AGP 9700 vs modern cards

EffBee · 16 Dec 2006 at 05:57

The last decent card I had in my PC was an ATI 9700 (not Pro).

Unfortunately it went the way of all things last year and I put a cheap Nvidia 256MB 6200 in to tide me over.

Can anyone give me some idea which ATI or Nvidia card is roughly equivalent to the 9700 so that I can get some idea of where to pitch a pricepoint for a new card.

The 6200 seems to be at the bottom of the pecking order. I think the 9700 was much better than the 6200.

Please note that I am not looking for card recommendations.

Thanks

Rroff · 16 Dec 2006 at 06:10

Its hard to put a hard answer to something like that, especially without a specific point in time... but I'd say that currently either a 7900GT (possibly a well tuned 7900GS) or a x1950 pro would be something like the "9700" of today...

Jonny ///M · 16 Dec 2006 at 06:13

I think the best cards in terms of bang for buck went a lil bit like:

9700 - because it could be modded
6800 - could be made an ultra/Gt
7900gt - since all you need to do is clock it up to be just as fast as the more expensive toy.
Not too sure on the newer generations.

My mate got a 9700pro last year or something and it was like OMFG THE GUY GOES INVISIBLE IN HALO!!!!!!!! :eek:

WOW THINGS ARE SHINEY!!! and then he now has sli 7900gt(o's?) and its like meh cause you can run maxed out most of the time.

Cyber-Mav · 16 Dec 2006 at 12:05

Rroff said:
Its hard to put a hard answer to something like that, especially without a specific point in time... but I'd say that currently either a 7900GT (possibly a well tuned 7900GS) or a x1950 pro would be something like the "9700" of today...

be VERY clear on this mate. looks like your saying then 9700 is as quick as a 7900gs/x1950pro.
will give you one chance to think this over before the "taking the mickey" posts start.

Tetras · 16 Dec 2006 at 13:25

Aye he means what is the same speed as a 9700 afaik, not what would be an equivalent to where the 9700 was placed in the market.

A 6600 (vanilla) would probably be similar speed wise, a 6600 GT would be a fair upgrade, a 7600 GS quite a large upgrade and a 7600 GT a very big upgrade.

Tute · 16 Dec 2006 at 13:28

The "closest" reasonable card you're going to get is the 7300GT, which afaik is around 6600GT speeds, so it's still a fair chunk faster than your 9700.

Cyber-Mav · 16 Dec 2006 at 14:23

9700 even the pro version is still slower than a 6600 (128bit memory interface) card.

~>Dg<~ · 16 Dec 2006 at 14:55

if pciex go on certain auction site 7600gt 59.99 beat that anyone and yes ive got one running as we speak bargin off the decade seeing as other shops sell em about 100 or more and its not a crap make either.

Rroff · 16 Dec 2006 at 16:36

Cyber-Mav said:
be VERY clear on this mate. looks like your saying then 9700 is as quick as a 7900gs/x1950pro.
will give you one chance to think this over before the "taking the mickey" posts start.

take the mickey... if you can't work out what I'm saying from the context I put it in then it is you that is gonna look silly... only a complete idiot would think a 9700 and 7900/1950 would perform anything close and if you took 2 seconds to read any of my other posts here you'd see I wasn't quite that daft...

anyway onto something a little more helpful to the OP rather than elitest drivel...

If hes talking PCI-e then asking for a card of 9700 speed is just bizzare as you can get a card that is many times faster for very little money...

If you want an AGP card of the same performance then the closest would be the x1300pro - the x1300 non-pro is easier to find tho but its slower than a 9700, the next closest card would be an x1650 pro AGP but while its very close performance wise in most areas it has massively faster shader capabilities...

Rroff · 16 Dec 2006 at 16:40

Cyber-Mav said:
9700 even the pro version is still slower than a 6600 (128bit memory interface) card.

actually thats not completely true... the 6600 AGP non GT is 9-10% faster than the 9700 on paper and in some games/benchmarks, but it only has half the pixel fillrate of the 9700 which does hold it down quite badly overall against the 9700 and the 9700 pro would be quite a bit faster than a 6600 non GT AGP.

Cyber-Mav · 16 Dec 2006 at 20:03

Rroff said:
actually thats not completely true... the 6600 AGP non GT is 9-10% faster than the 9700 on paper and in some games/benchmarks, but it only has half the pixel fillrate of the 9700 which does hold it down quite badly overall against the 9700 and the 9700 pro would be quite a bit faster than a 6600 non GT AGP.

only half the pixel fill rate? both the 6600 non gt and the 9700 are 8 pipe cards. the 9700 needs to run at double the clock speed to make the alleged double the fill rate claim you have.

the doom3 benchmarks show that the 6200 (128bit) is faster than the 9700.

do remember that the 6600 non gt is still a 8 pipe card but has lower clocks then the 6600gt, both have a 128bit memory interface.

the 9700has a 256bit mem interface so it can have double the memory bandwidth, but as is shown even a 9800pro can;t compete with a 6600non gt in most cases.

omne · 16 Dec 2006 at 20:43

Cyber-Mav said:
only half the pixel fill rate? both the 6600 non gt and the 9700 are 8 pipe cards. the 9700 needs to run at double the clock speed to make the alleged double the fill rate claim you have.
.

I'm no expert at graphics card but one thing I did remember from Systems Arhitecture is that you cant compare one pipeline to another, some are longer and more complex which is great until something goes wrong and you need to refill the pipeline, then you need more cache to keep it full etc.

Its the reason you couldnt sensibly argue that a P4 was better than an Athlon XP simply because of its clockspped.

An ATI pipe is very unlikely to be the same as an Nvidia pipe.

Rroff · 16 Dec 2006 at 21:28

The 6600 AGP has 8 texture units, 4 ROPs with a fillrate of 1200Mpx/s
The 9700 AGP has 8 texture units, 8 ROPs with a fillrate of 2200Mpx/s
The 9700 pro AGP has 8 texture units, 8 ROPs with a fillrate of 2600Mpx/s

With the latest drivers a 9800 pro is only a bit slower than a 6600GT, the 6600GT is the fastest of all those cards tho overall...

obviously those numbers don't equate directly to real world performance, but it is a good indicator when you take into account the performance of the other key areas of the card...

As new games typically become more dependant on shader operations the pixel fillrate isn't critical, but in older games it can show a much bigger performance difference.

Cyber-Mav · 16 Dec 2006 at 22:18

Rroff said:
With the latest drivers a 9800 pro is only a bit slower than a 6600GT

thats your idea of being only a "bit" slower than the 6600gt? :confused:

looks like a touch of fanboi-ism is starting to show in this thread. :rolleyes:

where is the 9800pro's rops now? where is the 9800pro's 256bit memory interface now?

i have a 9800pro and i also have used a 6200 (64bit) and in some cases the 6200 comes damn close. there is no way a 9700 would beat a 6600 let alone a 7900gs as someone above mentioned.

Rroff · 16 Dec 2006 at 22:41

you show one (old) benchmark, in a game that nVidia is known to be very good in and ATI very bad... lol... try again...

in case my rampant nVidia fanboyism didn't show in other threads, I wouldn't touch ATI with a barge pole...

oh look one completely invalid as a standalone shot... but just happens to "prove" :rolleyes:

my point...

heh

Rroff · 16 Dec 2006 at 22:45

To the OP... a card with performance very similiar to a 9700 would cost about £50-70, but I'm gonna say, you could add only another £10-20 or so to that and get a card that is hideously better.

sargatanas · 17 Dec 2006 at 08:41

Doe you who didnt get this, he is talking about in equivalents. the X1950pro is equivalent in the market now, to what the 9700pro was when it was out. I thought that was kinda obvious :confused:

Rroff · 17 Dec 2006 at 18:35

That was my first assumption :s whatever we've covered both possibilities...

silversurfer · 17 Dec 2006 at 19:35

I went from a 9800pro to XT to 6600Gt and they are all roughly in the same ballpark though the 6600gt will overclock by about 20% and be even nicer.

Going on that I'd say the 9700pro equalivant now would be 6600 as mentioned. Im not sure what the ATI equalivant would be (in power not market position)

I can run BF2 on high textures with medium to high settings with the 6600gt @720p. I think thats really impressive considering its at the bottom of the market

locutus12 · 17 Dec 2006 at 19:48

Cyber-Mav said:
thats your idea of being only a "bit" slower than the 6600gt?
looks like a touch of fanboi-ism is starting to show in this thread.

where is the 9800pro's rops now? where is the 9800pro's 256bit memory interface now?

i have a 9800pro and i also have used a 6200 (64bit) and in some cases the 6200 comes damn close. there is no way a 9700 would beat a 6600 let alone a 7900gs as someone above mentioned.

ooooo Cyber-Mav, your diddling the figures to prove your point, its extremely well known that ALL the older ATi cards couldnt hold there own in OpenGL games against Nvidia cards... the most common engine base for games is DirectX not OpenGL, your post was a very weak trick to pull, post a more rounded set of benchies in future.