On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 02:16:03 GMT
"Aloke Prasad" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> This one is not very helpful (for my question).
>
> The benchmarks don't include 9800 non-Pro.
> The write up does not include 9700 Pro.
>
> The chart on
> http://www.rage3d.com/reviews/Sapphi...re9800/?page=2
> shows the 9800 NP and 9700 Pro to be almost identical (except memory
> speed and bandwidth, 9700 Pro being better).
>
> I was hoping for some more insight as to why 9800 compares to 9700
> Pro.
>
> Why did ATI even bother making a 9800 NP if it was going to be
> (marginally) slower than 9700 Pro?

The 9800 is a response to one of the features of the Geforce FX chipsets
that nvidia claimed gave them superiority.

As for why they make a 9800 nonpro that is slower than a 9700 pro, they
do that because they need a board in that particular market niche.

> --
>
> Aloke
> ---
> to reply by e-mail remove 123 and change invalid to com
>
> "Jim" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:uRNbb.17066$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > http://www17.tomshardware.com/graphi..._guide-12.html
> >
> > Jymman
> >
> > "Aloke Prasad" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:TOMbb.13181$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > What's the difference?
> > >
> > > Which is better?
>
>


--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

What's the difference?

Which is better?

--

Aloke
---
to reply by e-mail remove 123 and change invalid to com

http://www17.tomshardware.com/graphi..._guide-12.html

Jymman

"Aloke Prasad" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:TOMbb.13181$(E-Mail Removed)...
> What's the difference?
>
> Which is better?
>
> --
>
> Aloke
> ---
> to reply by e-mail remove 123 and change invalid to com
>
>

This one is not very helpful (for my question).

The benchmarks don't include 9800 non-Pro.
The write up does not include 9700 Pro.

The chart on http://www.rage3d.com/reviews/Sapphi...re9800/?page=2
shows the 9800 NP and 9700 Pro to be almost identical (except memory speed
and bandwidth, 9700 Pro being better).

I was hoping for some more insight as to why 9800 compares to 9700 Pro.

Why did ATI even bother making a 9800 NP if it was going to be (marginally)
slower than 9700 Pro?
--

Aloke
---
to reply by e-mail remove 123 and change invalid to com

"Jim" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:uRNbb.17066$(E-Mail Removed)...
> http://www17.tomshardware.com/graphi..._guide-12.html
>
> Jymman
>
> "Aloke Prasad" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:TOMbb.13181$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > What's the difference?
> >
> > Which is better?

"Aloke Prasad" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news1Obb.13372$(E-Mail Removed)...
> This one is not very helpful (for my question).
>
> The benchmarks don't include 9800 non-Pro.
> The write up does not include 9700 Pro.
>
> The chart on http://www.rage3d.com/reviews/Sapphi...re9800/?page=2
> shows the 9800 NP and 9700 Pro to be almost identical (except memory speed
> and bandwidth, 9700 Pro being better).
>
> I was hoping for some more insight as to why 9800 compares to 9700 Pro.
>
> Why did ATI even bother making a 9800 NP if it was going to be
(marginally)
> slower than 9700 Pro?

Because the 9700 Pro is no longer in production? And the 9800NP is cheaper?

"Aloke Prasad" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:TOMbb.13181$(E-Mail Removed)...
> What's the difference?
>
> Which is better?

Have a look here:
http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardwa...ew/default.asp

Martin.

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:03:06 GMT
"Aloke Prasad" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> "J.Clarke" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> > The 9800 is a response to one of the features of the Geforce FX
> > chipsets that nvidia claimed gave them superiority.
>
> Which feature is that?

The Nvidia pixel shader allowed up to 1024 instructions, the Radeon 9700
allowed only 64, which was the most required by DirectX 9. So ATI in
the Radeon 9800 added a feature called the "F-buffer" which allows up to
1024 instructions in the Radeon pixel shader. Whether that feature is
actually useful remains to be seen.

> > As for why they make a 9800 nonpro that is slower than a 9700 pro,
> > they do that because they need a board in that particular market
> > niche.
>
> Makes sense.
>
> It was hard to find a 9700 Pro board at any mail order place.

That's because the 9700 is being discontinued in favor of the 9800.

> --
>
> Aloke
> ---
> to reply by e-mail remove 123 and change invalid to com
>
>


--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J.Clarke" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> The 9800 is a response to one of the features of the Geforce FX chipsets
> that nvidia claimed gave them superiority.

Which feature is that?

> As for why they make a 9800 nonpro that is slower than a 9700 pro, they
> do that because they need a board in that particular market niche.

Makes sense.

It was hard to find a 9700 Pro board at any mail order place.
--

Aloke
---
to reply by e-mail remove 123 and change invalid to com

"MKH1" <mkhenrichsen_@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:3f6fe924$0$24714$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Aloke Prasad" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:TOMbb.13181$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > What's the difference?
> >
> > Which is better?
>
> Have a look here:
> http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardwa...ew/default.asp

Thanks. Good article!!
--

Aloke
---
to reply by e-mail remove 123 and change invalid to com