View Full Version : ATi Radeon 9000 video, would I be able to get the best out of it?

06-01-2003, 10:00 PM

3 questions :)

I been thinking about buying this video card, ATi Radeon 9000($229) ( http://tw.giga-byte.com/products/r9000.htm ). I would just like to ask, would I be able to get the best out of it with a Duron 1.3ghz, 384 SDRAM and running Win98Se. I'm deciding to use this for some old games such as Unreal Tournament, Counter-Strike and Diablo 2 and also some new release games like Battlefield 1942, Unreal Tournament 2003, also some animation work. Is this the right card that I should be buying or should I be looking for something else. I'm kinda in a tight budget right now, so just anything around $200 or less would be great.

Right now I have a build in 32megs of video chip and yet, it runs game quite bad, kinda of worse than a 8megs video chip that I use to have. Or does some one think that I should just stick with the 32megs build in chip? And yes, the motherboard does have an AGP slot, 4X.

Does any one think I should wait abit longer till next year, I heard a friend said once Geforce FX is out in NZ, video card prices would drop, is it likely to happen?

Thanks alot :)

Jase Sen

06-01-2003, 10:17 PM
Yeah, I believe you would! Check Pricespy.co.nz for cheapest pricing of it! They've got it for $170!

The older games wouldnt use it to its full capacity likely, but the newer games like UT2K3 would run nicely on it!

At $170 - Why not now?

06-01-2003, 10:21 PM
I bring your attention to this graph (http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20021218/vgacharts-05.html)

While the system used is a lot faster than yours, you can guage the performace against other cards.

Indeed an independent card is going to give you a lot better performance in games. This card is probably quiet good also. Your system may or may not fully utilise it as your FSB could be a bit slow, but i don't really know.

You could wait aroun for the Geforce FX, but then there would be the Geforce GX then the geforce GFX
it just goes on and on. You are GENERALLY fullish to wait in the world of computers, take action when you feel it is required.

Note UT2003 is still going to run like a dog on your system no matter what graphics card you have.

06-01-2003, 10:56 PM
I'm kinda of looking for a store to go to and get it, I never had ordered anything from the net or brought anything off it so...and don't you need a credit card for it? Cause I don't have one :(

Does any one know other places that sells cheap yet good computer parts other than QMB.

Thanks :)

06-01-2003, 11:14 PM
To Roofus- What do you mean it would run like a dog on my system, is that good ?:| ? I can't even get Delta Force 3 running probably with the onboard video chip :( .

Jase Sen

07-01-2003, 07:24 AM
Sorry, it would still run crap on your system. While an ATI 9000 pro will give out an average frame rate at 800x600 and probably 1024x768 you are going to be let down by the other bottlenecks in your system, such as the clock frequency of your CPU and RAM.

Computers can't be made to go fast by merely upgrading 1 part of a system, as a computer has so many variables.
But as i have said a graphics card of that degree will give you excellent performance in 90% of games. But things like UT2003, Wolfenstein etc etc(Latest games) your probably going to find won't run that well anyway due to other parts of your system.

07-01-2003, 08:48 AM
I believe he would get quite acceptable performance at 1024x768 res, and more than enough at 800x600.

I should prolly look into the minimum specs somewhere online and see what it reccommends.

He's probably right though, and is more than on the mark in saying that upgrading one part wont make your PC lightspeed, but upgrading the biggest bottleneck (In your case the AGP Card) will noticably increase performance!

07-01-2003, 08:58 AM
This is what Unrealtournament2003.com had to say:

Operating System: WIN 98/ME/2000/XP
CPU: Pentium III or AMD Athlon 733MHz processor (*Pentium® or AMD 1.0 GHz or greater RECOMMENDED)
Memory: 128 MB RAM (256 MB RAM or greater RECOMMENDED)
Hard Disk Space: 3 GB
Audio System: Windows® compatible sound card (*Sound Blaster® Audigy(tm) series sound card RECOMMENDED) (NVIDIA® nForce™ or other motherboards/soundcards containing the Dolby® Digital Interactive Content Encoder required for Dolby Digital audio. Also RECOMMENDED)
Video System: 3D Accelerator card with 16 MB VRAM (*32-128 MB VRAM RECOMMENDED) 16 MB TNT2-class DirectX® version 6 compliant video card. (*NVIDIA GeForce 2/ATI Radeon RECOMMENDED) DirectX® version 8.1 (Included on game disc)

I think you'll be fine playing those games :-)

07-01-2003, 09:20 AM
>Sorry, it would still run crap on your system.

>Computers can't be made to go fast by merely upgrading 1 part of a system, as a computer has so many variables.

Utter rubbish! I've been upgrading PCs bit by bit for years and you notice a big difference by upgrading the cause of bottlenecks. He has a Duron 1.3ghz, 384 SDRAM and running Win98Se, which is pretty similar to the majority of systems available from chain stores in NZ today. IMHO it's fast enough to handle any gamecurrently availble. Upgrading to a faster graphics card will make a huge difference to gameplay and is probably the best "single part" upgrade he can do.

Jase1. taking into account the amount of RAM you have I would even suggest that an upgrade to XP would improve performance too.

Buying from internet stores in NZ is fine. You don't need a credit card as most of them will allow you to directly deposit into their bank account. Check out pricespy for the best prices.

07-01-2003, 09:41 AM
> Jase1. taking into account the amount of RAM you have
> I would even suggest that an upgrade to XP would
> improve performance too.

I am going to disagree with you on this for a few reasons...

If 98 is working fine, then forking out another $300 after an upgrade to a brand spanking new Graphics Card will really kill the wallet! I dont think its neccesary!

2K, and XP are both known to not give off as much performance in gaming than 98 is.
When I recently installed Half-Life, I was surprised to find that the good majority of users still user 98. Why? Coz its so much faster in gaming.

I run a celeron 933Mhz with 256MB RAM, 64 is shared Video RAM (The family PC).
Playing JediKnight 2 : Jedi Outcast in 2K is unbearable, with about 2-3 FPS!
Reboot into 98 (Its a dual-boot system) and you get a reasonable 20FPS!
Why is this? There's no extra progs loaded in 2K? Its coz 98 is better IMHO.

Obviously, not all scenarios are going to be like this, but speaking from personal experience, I think its fair to say that 98 seems to perform better, I believe its coz there's so much more of NT-Based systems to load into RAM at the start, using more processing power etc.

Perhaps if somebody has some rock-solid stats from a website somewhere, it would be interesting!
I am not meaning to offend you though, or start a flame war here either... :-)

Otherwise, I fully agree with you :D

And QMB Computer from http://www.qmb.co.nz let you do bank deposit!!

07-01-2003, 10:32 AM
>2K, and XP are both known to not give off as much performance in gaming than 98 is.

In my personal experience XP provides a far more enjoyable and stable gaming enviroment with no noticable downturn in performance. Almost no crashes or lockups.

These stats should back my claims quite well: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,564687,00.asp

07-01-2003, 10:43 AM
Stability - Yes
Performance - I dont believe so.

I am looking for a comparison between XP and 98 on the same system, running benchamaking!

07-01-2003, 01:30 PM
>Stability - Yes
Performance - I dont believe so.

There is little difference between XP and 98 performance in games.

Another link:


A quote from the website says: "The tests show that there's no reason today to use Windows 98/ME in a new system. In many of the benchmarks, XP and 2000 are ahead - albeit only by a small margin. The biggest advantage of 2000 and XP, however, is in the more modern architecture, which, thanks to the increased stability and safety from crashes, allows for a much more relaxed work environment - and, of course, increased demands on the hardware as well."

07-01-2003, 01:49 PM
Alright, That was interesting...
The OS used was ME and remember that this is not 98. I think that its origional intentions were to make it into a Media-Friendly PC.

I personally use Win2K at the moment for stability on my PC (Athlon XP 1700+, 512MB RAM and GF4 MX 440 64MB!) and that runs nicely.

I still hold firm to my belief's about it, as this was not 98, although from the posting of another Pf1'er, I could be wrong and am willing to accept that.

I would still like to see one done with 98, not ME.

The difference was about 1FPS difference with XP using the ATI Raedon (Which is what the post is about), however, with the Ti 4600, it came out on top a few times itself.

Im gonna have a wee look to see if I can find a benchmark myself, in the mean time:
If you would like to spend another $3-400 on upgrading to XP to squeeze out an extra 1-2FPS, then that's you're choice, but I believe the money would be better spent elsewhere.

Then again, that is personal opinion and others might do otherwise! :-)

~~~~~ s y ~~~~~
07-01-2003, 03:32 PM
Where abouts are you? QMB has a shop just in Auckland.

Visit http://www.qmb.co.nz for their location details.

They sell stuff quite cheaply too. That graphic card, I believe, would be sufficient for your type of use.

07-01-2003, 07:25 PM

Thank you all very much for your help, so I guess I'm going stay with Win98Se and get ATi Radeon9000. Thank you all again for your suggestions and ideas :)

Thanks alot :D

by the way, why do I keep getting this message when I post a post "You're about to reply to a post which is more than a month old. You might not get a response to your...etc" I mean even when I'm posting this forum right now I'm getting this message on my text box. Is it a bug? I'm using IE 5 right now.

Well, thanks again for all you guys help :D

Jase Sen

07-01-2003, 07:28 PM
To- ~~~~~ s y ~~~~~ Yeah, I been to QMB store up in Auckland, just wondering if there's any place else like QMB. Cheap prices yet quality parts.

Jase Sen

07-01-2003, 09:21 PM
'd have to say they're proly the best. Otherwise there is:
BTW - We all get that message. The programmers are getting abck next week (That's what the CIO told me) and will look into it then :-)

07-01-2003, 09:32 PM
Thanks alot Chilling_Silence, I thought I was the only one.


Jase Sen

Sorry to be a bother :( but is there any other places, other than ETC computer and QMB?


07-01-2003, 09:39 PM
Well, try http://www.pricespy.co.nz and have a loosie there...
Personally, I built myself a nice PC from parts from QMB for $800 - Check the Pf1 Archives and you'll find my thread asking about the parts and stuff!

They are good, quick delivery, fast replies to email, and support Direct bank Deposit!

I would recommend them 100%!

08-01-2003, 06:40 AM
Thanks alot Chilling_Silence :)

Thank you everyone for their help :D

Jase Sen