PDA

View Full Version : Radeon 9800 PRo



sidewing
09-21-2003, 12:56 AM
I have the new Radeon 9800 PRO 256 megs with AGP 8* and don't notice any difference in open GL speed with regards to LW. I replaced it with a 128 megs ASUS V8440.

Even if I optimize all settings for the card, it still is as sluggish as a card that is 1 year old and only uses AGP 4*...

Any idea's? Is it perhap LW that doesn't like the card?

John

Elmar Moelzer
09-21-2003, 01:46 AM
Well, Ati makes great graphics cards, but heir OpenGL- drivers have never been that great.
So checking for the latest drivers could help a lot.
I also think that the biggest benefit of the newer cards comes only to play with heavy multitexturing and complex shaders.
ATi- cards are generally more optimized for DX9 than for OpenGL, AFAIK.
CU
Elmar

sidewing
09-21-2003, 02:07 AM
Thanks Elmar.

So in other words, a 500 dollar card with 256 megs AGP 8 is only good for HalfLife2?

Perhaps I should bring it back and get something else...

Any idea's? Bying another Wildcat?

John

Elmar Moelzer
09-21-2003, 02:17 AM
Well, I would keep it. It is still a great graphics- card.
Have you already tried to compare the textured- display- modes?
I think that you will see the biggest benefit there.
The larger amount of Ram on the CPU only makes a difference in texture- mode too. It just allows you to store more and larger textures in graphic- card- memory, so you dont have to get them via the AGP- bus.
At the moment I would say a faster CPU and more RAM would do the most benefit to LW and will help with rendering too.
CU
Elmar

sidewing
09-21-2003, 11:41 AM
Thanks again Elma.

I just bought an extra 256 megs of ram today.

Perhaps I will buy soon a 3.2 gigH machine.
I also will test the texturing of the card. That is indeed an important benefit!

Thanks for your advice!

Bigboy
09-22-2003, 06:42 AM
Hate to say it, but most modeling packages dont push graphics cards that much... its usually CPU bound. This is mainly due to the fact that the entire scene is "dynamic" and editable. Once you have a card that is fast (i.e. not a TNT2!), simply adding one thats twice the speed wont get you twice the rendering. increasing CPU is a much better thing to do.

This is easily proved... My own GFX render can pump though far more polys than lightwave (taking a standard LW scene and displaying in LW and my engine), but thats because the scene doesn't have to be edited!

In fact, lightwave is one of the faster realtime 3D views. Maya and Max are both "sluggish" sometimes...

Im sure they work very hard trying to close this gap :)

caesar
09-22-2003, 06:53 AM
Ati readeon 9800 is the greatest (my opinion) card right now for directx9 real time graphics. Its not intended to use with high end graphical solutions. Visit this link to see the professional cards - ATI FireGL - http://www.ati.com/products/workstation.html. Itīll improve Lightwave rendering

Lightwolf
09-22-2003, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by caesar
http://www.ati.com/products/workstation.html.[/url] Itīll improve Lightwave rendering
Erm, no, it won't. It will speed up your realtime feedback, but not the actual rendering process (-> pressing f9 or f10), which only uses the CPU.
Cheers,
Mike

Ade
09-22-2003, 10:23 AM
Lightwolf is right. Unless the ATI cards magically could do raytrace in hardware they will not speed up rendering.

ruejos
09-22-2003, 09:53 PM
Just like to know what are the differences bet gfx & ati? coz' when i bought my video card (i asked the dealer that it will be used for graphics rendering and not for gaming), i was presented with Nvidia Riva TNT2 Pro and was told that it was the best vidcard at the time.

It works fine with lightwave basic tuts, but when i tried to view advanced tuts, it hangs up......... :( now that is my problem.

Lightwolf
09-23-2003, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by ruejos
i was presented with Nvidia Riva TNT2 Pro and was told that it was the best vidcard at the time.
Yeah, but that was, when, 1998 or something like that?

In general the current ATI boards seem to be faster, however, nVidia's drivers (especially the openGL part) seem to be better if you want to use "pro" apps like rendering packages. This is for the "consumer/gamer" boards.
If you really have the dough, you can always go for a pro coard (Quadro, FireGL, Wildcat), it won't do you _that_ much good in LW though(I hope LW8 has a more optimized openGL support) .
Cheers,
Mike

ruejos
09-23-2003, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by Lightwolf
Yeah, but that was, when, 1998 or something like that?

In general the current ATI boards seem to be faster, however, nVidia's drivers (especially the openGL part) seem to be better if you want to use "pro" apps like rendering packages. This is for the "consumer/gamer" boards.
If you really have the dough, you can always go for a pro coard (Quadro, FireGL, Wildcat), it won't do you _that_ much good in LW though(I hope LW8 has a more optimized openGL support) .
Cheers,
Mike

It was around Nov. 2000.......

And thanks for the advice / info...

caesar
09-25-2003, 06:29 AM
Iīd wish my english would be better.....

Of course, hardware rendering is not available in Lightwave (I thought every average user would know that), so when I said a pro video card would speed up lightwave - open gl screen feedback, ok?

Now, we have 2 kind of gfx card

- desktop (raden, geforce, etc) - made for directx, but accepts open gl (US 100-399)

workstation (ati fire, nvidia quadro, etc) - made for open gl, but accepts directx (U$ 299 - 1300)

We clearly see a great diference in prices, but I have a question - if lightwave doesnīt have hardware rendering (f9/f10) is it useful to buy a quadro fx for 900 bucks?