w00t - just got my 9500 Pro!

[IKeelU]

I know, I know, there are faster cards available, but I was using GF2 MX up until 2h ago.

Wow...*sheds tear*...detail textures in UT2003... *wipes tear*...

 

[Rogozhin]

Good Luck!

If you need any help please visit rage3d.com

try running some AF and AA with it

rogo

 

[psy44]

Nice...I remember the feeling, a month ago, I went from my compaq pII w/onboard crappy video---->Radeon 9700 pro!

 

[T9D]

..

 

[Rogozhin]

xero

what's your system, what driver did you use, and what OS.

In other words, post your dxdiagnostic.

rogo

 

[J5im8yo]

The card is fast faster than its brok 9600 Pro at least =D/

 

[CurtCold]

Originally posted by: xerosleep
I just got my 9500 pro too. I'm taking it back though. Stock it was barely faster than my overclocked geforce 3 ti 200. And the pro didn't want to overclock much either. There will be a huge difference for you though. Hope you enjoy it.

Barely faster than your GF3? At what playing CS? Try putting a little 16X, and 6X action to both of those cards and then come and tell us all which one is faster.

 

[J5im8yo]

Funny 9500 Pro stock not much faster than Ti200 and its not even a Ti500. I'm wondering what Kind of game you are playing. Perhaps Chessmaster? I mean based on what you said a Ti500 will be faster than a stock 9500 Pro which is obviously not. Return it alright, you will come to regret it when you play games like BF 1942 and the upcoming DOOMIII, WoW and many others.

PS. Ti200 is a DX 7 card and 9500 Pro is a DX9 card >=D

 

[IKeelU]

Barely faster than your GF3? At what playing CS? Try putting a little 16X, and 6X action to both of those cards and then come and tell us all which one is faster.

On my 1800+ (palomino), I'm getting *playable* frame rates at 1600x1200 w/ 4x AA and 16x AF (everything stock, no tweaking, and NAV 2003 running in background). Not that an average 30 fps is enough for me, but it certainly gives me something to show off to my Mac-using friends

dm-antalus (4x AA - 16x AF)
19.785145 / 30.267586 / 116.857300 fps -- Score = 30.274572

 

[pillage2001]

Originally posted by: xerosleep
I just got my 9500 pro too. I'm taking it back though. Stock it was barely faster than my overclocked geforce 3 ti 200. And the pro didn't want to overclock much either. There will be a huge difference for you though. Hope you enjoy it.

You're kidding me right??

 

[T9D]

..

 

[screw3d]

I suspect that either you are smoking crack while posting, or you've got some messed-up config there.

 

[Megatomic]

Originally posted by: marvie
I suspect that either you are smoking crack while posting, or you've got some messed-up config there.

LOL!!!

This card is going to be a significant upgrade for me going from a GF4 Ti 4200 @ 4400 speed. The idea of running AA and AF and getting playable framerates is making me giddy with excitement. :Q

Btw, my Radeon 9500 Pro arrives probably this Thursday. (just in time for some serious gaming this coming weekend!!!)

 

[T9D]

..

 

[T9D]

..

 

[Doh!]

You're absolutely right, xerosleep. You're correct since you only play games in 640x480 w/o any AA or AF. Playing at 640x480 without any AA and/or AF, who needs 9500 Pro?

By the way, I guess you forgot to read the conclusion of the review you've linked.

 

[Megatomic]

Originally posted by: xerosleep
^^^ That seems like a waste to me. The ti4200 beats out the 9500 pro now in a few tests and even the ti 500 won a couple. The 4400 is faster the majority of the time. I think you're going to be disappointed once you get the card if you're going from a 4200. It did great in AA in UT2k3 but other games it's not that great with AA/AF.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1812&p=5

If you notice also in some games it was only faster by like 5 FPS compared to the ti 500. With jedi knoight 2 and UT2k3 it's much faster though.

And with newer games like splintercell where the 9500 pro only gets 12 FPS do you think you're going to turn on AA/AF and drop the FPS down to 8? No you'll have to leave it off just so it's playable.

So anyway it's not my config. Thats what the card does in the reviews. That's not worth it to me. Maybe for you but not me.

I didn't post the orginal review of the 9500 pro because I don't think that would be fair since I think the new drivers made it a lot better but in that review it got beat out by the 4400 in every single test (except AA/AF). It's a good card to upgrade from an MX or geforce 2 but not a geforce 3 and epecially not a geforce 4 (unless you only play ut2k3).

To each his/her own I guess. And for now UT2003 IS the only game I really play. May 15th will see the release of Enter The Matrix, I will then be playing that game, too. And when Half Life 2 comes out I'll play that game. Then Doom 3... The Radeon 9500 Pro will be the better card to use for all those games from everything I have read online.

 

[imported_zenwhen]

The 9500 is superior to the entire Geforce 4 line when AA and AF come into play. Period.

 

[gururu]

Congrats!

i think that card will keep you in good shape for a while. you're right, the card will let you have details galore.
I would even suggest not using AA, but use AF generously, as that is when the textures really come alive.
No GF3 will give you textures like the new ATIs.

 

[selfbuilt]

Originally posted by: xerosleep
8400 in 3dmark with geforce 3 and 8800 with 9500 pro. p4 2.4 ghz. 1 gig of pc 3200

Don't mean to add to the feeding frenzy, but you clearly had a config error. My 9500 Pro on an XP2000+ gets 11500 in 3DMark2001 (no tweaking). If I run it a 4XAA/8XAF, however, I get about that 3DMark score.

So your system was either not setup correctly, or you are comparing running a card with nothing to the huge benefits of running 4XAA/8XAF at the same speed or better (3DMark is hardly the end all of how real games perform).

I can understand GeF4 Ti users not bothering to upgrade, but there's a huge difference to a GeF3.