Robot Check. Enter the characters you see below. Sorry, we just need to make sure you're not a robot. For best results, please make sure your browser is accepting cookies. Neoseeker's review of ati's radeon 9700 pro video/graphics card. Video Cards: Gaming: ATI Radeon 9700 PRO Review. 128MB DDR memory. ATi Mobility Radeon 9700. 1024MB Kingston HyperX PC3500 Graphics Card: ATi Radeon 9800 Pro. Buy SAPPHIRE Radeon 9700PRO DirectX 9 RADEON 9700 PRO 128M 128MB 256-Bit DDR AGP 4X/8X Video Card. SAPPHIRE Radeon 9700PRO DirectX 9 RADEON 9700 PRO. Find helpful customer reviews and review ratings for ATI Radeon 9700 Pro 128 MB. ATI Radeon 9700 Pro 128 MB Graphics Card . Amazon Video. ATI RADEON 9700 PRO, (128 MB) AGP Video Card Good and Bad. ATI Technologies Radeon 9200 128MB Video Graphics Card Why Choose Us. The ATI RADEON 9700 PRO, Ill start of saying "Great Card". Just wish the price wasn't so high. I purchased the ATI RADEON 9700 PRO to replace my Geforce 4 Ti4200. Crucial Radeon 9. Pro Review. By Matt Hanyok Just last week we brought you a review of Hercules 3. D Prophet 9. 80. 0 Pro, a 9. Pro card rooted in the reference design but with several features to differentiate it from plain vanilla cards. ![]() ![]() If you're not familiar with some of the changes made between the 9. Pro and the 9. 80. Pro you may want to give that article a quick look. Today we're taking a look at Crucial's latest ATi- based video card, a Radeon 9. Pro 1. 28. MB. After their first foray into the graphics card market, a 1. MB Radeon 8. 50. 0 card with woefully inadequate memory bandwidth, Crucial brought us a Radeon 9. Pro card. No extra bells and whistles, theirs was a plain old Radeon 9. They look to be repeating that for this product generation; their latest card is a Radeon 9. Pro 1. 28. MB that is, basically, the same as the ATi card. This is Crucial's card, basically the reference Radeon 9. Pro design. No fancy RAM heatsinks or strange cooler design and LED light; the expected onboard power connector is still there. The red PCB is nice but it's expected with these cards. Core and memory speeds are the default 3. MHz. The Crucial card has 2. MHz, which ought to provide some overclocking headroom for those of you interested in doing so. Test Setup: AMD Athlon XP 2. MB Crucial PC2. 70. DDR Asus A7. N8. X Deluxe (n. Force 2 chipset) motherboard, n. Force reference driver 2. Crucial Radeon 9. Pro 1. 28. MB, Catalyst 3. Hercules 3. D Prophet 9. Pro 1. 28. MB, Catalyst 3. NVIDIA Ge. Force FX 5. Ultra 2. 56. MB, Detonator 4. Windows XP Service Pack 1, Direct. X 9. 0a. Since I wasn't able to remove the RAM heatsinks on Hercules' card I don't know what kind of memory was used. It was running at the same speed as Crucial's card though, so my expectation was that we'd see almost the exact same performance from this card as with Hercules'. The results from the reference 5. Ultra have been included for comparison, as well. Click image to enlarge. At the time of this writing the Catalyst 3. ATi. They come with several bugfixes and enhancements, but testing was completed with the previous release. Expect to see Radeon 9. Pro scores with the Catalyst 3. The tests used here utilize the updated methods outlined in the A7. N8. X Deluxe Review. As always, . For the NVIDIA cards, in addition, 'texture sharpening' is enabled; for the ATi cards, the 'quality' Anisotropic Filtering mode is enabled. No other driver settings were changed and no video cards were harmed during the writing of this review. Here the Crucial card seems to score slightly higher than the Hercules in all the tests, in fact bringing it very close to passing the 5. Ultra with HQ settings enabled. The increases in speed are minor, though, so let's see if that improvement continues: The fillrate on the Crucial card is slightly higher than that of the Hercules card. It could be that, although both are using the same core and memory speeds, Crucial has tweaked the timings on their card's memory, allowing for slight increases in performance. Again, the Crucial card is only slightly faster than the Hercules card but both are quite a bit better at these tests than the 5. Ultra. Similar results between the two 9. Do you see a pattern developing? Nothing to see here. Move along folks. All that these synthetic tests have shown us is that the Crucial card seems to perform better than the Hercules card, but the increase is so small it is practically negligible. Let's see if that carries on into gaming or if it ends up mirroring the results from the Hercules card. Whoah, that was a little unexpected. Before you freak out though, keep in mind that the scale of this chart is very small, so the difference looks to be bigger than it actually is. In this case, the Crucial card is faster in both normal and HQ modes, not even showing a performance decrease of much at all with HQ settings enabled. How very interesting& #Array; Only minor increases here, but between this and Jedi Outcast it seems as if Crucial's card is able to squeeze a little more speed out of the test system than I thought possible. NVIDIA's cards have always done well in Serious Sam, and while the Crucial card has a slight advantage over Hercules' 9. How very interesting this is: the Crucial card shows minor increases over the Hercules card again, but when HQ settings are enabled, especially in 1. FPS might not seem like a lot, but when you're running at only 4. FPS, an increase of 5 is more than 1. In all HQ modes here, both 9. Perhaps some performance increases are in order for Facing Worlds, as well? Yes, it most definitely seems that way. In normal quality modes the Crucial card actually comes out on top of the 5. FX card in 1. 60. Turn on the HQ settings, though, and it's a different story. In 1. 02. 4x. 76. FPS higher and putting Crucial's card right in the middle of Hercules' 9. Pro and the FX 5. The large difference remains in the higher resolutions with HQ settings enabled, putting the Crucial card 3. I'm really not sure what to say about this, given that the cards are basically the same, but this is too large of a difference to be a simple variation. This makes me wonder if perhaps something was wrong with the Hercules card I tested, but I ran tests on the Hercules card several times to make sure nothing was interfering with its scores, and I re- ran the tests on the Crucial card as well to see if maybe there was some kind of graphical glitch causing interference. I found no such problems. I also checked the clock speeds of the card with R3. DTweak from Rage 3. D to see if maybe the Crucial card was clocked higher (the original announcement we posted cited a 4. MHz clock speed) but it was running at the expected 3. So I can only conclude that Crucial has tweaked the timings on their memory to allow for slightly better performance at the same clock speeds, and I've e- mailed them about it, but have no other way to verify this theory. Once we get another 9. Pro to test out we'll see if the Crucial card is indeed faster, or if the Hercules card was actually slower. Until then, or until I hear back from Crucial, it is a mystery. I find it interesting that this 1. MB card is able to keep pace with the 5. It really makes me question the purpose of having 2. MB of memory on a video card for playing current video games. When a game like Half- Life 2 or Doom 3 is released, perhaps then it will have a purpose, but without having those games around to test it really does beg the question: why spend the extra cash for the 2. MB part? Of course, without having a 1. MB Ge. Force FX 5. Pro 1. 28. MB card it's kind of tough to answer that question. So for $1. 00 less than an FX you're getting a video card that is, depending on how you look at it, one of two things. It is either 1) almost as fast as a video card that is $1. Crucial's got a mean card here, even if the design isn't anything special. One thing that they offer that many others don't is a lifetime warranty, as they do with all of their memory as well. I can't imagine that you'd need to replace a 9. Pro ten years down the road, let alone to actually be using one at that point, but it is good to know that they are that willing to support their hardware. If you've already got a Direct. X 9 video card from the previous generation - basically a Radeon 9. Pro or 9. 70. 0 card - there's no point in spending all that money to upgrade to a card that is marginally faster. Save your pennies for the future or spend them on other upgrades. If you're looking to upgrade from something older, though, and want something that is high- end, the Radeon 9. Pro is an excellent choice. The only question you have to ask yourself if you're trying to decide between this card and the Hercules card is: do you want the pretty- looking card with the LED, or do you not care? Personally I'd say you're getting off nicely with either one, even though $4. Got a window? Don't have a preference? Crucial's card is about as plain as they get, but it's also a bit faster than what Hercules has. Definitely recommended.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
November 2017
Categories |