Let's hear it for AGP! *^_^*
Weeeell, overhere at geektechnique
They just published a solid article online called:
AGP Platform Analysis, Part 1: New Cards, Old System
...which tries to finally give some valid facts to an endless discussion you can have about if it’s still worthwile to upgrade an older system with a newer AGP-card or go the extra mile (and dollars) to go out and buy something with PCI-express.
Now don’t get me wrong here, of course PCI-express has more potential in it than AGP ever had, but something you see way too often is that the old standard is sort of thrown away in favour of the new way too quickly. But read it all in the first part of this AGP Platform Analysis
Frankly, I’m still impressed with the old-but-revolutionary Radeon 9700 PRO we used in these tests. Paired up with an Athlon XP 2500+, there wasn’t a title the old girl couldn’t play at 1024×768. The benchmark scores didn’t look very impressive, but the card delivered playable performance, better than a lot of new cards like Radeon X300s or Geforce 6200s. Not bad for a card released 5 years ago.
I have to admit, though, that I do believe that in the next 6 months there will be game titles released that it won’t be able to handle at 1024×768. I’m hopelessly sentimental, though, so I’m going to miss that Radeon 9700 PRO.
my own good old Hercules ATI 9700 PRO
click to enlarge
Or is it just because I happen to have such a 9700 PRO, (which I’ve gotten two years ago and even back then it was considered old) in a fairly similar system as their test system?
Any way, I’m not gonna miss my 9700 PRO, since it’s not going anywhere ^_^ It performs quite well still. I watch my TV/movies on there and play a game every once in a while. At this time and with my current TV-setup, it would be plain silly to buy something else for that.
permalink - 
add to del.icio.us
previous: burning iBook for sale! *^_^*
next: ...and about getting sentimental...
“there wasn’t a title the old girl couldn’t play at 1024×768”
So, 17FPS in Oblivion, which isn’t the heaviest game around, is considered playable?
Ah well, I’m aware of the fact that the 9700 is quite old and is performing incredible for such an old card (9700pro’s and 9800pro’s are still in heavy use), but I wouldn’t call the new titles “playable”.
Imho it’s pretty useless for playing the latest titles with some eyecandy and nice framerates.
On the other hand, it’s a very nice card for some occasional gaming on older titles, and what more can you expect from a 5 year old card?
Jup, Ati really made the king of cards back then, but I wouldn’t use it for gaming today anymore.
>is considered playable?
oh, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying this old ATI is a card a gamer should consider getting (if they don’t already have one collecting dust somewhere). It’s just nice to see this old card, which I happen to use on a daily basis still, still get’s to be some sort of reference-card in a 2007-test and the reviewer/author gets all sentimental about it… You know, when somebody gets sentimental they also tend to be a bit forgiving… :-)
@Markie
I know. I wasn’t trying to flame or anything ;) I know it’s still a nice card, and one thing amazed me: My old 9800Pro (it died on me a half year ago because the fan failed) scored lower on 3d mark. When reading that article I looked up some old screenshots I made of 3dmark with that 9800Pro, and it scored lower, while the CPU I used at that time was an Athlon64 3200+.
I alway’s thought the 9700 pro was a beefed up 9500pro, and the 9800pro was a little bit faster then the 9700. Seems I was wrong there, or my system wasn’t running optimal at the time.
Anyway, still a nice card and I really hope it will serve you for years to come ;)
Oh well, I didn’t take it as a flame. :) Somehow this is a recurring subject here at my site and it keeps coming back. You know, I’m a sucker for build quality and for stuff that once cost a fortune but I now can get for scratch or little money. Now those two go very well together, the expensive stuff most of the time was build quite well. Only thing is, since it’s cheap now (like this 9700 PRO), is it still usable in terms of performance. Well, sometimes… ;) I mean, I also got a VAX for instance which does apply for the things I say, it once cost a fortune and is cheap now, but usable, well, no… but still beautiful from my perspective. I respect it, just like I respect this 9700 PRO. I thought it was nice to see that even two years after I bought mine from a gamer for 120 euros (and my Hercules 9700 PRO retailed for 499 back in the days) they still use it as some sort of reference and it isn’t quick compared to nowadays stuff, it just has been a leap in front of everything else back then if it’s even mentioned five years later… And two years back my reasoning was, I could go out for a brand new card for 120 euros or get this, once 499 now 120 euros card. With those kind of choices I always go for the latter. I sometimes put it like ‘I’d rather drive a second hand BMW than a brand new Volkswagen’. I think that sums it up quite well. :)
“and my Hercules 9700 PRO retailed for 499 back in the days”
Tell me about it: I was one of those suckers to buy a brand-new 9800Pro.
Must say though, that it was the most long lasting card I’ve ever owned. I’ve used it for two years, and shortly before it died it was still capable of running the newest games. If the fan wouldn’t have failed and caused the (slightly overclocked) GPU to burn up in seconds, it would have probably lasted a bit longer. I wasn’t really considering upgrading at the time, but I simply had to. I don’t think the card I own now will last two years. Well, ofcourse: It’ll probably still work after two years, but I guess it can’t run the new games anymore then.
So, I have to agree there: Those Ati 9xxx’s were the kings of cards back in those days. But sadly, all kings will lose their kingdoms and faithfull followers at one point in their lifetime, and so did those Ati’s. ;).
Hmm..
Okay, I’m well aware of the fact that I’m talking BS right now, but it’s getting late and I haven’t had a decent cup of coffee for what seems to be years (imho ofcourse).
So ehr…I guess I’ll just go to sleep ;)
——
Dunno why I even bothered to reply, since nothing worth mentioning came out, but what the heck..- Just feel like commenting tonight!
I wrote that article…
From my experience, Oblivion was quite playable 1024×768. Sometimes we get hung up on average frame rates, but there are a few factors here:
1. The test was done in the worst possible scenario, in a mountainous and heavy-foliage area. in most of the game the framerate will be higher.
2. The minimum framerate was very close to the average, meaning it never had horrible and unplayable dips
3. Oblivion is not a twitch game, it’s a bit more forgiving than a shooter.
IMHO it was very playable.
I don’t think focusing on the 17fps number does it justice.
I guess if you didn’t find it playable, you’d have the option to lower settings to medium or low, and it would have been even MORE playable at 1024×768. :)
Oblivion was one of the last games I’ve played with my 9800Pro. Framerates I had where about 30 indoors, about 20 outdoors, and could drop to 15 when in a crowded city.
I don’t call that playable. Well yeah, it is playable, but imho there’s a difference between “playable” or being playable at a enjoyble level. To me 17 FPS isn’t really enjoyble.
And ýeah, I’m well aware of the fact that you don’t need high framerates to play Oblivion, since you don’t need to react fast in many occasions, but having a swordfight at 20FPS isn’t really helpfull in defeating an enemy.
That’s just my two cents. On the other hand, considering the card is five years old, that’s still some incredible perfomance.