R9800 128MB Pro Poor Performance...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Noch
  • Start date Start date
N

Noch

Bought a cheapish Connect3D R9800 Pro 128MB 256bit in the UK. Clean install
of WinXP with Catalyst 4.6 and using UT2004 as a gauge at default settings.
I find that my frame rates are actually higher with my old Ti4400 than the
C3D 9800 Pro!! Needless to say, I have returned the 9800 Pro. Recently,
there are quite a few people complaining of a similar performance gap...
Maybe inferior components are to blame. I expected a speed bump not
retardation. I'll wait a bit and go for an X800.
 
Noch said:
Bought a cheapish Connect3D R9800 Pro 128MB 256bit in the UK. Clean install
of WinXP with Catalyst 4.6 and using UT2004 as a gauge at default settings.
I find that my frame rates are actually higher with my old Ti4400 than the
C3D 9800 Pro!! Needless to say, I have returned the 9800 Pro. Recently,
there are quite a few people complaining of a similar performance gap...
Maybe inferior components are to blame. I expected a speed bump not
retardation. I'll wait a bit and go for an X800.
Click to expand...

You try ONE game ? DONT try different drivers...then return the card ?

THEN post to the ati group and not mention the rest of your system ?

uh....right...

Did you totally remove your old nvidia drivers ?
 
Bought a cheapish Connect3D R9800 Pro 128MB 256bit in the UK. Clean install
of WinXP with Catalyst 4.6 and using UT2004 as a gauge at default settings.
I find that my frame rates are actually higher with my old Ti4400 than the
C3D 9800 Pro!! Needless to say, I have returned the 9800 Pro. Recently,
there are quite a few people complaining of a similar performance gap...
Maybe inferior components are to blame. I expected a speed bump not
retardation. I'll wait a bit and go for an X800.
Click to expand...




Well i went from a ti4600 to a ATI 9700 pro and i have to say the ATI
card blows the ti4600 away in performance and graphics.So there must
be something wrong with you're system,and you should of tried
different drivers the 4.6 ran like sht for me so i went back to the
cat 4.4 and all is good :)
 
Noch said:
Bought a cheapish Connect3D R9800 Pro 128MB 256bit in the UK. Clean install
of WinXP with Catalyst 4.6 and using UT2004 as a gauge at default settings.
I find that my frame rates are actually higher with my old Ti4400 than the
C3D 9800 Pro!! Needless to say, I have returned the 9800 Pro. Recently,
there are quite a few people complaining of a similar performance gap...
Maybe inferior components are to blame. I expected a speed bump not
retardation. I'll wait a bit and go for an X80
Click to expand...

It seems highly unlikely that the 9800 Pro was defective at all. Defective
cards either don't work, artifact, crash or lockup the system. They don't
give slower than expected framerates. I have not read anything here or
elsewhere about this so called "performance gap".....there are 128bit 9800
Pros out there which don't perform to the same level as the 256bit ones, but
even these aren't slow either. You say you did a total XP hosedown and
reinstall when you installed this card? That too seems extreme. I'd suspect
some of the m/b drivers were not installed, or some other driver or software
related problems. Looking over several reviews of your exact card I see no
issues whatsoever. It performs about the same as all the other 9800 Pros.
You say you used only one benchmark and one driver version too. This is not
a really good way to evaluate a card.
 
The rest of my system does not matter here (treat it as a zero constant);
the realtive performance of the cards does. I do not imagine that there will
be such a enormous difference between 4.6 and earlier usable versions - I
hear 4.4 mentioned. Likewise with other games. The card was clearly
*drastically* underperforming.

Regarding old Nvidia's driver bits, I did a reformat and then installed
WinXP - so no remaining bits to ibterfere.
 
dude i have the same problem, replaced a 4400 with a 9800 pro,
framerates are down at least 1/3 across the board. spent a couple of
weeks trying to troubleshoot it with help from ati tech support, nothing
has helped. they finally to me to rma it and they would send me another
one. hopefully that will help, but who knows? i'm thinking it's some
very obscure hardware issue. very strange.
 
I replaced my ti4400 with a 9700pro a while ago now, and I noticed great
performance increase when I got the 9700pro installed.

did you check the AGP speed that it was running in? fast writes? SBA ? there
wasnt any AA or FSAA enabled by default?
 
Noch said:
The rest of my system does not matter here (treat it as a zero
constant); the realtive performance of the cards does. I do not
imagine that there will be such a enormous difference between 4.6 and
earlier usable versions - I hear 4.4 mentioned. Likewise with other
games. The card was clearly *drastically* underperforming.

Regarding old Nvidia's driver bits, I did a reformat and then
installed WinXP - so no remaining bits to ibterfere.
Click to expand...

You did install the chipset drivers after you reformatted right?

Martin
 
Yes it is an Asus a7n8x dlx v1.4 bios latest 1008 and using latest nforce2
drivers under winxp - so the lot are installed. Besides, both cards were put
in the same rig. Indeed the Ti4400 if anything had a worse time because I
only uninstalled the ATi drivers with the supplied utility so interfering
bits might be left.
 
Nothing extreme, I did the WinXP clean install because my SATA boot drive
died - not because of the ATi 9800 Pro. There is nothing unusual about a
card or a system being faulty and underperforming but performing basically
okay. For instance, there is a performance gap between most cards due to
component variation - that could in some cases easily be exaggerated... What
you talk of are the obvious results of failure - bang! it died is more
noticeable than its underperforming by x fps. I bet there are many people
out there now with systems or parts 'faulty' and who are not aware of it
atall.

I bought a cheapish card and did not want to spend forever evaluating the
whys of its problem - not worth the effort. I did a reasonable quick test
against an 'inferior' card and it failed - so back it went. I have read of
others seeing similar problems, so I posted here.

As I said I'll go for an X800 Pro in a few weeks. I'll be seriously pissed
off if that is beaten by my T14400... :)
 
different drivers the 4.6 ran like sht for me so i went back to the
cat 4.4 and all is good :)
Click to expand...

I agree. I think my system had better color with the 4.5 driver.
I'm tossing the 4.6 .... ATI 9600XT. Maybe it is finally time
to try the Omega driver ?? One really bad thing about the 4.6
driver was its tendency to keep changing one of the video
settings from Medium ( in Far Cry ) to Custom, and then
video effects would drop out that were running fine, and
frame rates would also drop. I would set it back, but then
I saw problems like reduced AI intelligence or even
respawning loops that would make a level impossible to
play. I had not seen that with the 4.5 driver when I had
my ATI 9000 in the system. The game ran fine on the
9000.

johns
 
If you will no longer need your old T14400, you can send it to me. :-)
I using a Radeon8500LE 128MB card.
I hope you new X800 Pro blows your socks off. :-)
 
Don't you mean a constant of unity?
A constant of zero would always return zero.
The rest of my system does not matter here (treat it as a zero constant);
the realtive performance of the cards does. I do not imagine that there will
be such a enormous
Click to expand...


-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
 
Back
Top