• 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.

How does 9700Pro stack up today?

right under the 6600gt.. it's still a good card ya knoe..... just a tad bit slower than the 9800pro.. but literally teh same card but with slower clockspeeds...
 
its so cheap every1 should get one just for the record of having the ge4 killer :/
edit : i just got one for 100$ CAN locally and all i can say is that it runs everything out there pretty fine. decents framerates at decents iq.
 
Unless you're an absolute Doom 3 freak, the Radeon 9700 class of cards is still one of the best. Even under Doom 3 it's not bad with a good CPU, but under DirectX games there really is no reason to replace it with something newer. I sold my non-pro 9700, and now I almost wish I had kept it and skipped a generation.

It's also one of the best choices as a used card for a gamer on a budget who still wants killer graphics.
 
the 9700pro was a great card, no-doubt...but there are tons of good reasons to replace it...even the 6600GT can whip it by a wide margin...not to mention high-end cards...
 
aZn_plyR said:
... just a tad bit slower than the 9800pro.. but literally teh same card but with slower clockspeeds...
Click to expand...

Actually they are built on the same technology, but their cores are not the same. They are both based on the R3XX series though. Sorry to nit pick but when you say "literally" it is inaccurate.
 
6600GT is quite a bit faster acually..The 9700 Pro would be close to a 5700 Ultra in performace.. slightly above acually, but a 6600 would be quite a bit faster.
 
Brantoc said:
6600GT is quite a bit faster acually..The 9700 Pro would be close to a 5700 Ultra in performace.. slightly above acually, but a 6600 would be quite a bit faster.
Click to expand...
5700 uh no.
Comaring the last 3 digits of different company isn't a logical way to do things.
The 5700 is a POS compared toa 9700 in everything, even more so in DX9 games.
the 5700 is comparable to a 9600XT in non DX9 games, and in DX9 games, it's quite a bit slower.
The 9700 should be about as fast a 9800 non pro, so a bit slower than a 9800 pro.
The 5XXX nvidia series shouldn't be compared to anything, since even the 5950 is slower than a 9600XT DX9 wise.
 
Moloch said:
5700 uh no.
Comaring the last 3 digits of different company isn't a logical way to do things.
The 5700 is a POS compared toa 9700 in everything, even more so in DX9 games.
the 5700 is comparable to a 9600XT in non DX9 games, and in DX9 games, it's quite a bit slower.
The 9700 should be about as fast a 9800 non pro, so a bit slower than a 9800 pro.
The 5XXX nvidia series shouldn't be compared to anything, since even the 5950 is slower than a 9600XT DX9 wise.
Click to expand...


you're right, the 9700pro will kill the 5700ultra in everything, witht eh exception of under linuxm which the 5700U will probably kill a x800xtpe LMAO.. but yeah,,,
 
the 9700 pro is still a good card, I jsut got rid of mine because i didn't like the way it rendered certain shaders and lightmaps. I was still able to pull 90-130FPS in CS:S
 
Moloch said:
The 5XXX nvidia series shouldn't be compared to anything, since even the 5950 is slower than a 9600XT DX9 wise.
Click to expand...
wrong. my buddy's 5900NU beats out my old 9600pro (@XT clocks) in dx9 apps. im fairly sure a 5950U could do an even better job.
 
Moloch said:
5700 uh no.
Comaring the last 3 digits of different company isn't a logical way to do things.
The 5700 is a POS compared toa 9700 in everything, even more so in DX9 games.
the 5700 is comparable to a 9600XT in non DX9 games, and in DX9 games, it's quite a bit slower.
The 9700 should be about as fast a 9800 non pro, so a bit slower than a 9800 pro.
The 5XXX nvidia series shouldn't be compared to anything, since even the 5950 is slower than a 9600XT DX9 wise.
Click to expand...
the 9700 pro and 9800 pro should be the exact same card, minus the core... the R300 core isn't as pretty with shaders and lightmapping compared to the R350(me and my roommate had identical setup witht hat being the only difference)
 
i dont think you can compare the 9700 pro with anything, when it came out it was WAY more powerfull than anything else. Even one gen later, not even a beefy gefx toaster couldnt touch the 9700 pro with AA and AF...i bought my ti4400 thinking i was l33t and then ati unleashed this monster :(
 
Hmm, the reason I'm asking is I'm building a new SLI setup and just wanted to pick new video cards that are faster than the 9700. I love my 9700Pro, it runs Half Life 2 just fine and only has an occasional hiccup on Doom 3.
 
I did a water cooled system for a guy with a 9700 Pro.. I used a Zalman fanelss cooler on it and overclocked it.. It just ran circles around my overclocked TI4200.. getting benchmarks almost double what I got... It was definatley the king of cards in its time.
 
lithium726 said:
wrong. my buddy's 5900NU beats out my old 9600pro (@XT clocks) in dx9 apps. im fairly sure a 5950U could do an even better job.
Click to expand...
If it's comparable to a 9600 or 9700, its doing some shader replacement.
Take a look at HL2 with DX9 mode forced and see how well it handle FP32 :)
 
lithium726 said:
wrong. my buddy's 5900NU beats out my old 9600pro (@XT clocks) in dx9 apps. im fairly sure a 5950U could do an even better job.
Click to expand...


Need to pay attention a little more. The 9700 Pro owns the 9600 Pro. The FX5950 finally was able to edge out the 9700 in certain games but for the most part the 9700 was still a top card.
 
Kckazdude said:
Need to pay attention a little more. The 9700 Pro owns the 9600 Pro. The FX5950 finally was able to edge out the 9700 in certain games but for the most part the 9700 was still a top card.
Click to expand...
It pwns the 5950 with AA and AF enabled, and the AA on the 5XXX series is pathetic.
even [H] said there was a big diff gaming on both with AA on.
 
kingpinGTI said:
the 9700 pro and 9800 pro should be the exact same card, minus the core... the R300 core isn't as pretty with shaders and lightmapping compared to the R350(me and my roommate had identical setup witht hat being the only difference)
Click to expand...

Must have been something wrong there. The rendering quality of all R(V)3x0 cards should be exactly the same.
The main difference between R300 and R350 is the improved HyperZ on R350 (better performance with eg stencil shadows) and the addition of the F-buffer (which functionality was afaik never exposed in any API).
Even all R4x0 cards have pretty much the exact same rendering quality (with the possible exception of using SM2.0b shaders).

More on topic, the R9700Pro is still better than most low-end/midrange offerings. I suppose only the 9800Pro/XT and X800 are faster (perhaps the faster X700s aswell).
 
my 9700 pro @ 425/370 everyday pwned any geforce (and most 9800xt's thx to my 4ghz cpu helping it out) until the 6 series :)

Even now, my 22k 3dmark score stands up to many geforce 6800nu's with slower cpu's.
 
6800NU>6600GT>9800Pro>9700Pro>9600XT>9600

Hope that helps, I just upgraded from a 9700Pro, the best card I've had (besides my Ultra :) )
 
Moloch said:
If it's comparable to a 9600 or 9700, its doing some shader replacement.
Take a look at HL2 with DX9 mode forced and see how well it handle FP32 :)
Click to expand...

That is and interesting argument considering when running in DX9 the ati cards do FP24 and the nvidia cards do FP32. So technically the ati cards are doing less work.
 
PsychoZX said:
That is and interesting argument considering when running in DX9 the ati cards do FP24 and the nvidia cards do FP32. So technically the ati cards are doing less work.
Click to expand...
Are you aware in the manner of which ati cards do FP24?
i.e at which point it is downed into FP24?
The 5XXX series doesn't do FP32.. they do FP16 unless you wan't to make them lag like a mofo.
And ati's FP24 is more than enough- show one game that shows artifacting, I can do so with FP16, can you do so for FP24?
 
Moloch said:
Are you aware in the manner of which ati cards do FP24?
i.e at which point it is downed into FP24?
The 5XXX series doesn't do FP32.. they do FP16 unless you wan't to make them lag like a mofo.
And ati's FP24 is more than enough- show one game that shows artifacting, I can do so with FP16, can you do so for FP24?
Click to expand...
I agree FP24 is more than enough and I don't remember saying that it wasn't. I was just saying that when you force the fx series to do DX9 in half-life 2 it does FP32 because it can't do FP24. I'm not trying to defend the crappy FX series from nvidia I was simply stating one of the reasons the 9600 is faster in half-life 2. No need for hostility :D .
 
Kckazdude said:
Need to pay attention a little more. The 9700 Pro owns the 9600 Pro. The FX5950 finally was able to edge out the 9700 in certain games but for the most part the 9700 was still a top card.
Click to expand...
whats your point? i know the 9700 owns the 9600, i was saying the 5950 was better than a 9600xt, which is a something that moloch was trying to say was untrue.
 
PsychoZX said:
I agree FP24 is more than enough and I don't remember saying that it wasn't. I was just saying that when you force the fx series to do DX9 in half-life 2 it does FP32 because it can't do FP24. I'm not trying to defend the crappy FX series from nvidia I was simply stating one of the reasons the 9600 is faster in half-life 2. No need for hostility :D .
Click to expand...
What does FP24 have to do anything?
HL2 does not request FP24, it requests full precision :rolleyes:
FP24 is defined by microsoft as FP24 or greater.
lithium726 said:
whats your point? i know the 9700 owns the 9600, i was saying the 5950 was better than a 9600xt, which is a something that moloch was trying to say was untrue.
Click to expand...
In terms of DX9 power it is.
 
the 9700pro is actually better then the 9800np.....

I'm actually planning on getting a refurbished one from the egg tomorow, the cool one with gold and red :p
 
Brantoc said:
The 9700 Pro would be close to a 5700 Ultra in performace..
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I can't sit by and read statements of complete shite......

Wouldn't the 9700Pro be more compareable to the 5950Ultra?? perhaps even surpassing it??

I can't beleive that some people actually beleive this to be the truth... :rolleyes:

FX series was a dog, is a dog and will always be a dog.....just makes me laugh when ppl have been badly burned by the FX series and still go back to Nvidia for a second helping :confused: although they have redeemed themselves a bit with the 6800GT
 
yeah the 5950 was a monster on paper. in action it was only good to make you some toasts.
 
My 9700pro still rocks. I have never had a card last me for more than a year and still keep me playing all the latest games without me thinking about where I can get money for a new card. My 9700pro plays Doom3 on Ultra quallity at 10x7. My GIG of ram helps, but the 9700pro just kick butt still and ownes any of the FX series because I can play all "old" games like BF1942 and WC3 with max AA and AF. In WC3 I run ABSOLUTE MAX res allong with 8xAA and 16xAF. In America's Army I run that fancy temporal antialiasing thing which looks great and has almost no preformance hit. Great card especailly when compaired to those FX toasters.
 
I agree. My 9700Pro still impresses me. Granted, some of the newer games need to run at 1024x768 in order for me to crank up the eye candy to HIGH/Ultra settings, but that's only a notable few. Otherwise, it'll run well with just about anything I throw at it. I haven't gotten this much satisfactory mileage out of a card since my 12mb V2 SLI days.
 
^eMpTy^ said:
the 9700pro was a great card, no-doubt...but there are tons of good reasons to replace it...even the 6600GT can whip it by a wide margin...not to mention high-end cards...
Click to expand...

True..except there might be cases where one's CPU speed limitations would actually make the two cards about = in performance.
 
Brantoc said:
The 9700 Pro would be close to a 5700 Ultra in performace.. slightly above acually.
Click to expand...

LMAO!!.......What planet is this guy on?! having had both these cards it would be safe to say the 9700pro would eat the 5700ultra for breakfast!
 
I come baring benchmarks (Doom 3 High Quality)!!

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-08.html

3dmarK:
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-04.html#3dmark_2003

UT2004:
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-06.html


The 5700 simply cannot compare.

Look at the margin in Far Cry (High Quality):
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-09.html


Far Cry (High Quality at 1024x768)... 5700U pulls an incredible 10.9 avg fps while the "similarly performing" 9700 pro pulls 35.3 avg fps.
 
endoman said:
I come baring benchmarks (Doom 3 High Quality)!!

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-08.html

3dmarK:
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-04.html#3dmark_2003

UT2004:
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-06.html


The 5700 simply cannot compare.

Look at the margin in Far Cry (High Quality):
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-09.html


Far Cry (High Quality at 1024x768)... 5700U pulls an incredible 10.9 avg fps while the "similarly performing" 9700 pro pulls 35.3 avg fps.
Click to expand...


Hmmm kinda kills that little 'statement' dead then....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top