgrade later,
dual GF6 SLI with NF4...
cards. /lol
The newer computers use Athlon XP 2500, one with GF2 and one
with the 10 year old Matrox Millenium card --> hahahah it works..
I think there is life in the old cards, I still play some games with
the old box, a P3-733Mhz box using GF2.
Eye candy is nice in games, but choosing games for gameplay takes
priortiy, I don't buy games for candy only. I never liked playing in
1600x1200 because I can't see in game text for the game I like, so
I only use 1024x768.
Filtering is nice and makes the games look better, but it taxis the
FPS.
I'm waiting for 9800 pro to drop to $100, then I will replace that Matrox card and I will use that box until I do the big upgrade later,
dual GF6 SLI with NF4...
I loved my 9700pro. It has been the best card I have owned thus far, in reference to how long it stayed on top of its game. Yeah, like others have said my new card kicks the crap out of it but its not like I was taking a huge hit in games when I was playing with it. ATi really got it right with the 9700pro and it shows.
No card has taken the giant steps that the 9700 took.
Sure the x800 and all are faster, but they also have higher clocks, faster memory, more pipelines... and even with all these advantages, the 9700pro, a 3 year old card, is playing almost all games at good if not decent res's with nice if not really nice frame rates.
Plus, http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17866
sure it's the inquirer, but it's a decent article.
Sure the x800 and all are faster, but they also have higher clocks, faster memory, more pipelines... and even with all these advantages, the 9700pro, a 3 year old card, is playing almost all games at good if not decent res's with nice if not really nice frame rates.
Plus, http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17866
sure it's the inquirer, but it's a decent article.
_Korruption_
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2002
- Messages
- 4,572
I love my 9700NP. 370/310 (275/270 stock) so far... and still going. Crappy 3.6ns Hynix RAM holds it back.
MiXdNuTs said:
Yep, me too. I really wanted to buy one of the new cards that came out, but I realized that my 9700pro was still handling everything I threw at it. Sure, not at the best resolutions, but still really nice. Since Doom 3 takes my card to it's limits, I know it's getting old, but if I'm still playing Doom3 on high, at 1024x768, with everything on at 45fps, and 59fps without shadows, and that I should be getting pretty decent framerates in CS:Source and HL2, what do I have to worry about?
Sure, i'm not playing the games at 16x12 with 8xAA and 16AF, but it's not that the games don't look good.
Plus, I figured, might as well hold out now, and wait for about a year, and then just do the whole system upgradge, 64-bit, PCI-E, and plus by then, the 6800 core will have reached some more maturity, the R520 would be out, and the new cards today will have dropped prices, so I'd have a lot more options available to me.
I agree, the 9700 pro was/is a fantastic card. It took nearly 2 years for anything to come around and really make me feel any urge to upgrade at all. Having said that, I do feel an upgrade to a 6800 or x800 is justified as the performance is quite the leap. Still tho, I gotta say "wow to the 9700pro". The best card ever realeased as far as long term value in my humble opinion...up to this point
nst6563 said:
No. Obviously I either didn't communicate what I really meant to convey or you missed the point entirely.
Probably the first one. But in either case. No, they should only upgrade if they have the money and are not satisfied with the performance of whatever card they are using now.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 10,915
Shoot I'm still running a 9000pro 64ddr. It plays UT2004 fine. I can play Far Cry fine 1024x768. I'm saving up for a way better card. Until than I have no complaints hell the card's lasted me near 3 years
M1ster_R0gers
[H]ard [H]eaded
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2000
- Messages
- 1,525
I wonder how X600XT/9600XT/9700PRO shootout would end up. I think the 9700 still wins hands down.
M1ster_R0gers said:
hard to tell...but from looking at the specs of the X600XT...umm...why did ATI make it????? It looks almost identical to the 9600XT. 4 pipes, 128-bit memory interface, 500Mhz core, 740Mhz ddr (which is faster than most 9600xt's), and .13u low-k process.....
same card with a new name?????
:EDIT:....re-read the specs...native PCI-E support...ooooohhhh....ahhhhh...almost gave me a boner....
NOT!
Chaballaman
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2001
- Messages
- 1,515
my friend bought x600pro but it gets wasted by my 9500@9700. i was fine with 9700np until doom3 came out. 40fps/45fps on 1024x768 high/med demo1 when oced to 360/285 wasnt good enough 4 me..
i was fine with 9700np until doom3 came out. 40fps/45fps on 1024x768 high/med demo1 when oced to 360/285 wasnt good enough 4 me..Kinda sad, but If these message boards didn't exist no one would be running out paying $400-$500 for a video card just to play one or two games at one higher resolution. It's all about being cool on the internet, very silly just like a new teen clothing line you had to have in high school. So I had to laugh at the poster who got all defensive when he saw this guy was happy with his 9700 and his feeble attempt to try and justify his purchase.
I think a good 9600XT can be clocked up to have within 10% the fillrate of a 9700pro. Now assuming that the larger memory interface doesn't make much of a difference, I would say that X600XT and 9600XT might be able to at least take a good swing at the 9700pro.M1ster_R0gers said:
Yup I just bought a radeon 9700pro for $100 shipped. Still waiting for it. All the games work for the radeon 9700pro and fast. Only thing is doom 3. I don't need 1600x1200 my monitor can support it but the refresh rates not that good enough and my eyes hurt after a while. And I'm sure everybody in here don't have 21inch monitor or 20inch LCD that need or want 1600x1200.
Doom 3 is definitely playable just need to turn off advanced stuff. I can definitely live with that for $100 radeon 9700pro instead of $400 6800GT.
Doom 3 is definitely playable just need to turn off advanced stuff. I can definitely live with that for $100 radeon 9700pro instead of $400 6800GT.
flippantremark
n00b
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2004
- Messages
- 44
I think it has to be conceded that the 9700pro was a classic card.
Sure, there are newer faster cards but you have to take your hat off to any video card that gives you 3+ years of high end game play.
I'm just hoping my 6 month old 9800pro will go the same distance.
Sure, there are newer faster cards but you have to take your hat off to any video card that gives you 3+ years of high end game play.
I'm just hoping my 6 month old 9800pro will go the same distance.
RM_Bulldog
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2003
- Messages
- 697
the 9700pro was one of the best cards in the last several years and its STILL kickin butt, those people that stick there nose up at you because they have a 400 dollar new video card every year get top performance but they pay top dollar! those that buy a card and stick with it for 2-3 years get the best bang for buck by far ie Ti series wich was great for 2 years and the 9700pro wich probably has 6 more months of not really showing its age, i ran my Ti4400 right up till doom and then only got a budget card to replace it though the first company that puts out a 6600GT with 256mb ram might just get me to buy again