Bit in the ass by ATI. Again.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rick
  • Start date Start date
R

Rick

It's been a few years since I last looked at ATI products. (I had
been scared away by a long string of pitiful experiences with
ATI's pitiful drivers, back in the "good old days".)

I was looking for a card that I could use now, on an admittedly
ancient P3/Intel BX system, and also that supports DX9 -- so I
could also use it once I upgrade my system. The two major
choices were (or ARE) ATI's 9x00 series and Nvidia's 5x00
series. Both card lines (at least most of them) are advertised as
being AGP2X compatible.

So, you'd think a $350 video card would run on an 89MHz AGP
bus, like almost every other video card made in the last five years?
Apparently that's asking too much from the hardware gurus at ATI.

The 9700 Pro isn't even stable at 75MHz on an AGP2X bus!
Random cold boot problems (not caused by an inadequate power
supply btw), random hangs in Windows etc. Utterly pathetic.
And bios updates? None to be found on ATI's site. I guess they
can't be bothered.

The final straw was when I tried to find where in ATI's bloated
drivers I could add a custom 2D screen resolution. Option not
there. Incredible.

I'm trashing this piece of shit and going back to Nvidia.
 
89MHz AGP
Click to expand...

I was always under the impression that the AGP bus was very sensitive to
overclocking. I'm surprised to hear you're had such success with Nvidia
products.

Andrew McP
 
Andrew MacPherson said:
I was always under the impression that the AGP bus was very sensitive to
overclocking. I'm surprised to hear you're had such success with Nvidia
products.
Click to expand...

It's not just Nvidia. I've had such ubiquitous success running
at 89MHz, I didn't even bother to check whether the 9700
Pro would have any problems. That was my fault. Ancient
cards such as the Matrox Mystique/G400/G450, and my
even more ancient Asus 6800 Pure (GF1DDR), S3 models
etc -- all work perfectly at 89MHz. From what I hear, even
most pre-9x00 ATI cards work fine at that speed.

I prefer to go back to Nvidia rather than lose over 25% of
my system ram performance just to support the 9700 Pro.
 
Rick said:
It's not just Nvidia. I've had such ubiquitous success running
at 89MHz, I didn't even bother to check whether the 9700
Pro would have any problems. That was my fault. Ancient
cards such as the Matrox Mystique/G400/G450, and my
even more ancient Asus 6800 Pure (GF1DDR), S3 models
etc -- all work perfectly at 89MHz. From what I hear, even
most pre-9x00 ATI cards work fine at that speed.

I prefer to go back to Nvidia rather than lose over 25% of
my system ram performance just to support the 9700 Pro.
Click to expand...
While you may loose system ram performance with restoring your machine to
standard bus speeds, the graphics performance overall would be increased if
a decent card was installed as a replacement to the sort of cards that were
out in the days of those mobos (including most of the types you've listed
above). A manufacturers shouldn't need to make their cards capable of
running on an overclocked AGP bus, if the performance isn't good enough
there's the option of using a faster card.

Paul
 
Rick said:
So, you'd think a $350 video card would run on an 89MHz AGP
bus, like almost every other video card made in the last five years?
Click to expand...

No.

The AGP specifications dictate a 66mhz bus frequency, if you want to run
outside of those specs that's your choice. ATi (or any other manufacturer)
isn't obliged to manufacture hardware that can run outside of those specs.
If you could before with some cards, that's pure luck. It's not something
you can reasonably expect from an AGP card.
Apparently that's asking too much from the hardware gurus at ATI.
Click to expand...

No, obviously it's asking too much of you. The videocard adheres to the AGP
specifications, you're complaining because it won't do something which is
out-of-spec. Which is perfectly normal anyway, since the hardware should be
run within the specifications. Overclockability is *NOT* a default aspect of
any piece of hardware.
The 9700 Pro isn't even stable at 75MHz on an AGP2X bus!
Click to expand...

It doesn't need to be.
Random cold boot problems (not caused by an inadequate power
supply btw), random hangs in Windows etc. Utterly pathetic.
Click to expand...

No, not utterly pathetic... well, perhaps from you, because obviously you
expect hardware to be able to run outside of their specifications. Everybody
knows that overclocking is a risky business and that overclockability can
vary between cards. If you happen to buy a card which overclocks well,
that's fine, good for you. Happen to buy a card which doesn't overclock
well? Too bad.
And bios updates? None to be found on ATI's site. I guess they
can't be bothered.
Click to expand...

And again: they don't need to.
I'm trashing this piece of shit and going back to Nvidia.
Click to expand...

Which, according to many people, is a load of shit too.

=- Brian Dickens, the Netherlands
 
Rick said:
It's been a few years since I last looked at ATI products. (I had
been scared away by a long string of pitiful experiences with
ATI's pitiful drivers, back in the "good old days".)

I was looking for a card that I could use now, on an admittedly
ancient P3/Intel BX system, and also that supports DX9 -- so I
could also use it once I upgrade my system. The two major
choices were (or ARE) ATI's 9x00 series and Nvidia's 5x00
series. Both card lines (at least most of them) are advertised as
being AGP2X compatible.

So, you'd think a $350 video card would run on an 89MHz AGP
bus, like almost every other video card made in the last five years?
Apparently that's asking too much from the hardware gurus at ATI.

The 9700 Pro isn't even stable at 75MHz on an AGP2X bus!
Random cold boot problems (not caused by an inadequate power
supply btw), random hangs in Windows etc. Utterly pathetic.
Click to expand...

This must be a troll.

***admittedly ancient P3/Intel BX system*** FFS!
 
It's been a few years since I last looked at ATI products. (I had
been scared away by a long string of pitiful experiences with
ATI's pitiful drivers, back in the "good old days".)

I was looking for a card that I could use now, on an admittedly
ancient P3/Intel BX system, and also that supports DX9 -- so I
could also use it once I upgrade my system. The two major
choices were (or ARE) ATI's 9x00 series and Nvidia's 5x00
series. Both card lines (at least most of them) are advertised as
being AGP2X compatible.

So, you'd think a $350 video card would run on an 89MHz AGP
bus, like almost every other video card made in the last five years?
Apparently that's asking too much from the hardware gurus at ATI.

The 9700 Pro isn't even stable at 75MHz on an AGP2X bus!
Random cold boot problems (not caused by an inadequate power
supply btw), random hangs in Windows etc. Utterly pathetic.
And bios updates? None to be found on ATI's site. I guess they
can't be bothered.

The final straw was when I tried to find where in ATI's bloated
drivers I could add a custom 2D screen resolution. Option not
there. Incredible.

I'm trashing this piece of shit and going back to Nvidia.
Click to expand...
The real question here is, why are you trying to force a chipset and bus that
was designed for 66mhz to run at 75 or 89mhz? Its not ATI's fault its
unstable.
 
It's not just Nvidia. I've had such ubiquitous success running
at 89MHz, I didn't even bother to check whether the 9700
Pro would have any problems. That was my fault. Ancient
cards such as the Matrox Mystique/G400/G450, and my
even more ancient Asus 6800 Pure (GF1DDR), S3 models
etc -- all work perfectly at 89MHz. From what I hear, even
most pre-9x00 ATI cards work fine at that speed.

I prefer to go back to Nvidia rather than lose over 25% of
my system ram performance just to support the 9700 Pro.
Click to expand...
What most of us dont undersatnd is why did you buy a $300 dollar card and put
it in a system not worth half of that?
 
GMAN said:
The real question here is, why are you trying to force a chipset and bus
that
was designed for 66mhz to run at 75 or 89mhz? Its not ATI's fault its
unstable.
Click to expand...

The real question is, is this guy for real?
 
So, you'd think a $350 video card would run on an 89MHz
AGP
bus, like almost every other video card made in the last
five years? Apparently that's asking too much from the
hardware gurus at ATI.
Click to expand...

what do you expect, you are overclocking, the agp is supposed to run at
66mhz,the pci bus 33mhz
most devices don't like having an overclocked bus speed

however nvidia cards don't mind running an overclocked agp speed, ati cards
don't
it's not ati's fault you have crap hardware that doesn't have a locked agp
bus speed :)
 
Paul Murphy said:
While you may loose system ram performance with restoring your machine to
standard bus speeds, the graphics performance overall would be increased if
a decent card was installed as a replacement to the sort of cards that were
out in the days of those mobos (including most of the types you've listed
above). A manufacturers shouldn't need to make their cards capable of
running on an overclocked AGP bus, if the performance isn't good enough
there's the option of using a faster card.
Click to expand...

ATI knew perfectly well there's a huge installed base of BX
systems, and they also knew millions of people are running
them at 133FSB/89MHz AGP. Heck, Abit even released a
"BX-133" system that was fully supported at these speeds.
Why? Because just about every AGP card released in the
last five years can handle the o/c. Except ATI's 9x00.
What a piece of shit.
 
Rick said:
ATI knew perfectly well there's a huge installed base of BX
systems, and they also knew millions of people are running
them at 133FSB/89MHz AGP. Heck, Abit even released a
"BX-133" system that was fully supported at these speeds.
Why? Because just about every AGP card released in the
last five years can handle the o/c. Except ATI's 9x00.
What a piece of shit.
Click to expand...

I doubt that the sort of person still running a BX is buying card like that.
And I bet the vast majority of them don't know what overclocking is, let
alone do it.
 
Rick said:
ATI knew perfectly well there's a huge installed base of BX
systems, and they also knew millions of people are running
them at 133FSB/89MHz AGP. Heck, Abit even released a
"BX-133" system that was fully supported at these speeds.
Why? Because just about every AGP card released in the
last five years can handle the o/c. Except ATI's 9x00.
What a piece of shit.
Click to expand...
And I'm sure they also know very well, that people wanting to gain higher
performance from a graphics card can buy a higher performing card (which
costs more and likely gives them more profit).. I don't believe any pressure
should be put on the company that makes the graphics cards I buy, to make
them work at non-standard speeds (and I'm not the only person saying this in
this thread). Such a change would mean the cards I buy to run at standard
speeds would likely cost more for no gain in performance under my use. I may
therefore choose to buy a competing brand. Do you think its reasonable for
ATI to put themselves in this situation given that there is a clear
alternative of buying a faster card? If you want better graphics performance
save up and buy a higher range card - no ones stopping you.

Paul
 
......
So, you'd think a $350 video card would run on an 89MHz AGP
bus, like almost every other video card made in the last five years?
Apparently that's asking too much from the hardware gurus at ATI.

The 9700 Pro isn't even stable at 75MHz on an AGP2X bus!
Random cold boot problems (not caused by an inadequate power
supply btw), random hangs in Windows etc. Utterly pathetic.
And bios updates? None to be found on ATI's site. I guess they
can't be bothered.
Click to expand...
......

overclocking the agp bus is pointless..especially this far!




---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0513-1, 30/03/2005
Tested on: 1/04/2005 1:22:34 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2004 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
 
Rick said:
ATI knew perfectly well there's a huge installed base of BX
systems, and they also knew millions of people are running
them at 133FSB/89MHz AGP.
Click to expand...


LOL, yeah, back about three or four years ago there were a lot of BX systems
still around. Anyone running such a dinosaur now doesn't deserve a high
performing card like the 9700 Pro. 89MHz is WAY out of spec too, BTW.

Heck, Abit even released a
"BX-133" system that was fully supported at these speeds.
Why? Because just about every AGP card released in the
last five years can handle the o/c. Except ATI's 9x00.
What a piece of shit.
Click to expand...


Uh huh, sure. Whatever. I just find it hard to take a post like this
seriously. :-)
 
NightSky 421 said:
LOL, yeah, back about three or four years ago there were a lot of BX systems
still around. Anyone running such a dinosaur now doesn't deserve a high
performing card like the 9700 Pro.
Click to expand...

Heh, thanks for the chuckle. Earlier tonight I threw my 9700
Pro into the garbage where it belongs, installed an Inno3D
Geforce FX 5900 Ultra, and I'm on my merry way -- at
89MHz AGP -- AND 50% faster than the 9700 Pro (when
I finally do upgrade my BX system).

As for most of the other posts in this thread, y'all sound like
members of ATI's marketing department. Best of luck.
 
Running a newer video card on a BX board is like adding a nitrous bottle to
a volkswagen bettle... Your performance metrics are all screwed up. Does the
term "hyperthreading" mean anything to you? Get a decent (circa late 2004 -
2005) motherboard, and stop whining.
 
ATI knew perfectly well there's a huge installed base of BX
systems, and they also knew millions of people are running
them at 133FSB/89MHz AGP. Heck, Abit even released a
"BX-133" system that was fully supported at these speeds.
Why? Because just about every AGP card released in the
last five years can handle the o/c. Except ATI's 9x00.
What a piece of shit.
Click to expand...
That BX133 system still had the AGP bus running at 66mhz. The only difference
was that the BX133 system had a 4x divider
 
Heh, thanks for the chuckle. Earlier tonight I threw my 9700
Pro into the garbage where it belongs, installed an Inno3D
Geforce FX 5900 Ultra, and I'm on my merry way -- at
89MHz AGP -- AND 50% faster than the 9700 Pro (when
I finally do upgrade my BX system).

As for most of the other posts in this thread, y'all sound like
members of ATI's marketing department. Best of luck.
Click to expand...
Yeah? and Geforce sounds like some crappy japanese power rangers type anime
from the early 80's
 
Back
Top