Radeon 9800 Pro

By Eric Legge · 30 replies
Mar 8, 2003
  1. negroplasty

    negroplasty TS Guru Posts: 516   +12

    Very impressive card, although there doesn't seem to be very much improvement from the 9700 PRO. I would expect the GeForce FX 5800 Ultra to perform better :D .
  2. hdmk

    hdmk TS Rookie Posts: 104

    The FX 5800 Ultra has actually been compared to the 9800 Pro.

    The verdict? The 9800 Pro won - faster, takes up less space.
  3. Steg

    Steg TS Rookie Posts: 269

    it makes u wonder if the NV35 will b any good.....hope so - it is about time nVidia got the performance crown bac of ATi.....
    i still want a Ti4600.....neva liked ATi.....

  4. negroplasty

    negroplasty TS Guru Posts: 516   +12

    My bad, I figured since most of the specs were higher that the card would over perform the 9800 PRO :eek:. Good for you Steg, the 4600 is a great card, and when it comes to ATi, I have never been a large fan either. NVIDIA always manages to end up at the top, so I am not worried :grinthumb .
  5. Eric Legge

    Eric Legge TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 132

  6. iss

    iss TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 1,994

  7. negroplasty

    negroplasty TS Guru Posts: 516   +12

    You can make it look like I said something else, or even try to embarrass me (if that was your goal) but my point still stands that NVIDIA always ends up at the top. In my opinion messing around with things like this is just a waste of time and a mockery of a thread which was posted with serious intentions. I apologize if this post came off a little on the rude side, that was not my intention; I sometimes get a little carried away is all.
  8. iss

    iss TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 1,994

    my point is neither to embarrass you or make you look like you said something else. my point is when 3DFX ruled 3D cards people basically said the same thing you had just said in your post.

    and the point is NO ONE is guranteed a stay at the top. my own opinionis that Nvidia is unlikely to regain the performance crown this year.
  9. iss

    iss TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 1,994

    as interesting as the Raseon 9800 is the one I am most interested in is the Radeon 9600 Pro. the 9500 Pro at 275 Mhz could give even the G4Ti4600 a run for its money the 9600 Pro at 400 mhz and priced 199.00 is going be the card to get.
  10. negroplasty

    negroplasty TS Guru Posts: 516   +12

    In that case, I must apologize. I jump to conclusions to often, that is only one of my many flaws, but back to the topic, I agree it is unlikely that NVIDIA will regain their crown this year; but let’s not rule out 2004:D . I am unfamiliar with the 9600 PRO, is it expected to perform better than the 9800 PRO? Or is it going to be the 4200 of the GF4 TI series?
  11. Rick

    Rick TechSpot Staff Posts: 4,572   +65

    Keep an open mind guys.. :)

    I know that despite who ends up "king of 3d" this year, it matters very little to me... I will never be able to afford their flagship video card anyway. :)
  12. iss

    iss TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 1,994


    the 9600pro is to the 9800 pro what the G4ti4200 is to the G4Ti4600 (roughly speaking)

    I am with you rick Iam not laying out 400.00 for a video card. which is why I am looking forward to the 9600 pro.
  13. negroplasty

    negroplasty TS Guru Posts: 516   +12

    I see, I intend to get your 4600 ;) . Except in NVIDIA terms, I am going to get the GeForce FX 5800 Ultra in a couple of months (unless a newer NVIDIA GPU is released). In terms of memory bandwidth, what is the effective memory bandwidth for ATi's 9800 PRO? I would like to compare it with the GF FX5800 Ultra, but everywhere I look I can't seem to find anything. If anyone knows where I could find this information please post, I would be forever grateful :grinthumb .
  14. Cucumber

    Cucumber TS Rookie Posts: 154

    I beleive raw bandwidth of the 9800Pro is 20.5gb/sec ..... quite alot higher than the FX.

    Why the hell are you getting an FX? Noisy, slower with higher AA/AF, Image quality is certainly alot worse. I just cant see the point. :confused:
  15. negroplasty

    negroplasty TS Guru Posts: 516   +12

    I think you misunderstood me, I was inquiring about the effective memory bandwidth. For example, the 5800 Ultra's effective memory bandwidth is 32GB/sec, and the raw is something like 16GB/sec. I am going to buy an FX because I am a NVIDIA man, and I am very impressed with the advanced features it comes with. IMO, the tests were unfair as the drivers used were BETA and not properly tested in the same situations before. I think that the FX series will perform much better with different drivers:D .
  16. iss

    iss TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 1,994

    If I were a Nvidia fan I would be more likely to look at the 5600 ultra they just announced. decent performance and MSRP of 199.00.
  17. Th3M1ghtyD8

    Th3M1ghtyD8 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 664

    This will make me sound like an ATi Zealot but here goes :


    As Far as I know the Radeon 9600 Pro is going to be a redesign (probably to reduce costs or on a smaller process) but is not necessarily any faster than the 9500 Pro, it simply has some new features, like the 9800Pro compared to the 9700Pro. As for the 9500Pro giving a GF4Ti4600 a run for its money, then easy just run 3dMark2003 (GF4Ti4600 = 1500 at most, R9500Pro = 3000ish at least at a rough guess)

    Advanced features. Ha Ha Ha. Every card has advanced features, do they ever get used ? Answer:No. GeFArceFX adds additional features that are not part of the DX9 Spec, so will they get used : No. (Why would any programmer code specifically for just one card, this is what DirectX is for, for crying out loud). The R9800 and R9600 will also have new extra features, not required by directX, and so really this makes them equally as worthless.

    As for NVIDIA Drivers, look at Toms Hardware's R9800Pro benchmarks, they compared it to the FX with both "Beta" Drivers that are being shipped with the cards, and some new drivers.

    The "Beta" Drivers put the FX ahead of both the 9700Pro and 9800Pro. Why? because these drivers are optimised for benchmarks not image quality, and miss out decals and sprites like bullet holes in order to increase framerate and therefore results. With "Real" Drivers the FX is roughly on par with a Radeon 9500 Pro. And this is supposed to be NVIDIA's flagship card.

    NVIDIA are the next 3DFX. Even Microsoft are thinking of using ATi chips in their next console.


    The best card at the moment is the Radeon 9700Pro, by far, both on image quality and performance. Add to that the fact you can turn it into a R9800 simply by modding some drivers and we have a W1nn0r. Go buy Geforce FX's if you want NVIDIA fan boys, but as I told someone when they were buying a Ti4600, Save your money get the new ATi card.
  18. iss

    iss TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 1,994

    even if the 9600 pro were the exact SAME chip as the 9500pro the 9600pro at 400mhz is going ot be faster than the 9500 pro at 275 mhz.
  19. negroplasty

    negroplasty TS Guru Posts: 516   +12


    Before lecturing me on card performance, the least you could do is get SOLID information instead of your "rough" estimates. I scored 1831 on my 4600, it may only be 331 marks, but it makes a difference. And one more thing, there is no need to get protective/nasty, it is not a big deal. I apologize if what I was trying to get across came through as a little strong, but it was the last thing on my mind at the time. So let's put this childish incident behind us and continue our lives. The 9700 PRO may be the fastest GPU out at the moment, but IMO, the GF FX 5800 Ultra is the best choice for me and no matter how much you bad-mouth NVIDIA; the choice to buy the FX is still mine and will hopefully remain so.
  20. olefarte

    olefarte TechSpot Ambassador Posts: 1,345   +13

    My .02 cents. I'm not lecturing anybody.

    I preordered a Ti 4600 and picked it up the first day it was out. Never had the first problem, it ran every game I threw at it, at least to my satisfaction. Now I have an almost new computer that came with a 9700Pro and it will still run any game I can throw at it but better, because it's a newer gereration card,(well except Ghost Recon, never could get that thing to run right on the 9700), Splinter Cell and Unreall II run just great.

    Now comes along the 5800FX Ultra, which by most all accounts is pretty much equal, at least not much better or worse that the 9700 Pro. My point to all this is, the 5800FX Ultra will probably run games well, just as I know the 9700 Pro will. I don't care about overclocking them and I don't care what the 3D Mark scores are, (tweaking a few 100 more points has never made any of my games run better), I know my 9700 Pro does all I ask of it for now. Maybe when the NV 40 or the R 400 come out I'll be looking to change brands again, or maybe not, but for now I'm satisfied that I have one of the two best cards out.

    The only negative thing I will add to this is the leaf blower on the 5800FX Ultra, and using two card slots, that's there biggest downfall in my opinion. But who knows, maybe that's the next big thing in video cards.

    Lastly, I see over at Rage3D Forums a Visiontek preorder add for the 9800 Pro. Claims to be "Up to 50% faster than the GeForce FX Ultral". Take that for what it's worth.
  21. Th3M1ghtyD8

    Th3M1ghtyD8 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 664

    - And will be the downfall of the Industry.

    1500 marks was a rough estimate, as some drivers are faster/slower. 3000 marks was a complete guess as I have no experience with R9500 cards.

    Also I am not being protective/nasty as you put it, I was simply stating the obvious advantages of the Radeon 9x00 Series over the GeForceFX, I wasn't bad mouthing NVIDIA.

    I have had many different graphics cards (including: GF2MX, GF4MX420, GF3Ti200, Radeon DDR, Radeon 9700Pro) and have used many more, all have their relative strengths and weaknesses, but as far as I can see the FX has no strengths, especially when compared to 9x00 series Radeons.
  22. negroplasty

    negroplasty TS Guru Posts: 516   +12

    I am willing to settle for that. You have me convinced about performance of the FX, but nevertheless, I am still considering to buy it for the simple reason that I am an *****. The fact that there will only be a small number of 5800 Ultra's released adds to my excitement (I like to collect rare hardware). Although, if you can find me a good card that will stay the fastest for more than a few months, my views will definitely be changed.
  23. Th3M1ghtyD8

    Th3M1ghtyD8 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 664

    Do you have one of them Voodoo 5 6000s then?

    If it were my money to spend I would go for a Radeon 9700 Pro, or on a lower budget the Radeon 9500 Pro. Yes, the GeForce FX does have advanced features, but how many games actually make full use of even DirectX 8 features like Pixel Shaders ?

    At the end of the day I cannot stop you from buying an FX if you really want one, but I have seen so many people over the past 2 years, buy the wrong video card and end up thoroughly disappointed with it. I have seen people spend £350 on a Geforce 3 (Original) only for the Ti200&Ti500 models to come out the following week, which were cheaper (Ti200) or faster (Ti500). I have seen people buy Ti4600 when I knew that the R9700 would be a better card, and they to are disappointed (especially when a GF3Ti200 is nearly as fast as a Ti4600 in 3DMark 2003).
  24. negroplasty

    negroplasty TS Guru Posts: 516   +12

    No, I do not have a Voodoo 5 6000, but my brother just might; that is where I got the idea to start collecting rare hardware (not started yet). Thank you for your advice, I am so close to not buying an FX now. In the end I will most likely wait until NVIDIA regains the throne to make my move (I hope they do, I hate changing companies). Once again, I must thank you for saving me from buying a useless card, what was I thinking!?
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...