king ati

Null · 09-23-2003, 08:53 AM

processor effects how the game runs more.

GFX card effects how the game looks. jumping to a new card gives you more special effects, clearer sharper textures, things like that.

part of the reason i wanted a DX9 card is to get a few of the extra details and special effects from half life 2.

it wont make a HUGE difference. but would just be cool to see

Jonbo298 · 09-23-2003, 04:02 PM

I've seen the demo that Valve put up awhile back showcasing HL2 and how great its going to be and a friend said it was "jumpy" once in awhile on the demo they showed because they were using a P4. I'm glad I'm an AMD person since I think he said it would run better with an Athlon.

Does anyone have a link to any info. on Ati bundling HL2 with the newer Radeon's? I want to get a 9800 or 9800 Pro for X-mas and I can try to convince my dad to get me the bundle since I want HL2 also. (+rep to the provider of a good reputable link)

Ace195 · 09-23-2003, 06:02 PM

Ok.. So my friend didn't have the Ati Radeon 8500 but he did have a GF4 ti440. I'm just wondering anyone had any bad experience with these cards ?

Ace195 · 09-23-2003, 09:47 PM

anyone ? What about the 9200

Jason1 · 09-24-2003, 03:12 PM

Hmmm...isnt the Ti440 one of the cheaper Geforce 4's out there? Or maybe you mean the Geforce 4 Ti4400. I almost got that over the Radeon 9500pro, but the Radeon obviously outperformes it so I ended up going with it, but they were both about the same price.

Null · 09-24-2003, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonbo298

I've seen the demo that Valve put up awhile back showcasing HL2 and how great its going to be and a friend said it was "jumpy" once in awhile on the demo they showed because they were using a P4. I'm glad I'm an AMD person since I think he said it would run better with an Athlon.

no, makes no difference. and i think the P4 chips actually goto a higher speed then the AMD's currently.

but i think AMD will have an earlier better working 64bit chip when they come out.

they flip flop back and forth. but the game is being made on P4's, you can be damn sure the game runs perfect on what they are making it on.

ominub · 09-24-2003, 04:17 PM

well for gaming the AMD proccesors seem to be a little better but like intel kicks its ass in about everything else because they have high FSB but yeah intel over all is better but AMD is better for gaming and for the price is also better

Jonbo298 · 09-24-2003, 04:28 PM

Eh, I still would choose AMD anyways. I like their processors more then Intel.

And the Athlon 64's came out yesterday I thought? That is something I want badly, but I'm guessing prices arent cheap on them.

Null · 09-24-2003, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonbo298

Eh, I still would choose AMD anyways. I like their processors more then Intel.

And the Athlon 64's came out yesterday I thought? That is something I want badly, but I'm guessing prices arent cheap on them.

they might of, When 64 bit becomes more mainstream and programs start being made to use 64bit instead of 32, then i'll eventually make a new 64bit computer.

but thats a couple years off.

nothing wrong with AMD's. i find they run hotter, need more fans to cool em. But basically a processor is just that, none make a huge difference.

Seth · 09-24-2003, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ominub

well for gaming the AMD proccesors seem to be a little better but like intel kicks its ass in about everything else because they have high FSB but yeah intel over all is better but AMD is better for gaming and for the price is also better

You're joking right? AMD performs better than intel in office type tests.

The last few Athlon XP chips were slaughtered by intel. The 3200+ wasn't even close to te benchmarks of the P4 3.2

Earlier on the XP hardware was competing well with the P4,,,especially when intel was still using the wellington boards.

But ya, The P4 architecture has been able to go a lot farther than the AMD during this last stretch. I'm also not very impressed with AMD's marketing. Calling their chip 3200+ wasn't very truthful.

But, the performance for most users isn't noticable so AMD wins when it comes to pricing.

ominub · 09-24-2003, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bouncer_agb

You're joking right? AMD performs better than intel in office type tests.

The last few Athlon XP chips were slaughtered by intel. The 3200+ wasn't even close to te benchmarks of the P4 3.2

Earlier on the XP hardware was competing well with the P4,,,especially when intel was still using the wellington boards.

But ya, The P4 architecture has been able to go a lot farther than the AMD during this last stretch. I'm also not very impressed with AMD's marketing. Calling their chip 3200+ wasn't very truthful.

But, the performance for most users isn't noticable so AMD wins when it comes to pricing.

well i did not say they where the best i said that in the gaming they seem to run better and at higher FPS. Not only do i notice it but the benchmarks prove that they run better in games but thats about all they are running better at.
Now i dont want to argue with you any more.
And i was only talking about the last few chips not any of the older ones

WiseMan · 09-24-2003, 11:36 PM

I have to agree with ominub amd is better for gaming.

Jonbo298 · 09-25-2003, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bouncer_agb

Calling their chip 3200+ wasn't very truthful.

I think they call it the 3200+ is because its comparable to Intel's 3.2 ghz. Even though the actual speed is "X ghz", because it has 9 pipelines instead of 6 like the P4's have, it can cram more through, thus making it comparable to P4's. But I may be partially wrong, but thats just the assumption I have had for a while.

Seth · 09-25-2003, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonbo298

I think they call it the 3200+ is because its comparable to Intel's 3.2 ghz. Even though the actual speed is "X ghz", because it has 9 pipelines instead of 6 like the P4's have, it can cram more through, thus making it comparable to P4's. But I may be partially wrong, but thats just the assumption I have had for a while.

That's what AMD's original marketing plan was. And at first the AMD chips that were compared to certain P4 chips by the 2200+ etc were actually comparable. Sometimes faster sometimes not. But since the 2800+ AMD has dropped off. It's a fact. The Barton core can't handle the speed anymore. What AMD has done for the last couple barton chips released is overclock them a tiny bit more and slop a new name on. It's not right. The 3200+ isn't anywhere near to comparable to the P4 3.2 from a techie point of view. The latest P4's have been stomping the latest AMD's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ominub

well i did not say they where the best i said that in the gaming they seem to run better and at higher FPS. Not only do i notice it but the benchmarks prove that they run better in games but thats about all they are running better at.

I know you didn't say that AMD is the best. I replied by saying that AMD has been known to score higher in this last generation of cpu's in the office area of performance. Current P4's are handling game's,,,higher FPS better than AMD's latest chips.

go to anandtech.com and look up the benchmarks for the 3200+ and the P4 3.2
You'll see that the benchmarks prove that P4 is currently running games better. If you have the cash then currently the P4 is the way to go for gamers.

If I went out and bought an XP chip right now, I wouldn't buy a 3200+
I'd save the money and get the 2800+ which really isn't much different in speed.