Radeon 9800 Reviews

[lazerin]

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1794

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDM5

http://tech-report.com/reviews/2003q1/radeon-9800pro/index.x?pg=1

http://www.bjorn3d.com/_preview.php?articleID=237

http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/S&V/atiradeon9800pro.shtml

http://www.hexus.net/review.php?review=520

http://simhq.com/simhq3/hardware/previews/radeon_9800/

http://www.nordichardware.com/reviews/graphiccard/2003/Radeon9800Pro/

http://www.gamersdepot.com/hardware/video_cards/ati/9800pro/001.htm

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/r350/index.htm

http://www.rage3d.com/previews/r350/

http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/r350/

http://www.ukgamer.com/article.php4?id=220&page=1

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,917575,00.asp

http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030306/index.html

 

[madcow235]

Well if they can get a 256mb version out soon for $400 im sold. I am just fearing how little a performance hit the 9900 pro takes from AA+AF

 

[Captain Hilts]

I think everyone seems a little less impressed then they should be. The raw game performance isn't that much better than the 9700 Pro or GFX Ultra, but don't we all play with AA and AF now? Who would buy one of these cards and play with those disabled?

In that case, the 9800 Pro kicks the crap out of the rest of the cards. What I thought was especially impressive was Anand's benches with the 9800 Pro as 9700 Pro speeds (325/310) in order for us to see the optimizations in AA and AF that aren't due to clock increases.

 

[madcow235]

In my opinion at 1280x1024 and above AA performance just doesn't make me want a card. It is overkill especially anything over 4x because it just blurs things. AF performance however makes me want to buy a card because it makes things sharper and less blurry. I don't care if everything is super smooth when im running around killing people all i want is a steady FPS and im happy. then again thats just me

 

[PreservedSwine]

I think everyone seems a little less impressed then they should be. The raw game performance isn't that much better than the 9700 Pro or GFX Ultra, but don't we all play with AA and AF now? Who would buy one of these cards and play with those disabled?

In that case, the 9800 Pro kicks the crap out of the rest of the cards. What I thought was especially impressive was Anand's benches with the 9800 Pro as 9700 Pro speeds (325/310) in order for us to see the optimizations in AA and AF that aren't due to clock increases.

Exactly what I was thinking...and it seems to overclock quite well in the reviews I've read thuse far.

If you already have an R9700PRO- I don't think there's any reason to consider an upgrade, but that doesn't make it one helluva card

 

[PreservedSwine]

Jeez, anyone else noticing the how the R9800 does in UT2K3?

 

[Blkout]

not impressed at all with the 9800.

the 5800 ultra beats it in numerous tests. things are looking up slightly for nvidia.

Maybe we are not reading the same reviews. The 9800 Pro does everything the 9700 Pro already did which was already beating the FX in quite a few tests and now beats the FX in all tests and really kicks its *** in the AA and ASF tests.

What reviews are you reading?

 

[Blkout]

I thought it was interesting that in the majority of the tests the FX Ultra was able to stay pretty much right on the heels of the 9800.

I also thought it was interesting that the 43.00 drivers suck really bad for the FX

The 9800 Pro walks all over the FX.

 

[Blkout]

Yeah, hopefully. I am not really that impressed with the 9800pro. I expected better

And what did you expect 6000FPS in Q3? The 9800 Pro is quite an improvement over the 9700 Pro.

 

[eliteoneXP]

In tests without AA and aniso it isnt a big deal but when you have AA and aniso on (and who doesnt with these badass cards?) its a nice jump.

 

[Blkout]

I think everyone seems a little less impressed then they should be. The raw game performance isn't that much better than the 9700 Pro or GFX Ultra, but don't we all play with AA and AF now? Who would buy one of these cards and play with those disabled?

In that case, the 9800 Pro kicks the crap out of the rest of the cards. What I thought was especially impressive was Anand's benches with the 9800 Pro as 9700 Pro speeds (325/310) in order for us to see the optimizations in AA and AF that aren't due to clock increases.

Exactly!!!

Its like people whining because 16 bit color performance didn't improve, LOL, who cares?

 

[Captain Hilts]

Heh, yeah I'm surprised no one is complaining that they didn't included 16 bit 800x600 Quake 3 performance in the reveiws...

 

[Stumpjumper5200]

1. Freaks like me will definately still upgrade, even from a 9700Pro......just because! (At least to the 256MB version).

2. I think it'll be a long time, if ever, that we see a product as impressive as the 9700Pro. When that sucker came out, and people saw that 1600x1200 4xAA 8xAF test with the 9700Pro vs Ti4600.....that was ATI's Nirvana right there. They wiped the floor with nVidia 3 times over! That's why people aren't being impressed with 15% increases anymore. ATI spoiled us......LOL! hehe.

 

[Maxvla]

Maybe we are not reading the same reviews. The 9800 Pro does everything the 9700 Pro already did which was already beating the FX in quite a few tests and now beats the FX in all tests and really kicks its *** in the AA and ASF tests.

What reviews are you reading?

toms

 

[Black_Paladin]

And what did you expect 6000FPS in Q3? The 9800 Pro is quite an improvement over the 9700 Pro.

2. I think it'll be a long time, if ever, that we see a product as impressive as the 9700Pro. When that sucker came out, and people saw that 1600x1200 4xAA 8xAF test with the 9700Pro vs Ti4600.....that was ATI's Nirvana right there. They wiped the floor with nVidia 3 times over! That's why people aren't being impressed with 15% increases anymore. ATI spoiled us......LOL! hehe.

Yeah, I think that's exactly it. After seeing the 9700 pro sweep the floor with a ti 4600, I have become spoiled so now a 15% increase doesn't impress me.

What reviews are you reading?

toms

That's odd. Tomshardware says this about the 9800 pro:

The Radeon 9800 PRO makes an impressive showing, nullifying the slim lead NVIDIA's FX 5800 Ultra held over the Radeon 9700 PRO. While the newcomer achieves parity with the NVIDIA card in standard tests, it totally dominates the FX 5800 Ultra when it comes to FSAA and anisotropic filtering.

Are you sure you were reading Tom's then?

 

[Metallica God]

so when's 9900pro coming out?

 

[Black_Paladin]

so when's 9900pro coming out?

Good question. I have another question in return. Will the 9900 pro still going to be the 256mb version of the 9800 pro or is it going to be something else entirely (R400) ?

If the 9900 pro is not going to be the 256mb version of the 9800 pro, then I wonder what the 9800 pro with 256mb be called?

Heh, the word is that the 256mb 9800 pro will be announced in April but if that's not going to be called 9900 pro then I have no idea when 9900 pro is coming out...

 

[Maxvla]

Are you sure you were reading Tom's then?

i wasn't reading. i was looking at the results.

 

[Stumpjumper5200]

No, they said that the 9900Pro will be the 256MB version. The R400 is still quite a ways off.

 

[Black_Paladin]

No, they said that the 9900Pro will be the 256MB version. The R400 is still quite a ways off.

OK, in that case, we can say that the 9900Pro should be announced in April.

i wasn't reading. i was looking at the results.

Maxvla, which benchmarks do you have a problem with on Tom's?


While it is true that Tom's benchmarks show the fx ultra with a slight advantage over the 9800 pro when AF and AA are not enabled, when I look at the part of the review where AA and AF are used, I'm unable to see a single instance where the fx is able to overtake a 9800 pro.