"Are all these new cards better than mine?"

L

Laforge

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 29, 2003
Messages
3,132
I've got a 9800 Non pro, 128Mb AGP8X, (overclocks to outperform a pro, however)

ATI has a bunch of "newer" cards, and i'm wondering how they fair against what I have.

Specifically.. from this list, which cards are "better"

9600XT
X300
X600
X700
X800

My Guess is..

9600XT is slightly below
X300 is about same.

everything else is better than what I've got.


and no, I'm not asking for nvidia input.

That's an entirely different thread.
 
no........x800 eats your card
x800=12 or 16 pipes, 256 bit ram
x700= 8 pipes, 128 bit ram.......slower than yours/ equivelent to 9700 pro
x600= 4 pipes, 128 bit ram.......slower than yours/ Equivelent to an overclocked 9600XT
x300=Oh god........2 pipes?/equivelent to a 9200se??? maybe 9550???

your card
9800non pro=8 pipes, 256 bit ram.......

your card is decent, nothing necesary to upgrade to.

I upgraded from 9800 pro to a 6800 nu, to a x800 pro
 
Um... it very well may be.... the X700 keeps up with the 6600GT which does beat the 9800 pro in a lot of things. Although you did hit the only debatable thing - the rest being the facts that the X800 is faster and everything else like X600 and such are not.

The X700XT is a 8 pipe core running at higher MHz than the 9800 pro and with faster memory (in Mhz), it's drawback that leaves a few openings for a 9800 pro to come in and win is that we are talking about 128bit vrs. 256 bit memory interfaces. The higher clocked mem closes that gap but maybe with heavy AA and aniso the 9800 pro can win... though you find less and less situations where you will be running those conditions in new games with the cards in question. Check the benchies, seems alot of the settings people use... at least the XT version of the X700 will win more times than not. 9800 pro is becoming there mid range AGP part though it looks like. Dunno if there is an x700 planned in that. There are a lot of versions of these cards and such, I don't know what one you are talking of, but the $200 mainstream sweet spot is overtaking the 9800pro.

Most of this doesn't matter though. Indeed only the X800's are a worthwhile upgrade sense the other scenario is indeed a close one. I just wonder if you've looked at the X700's performance at all.
 
ubern00b15 said:
x300=Oh god........2 pipes?/equivelent to a 9200se??? maybe 9550???
Click to expand...
The X300 is the RV370 (110nm core), and has 4 pipelines and 2 vertex shaders like the 9600/9600SE.

My Dell 8400 came with the X300SE. It's not that horrible:

stock speed 324/392 (64-bit), 6.14.10.6444 drivers
3DMark2001 SE 6546
3DMark03 340 1828
3DMark05 1.1 816
CS:S VST 1024x768 medium, reflect world, trilinear (defaults) 39.49fps
Doom3 640x480LQ 25.9fps, 640x480MQ 24.9fps, 800x600LQ 18.8fps

overclocked 425/470 (64-bit), Cat 4.10
3DMark2001 SE 8081
3DMark03 340 2268
3DMark05 1.1 1022
CS:S VST 1024x768 medium, reflect world, trilinear (defaults) 48.81fps
Doom3 640x480LQ 39.5fps, 640x480MQ 38.8fps, 800x600LQ 26.3fps, 640x480HQ 30.8fps

(sorry, didn't test stock speed with Cat 4.10)
 
ubern00b15 said:
no........x800 eats your card
x800=12 or 16 pipes, 256 bit ram
x700= 8 pipes, 128 bit ram.......slower than yours/ equivelent to 9700 pro
x600= 4 pipes, 128 bit ram.......slower than yours/ Equivelent to an overclocked 9600XT
x300=Oh god........2 pipes?/equivelent to a 9200se??? maybe 9550???

your card
9800non pro=8 pipes, 256 bit ram.......

your card is decent, nothing necesary to upgrade to.

I upgraded from 9800 pro to a 6800 nu, to a x800 pro
Click to expand...


I knew the x800 blows mine away.. :)

I just figured the 600 and 700 are faster.

i figured the 300 was the "closest match"..

the reason, was not that I wish to upgrade.

It's that, in my new systems, I'm trying to decide on whats entry level gaming. -- And I figure my 9800 (but with a new name, new core) is what I should shoot for . So, was trying to find the closes match. I think I'm going to look at x700s for my entry level (~$1000) gaming systems.
 
pxc said:
overclocked 425/470 (64-bit), Cat 4.10
3DMark2001 SE 8081
3DMark03 340 2268
3DMark05 1.1 1022
CS:S VST 1024x768 medium, reflect world, trilinear (defaults) 48.81fps
Doom3 640x480LQ 39.5fps, 640x480MQ 38.8fps, 800x600LQ 26.3fps, 640x480HQ 30.8fps

(sorry, didn't test stock speed with Cat 4.10)
Click to expand...


Ok.. this post answers my q about the X300..
It bites.

My 3dmark2001 SE score is over ~16000 completely stock,
no overclocking whatsoever.
My 3dmark03 score is over 5000 at same.
 
Laforge said:
Ok.. this post answers my q about the X300..
It bites.
Click to expand...
People complain about the FX 5200, but at least the 5200 is dirt cheap. X300 SE cards are around $70 (good for me since I sold mine for $65). :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top