UT2003 - 1600x1200x32; 4XAA; 16XAF – The Radeon 9700 doused the Ti4600 by about 25%. Now get a load of this, that is with the GF4 running without AA or AF. With 4XAA turned on the Ti4600 was crushed by nearly 300%. The Radeon 9700 simply made quick work of the Ti4600 under this UT2003 demo.
3DMark2001 – Using the default benchmark at 10x7 with no AA nor AF turned on, the Radeon 9700 exceeded the Ti4600’s score by approximately 20%. Where most of the score boost came from was the Nature demo as the Radeon 9700 was posting frame rates of right at 200% of the Ti4600 numbers.
Comanche 4 Demo - 1600x1200x32; 4XAA; 16XAF – Again, approximately 25% ahead of the Ti4600 with the Ti running no AA or AF compared to the full on settings of the Radeon 9700.
Last, but certainly not least, a benchmark we don’t use as it is made by NVIDIA, tweaked by NVIDIA, and configured for NVIDIA hardware, the Chameleon demo. At 1600x1200, the Radeon 9700 doubled the Ti4600 scores.
Nice to see them pulling ahead. They're a much more open-source friendly company (their product specs are open to the community, as opposed to nVidias closed specs = better support).
ATi has gotten amazingly efficient with their drivers it bloody knocked me off my seat. i swear they must have hired some nVidia techs to write some better code..
(this comes from a recent installation of the latest original Radeon drivers since my last drivers of December 2001, i also say this because Det's have always been known to work very efficiently and make use of the hardware)
i think the 9700 will be my next purchase in the Video Card market. also, word around the 'traps' is that the Image Quality once again thrashes the GeForce series of cards. :)
mmm, think about this Radeon 9700 MAXX :D (ie dual chips ;))
Yes, I'll be waiting till the GF5 comes out so i can see what ATI do (ie: *begs god(ATI)* MAXX). I hope the GF5 does really good cos then ATI will probably bring out the MAXX :D
But no matter how well the GF5 goes I'll be getting the Radeon because i buy a video card to last a certain amount of time (based on the price). I recently peruchased a V5 5500 for "50 expecting it to last me about 6 months (till i think about upgrading) and thats how long it will be lasting me. I would never pay the price of an Nvidia card just to have to go and upgrade a few months later, just not worth it :P :roll:
I've had my GF2 for years now, I'm probably a bit off but I'm guessing about two years or more and I paid about $300 for it. And it still runs like a dream.
I think its great that ATI has bested NVidia in this. Even though I dont like ATI, it makes NVidia compete even more, which just works out better for all us gamers.
We can hope to see Nvidia Video Cards come down on price, Nvidia had the cake for fare to long.. :wink:
wortel...i would simply like you to explain why you believe this to be the case? (refer to quote...) in detail if you are able to do so...
i paid a little over $700 for my card and have made full use of all of its capabilities. ie video in and out etc. and it will probably serve as card in my little brothers machine once i am through with it. and after a year and a half it still runs like a dream... (sorry ruin :P)
I think ATI have always had slightly better hardware than Nvidia, also at a much more reasonable price. Their downfall has been drivers, until now.
Hence the reason ATI is actually becoming competative. This will be great for the vga market in general, and hopefully we will see some stiff competition, and as a result lower prices on the whole. IMHO video cards IN GENERAL are way to expensive compared to any other piece of hardware.