Radeon 7000 64DDR - Performance??

litiglio · Jan 7, 2003, 09:04 PM

I just want to know what peoples thoughts are on this GPU, wrt game performance.

ie. What new games can it handle.
What system requirements are for certain games.
etc.

What are your thoughts??

The_Neon_Cowboy · Jan 7, 2003, 09:30 PM

umm... get 8500 or better 7000 is a wee bit slow for the new games

Krychek57 · Jan 7, 2003, 09:39 PM

7500 Works fine however :-)

toddsmack2k · Jan 7, 2003, 10:34 PM

i used to have a 7000. it wasnt a bad card but dont expect it to even touch what a g force 4 4200 or up or a radeon 8500 and up can do. most games i had to run at 800x600 resolution to get the smoothness and fps i wanted. it will run the newer games like ut 2003 and such. i have played quake 3, nascar 2002, and star wars jkII on it but without a whole lot of detail cranked up it looked ok though. as far as any other issue's i had not one problem with the card. it was a decent card that came with my system. what are looking to get out of this card and what others are you comparing it too?

ToshiroOC · Jan 7, 2003, 11:05 PM

With the 7000 at $30 right now, there is really very little in the market right now that can touch it's performance for the price - the 8500 and 4200 mentioned above cost 3x-5x more than the 7000 - however, if you can afford it, I would very highly suggest going for a more powerful card...

Matth · Jan 7, 2003, 11:10 PM

From a review in PC Plus magazine...
"One of the slowest cards in this lab test"
64 Bit memory bus (DDR)
No hardware texture and lighting support
Basically, it's a Radeon VE with fewer features

I'll sum up - it slugged it out with the Geforce 2 MX and the original Kyro chipset at the bottom of the table.

The GF2 MX beat it at 16 bit depth, and the situation was reversed at 32 bit depth

ToshiroOC · Jan 7, 2003, 11:20 PM

That may be true, but it is hard to find those Kyros and GF2MX's in the $30 range too - I think I'm going to need to go check pricewatch now, since this is going to bug me, as I have only seen the other cards for $30 on rare occasion...

toddsmack2k · Jan 7, 2003, 11:36 PM

if the 7000 is all you can afford go for it. these guys are right though, your best bet would be to save up and get a better card.

mbeeston · Jan 8, 2003, 12:13 AM

radeon with out T&L not that bad but don't ecept super performance

Matth · Jan 8, 2003, 04:46 PM

I rechecked the review...

The 7000 was a 32Mb DDR model (64 bit 366MHz DDR)
The Geforce 2 MX was a MX200 model 32Mb (64 bit 166 MHz SDR - the lowest of the low)

3Dmark 2001 scores at 16 bit, 1024 / 1280 and 32 bit 1204 / 1280
Rad7000 - 2183 1536 1905 1277
Gf2MX200 - 2391 1672 1354 831

The Mx200 is hitting memory bandwith limits a 32 bit depth - the MX400 would hold up significantly better, as would the original 2MX. I get 2200 at 1024x768 32 bit, using an original GF2MX - so the MX200 IS seroiously bandwith limited - if 64 bit DDR is weak compared to 128 bit, then 64 bit SDR is weaker still!

Max Payne 1024 / 1280 and Quake 3 1024 / 1280 results (frames/sec):
Rad7000 - 16 11 42 26
Gf2MX200 - 11 <10 32 20
Bit depth not specified, but the figures look like it must be 32 bit for the Radeon to beat the 2MX

In real terms (for 3DMark) that means tolerable frame rates at low detail, unacceptably low in some parts at high detail.
Dropping to 800 x 600 (or even 640 x 480) would be advisable for satisfactory game performance.

Neither can perform the "Nature" test as that requires DirectX 8 shaders, but even though Directx 9 is out, few games are really dependent on DX8 features yet - though the lack of hardware T&L may rule it out for some things.

- eg. http://www.americasarmy.com/faq.php?...20Requirements
(Minimum - Hardware T&L)

But according to THIS
http://www.americasarmy.com/faq.php?...n=Video#video8
It IS "supported" but the very next item indicates a problem!

To stand some chance of being "Future proof", save up for DX8 hardware, which should also be reasonably capable under DX9.

DX8 hardware includes Radeon 8500 (even LE version), Radeon 9000, while the 9500 appears to be a cut down 9700 with DX9 (uncertain if full Dx9 hardware)
In the Nvidia camp, Geforce 3, and Geforce 4 (NOT MX) are hardware DX8.

mbeeston · Jan 8, 2003, 07:47 PM

get this if you can afford it...http://www.ncix.com/usa/productdetail.php?sku=7586

~~Optimummind~~ · Jan 8, 2003, 09:52 PM

Like most people here, I completely advise you NOT to get that card. I was once the owner of that poor, poor card before my current PNY GeForce 4 Ti-4200. It couldn't run even Deus Ex at 800x600 with all the details set to low without in-game jerks and slowdowns!! Very, very frustrating!! And Deus Ex is such an old game!! Which means, any future games will throw that card on its knees!!

If you can, I would say buy the ATI Radeon 9500 128MB (non-Pro) and convert it to Radeon 9700 128MB (non-Pro). Supposedly, the software to make the conversion will surface in about 2 weeks time from Rivatuner.

If I werent' buying the GeForce FX come next month or March, I would probably get the Radeon 9500 128MB.

tigerarmyAFI · Jan 8, 2003, 10:21 PM

if you want a card you wont want to replace in the near future then invest some money in a decent card.

if you buy a card thats already outdated youre not gonna be impressed with any modern (or even not-so-modern) game performance.

basically i would see it as a waste of perfectly good money

DriveEuro · Jan 8, 2003, 10:23 PM

Go with a Ti4200.....or a 8500..... If you can just hold out for a while to gain the money then you will be pleased.

ToshiroOC · Jan 8, 2003, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Optimummind
Like most people here, I completely advise you NOT to get that card. I was once the owner of that poor, poor card before my current PNY GeForce 4 Ti-4200. It couldn't run even Deus Ex at 800x600 with all the details set to low without in-game jerks and slowdowns!! Very, very frustrating!! And Deus Ex is such an old game!! Which means, any future games will throw that card on its knees!!

If you can, I would say buy the ATI Radeon 9500 128MB (non-Pro) and convert it to Radeon 9700 128MB (non-Pro). Supposedly, the software to make the conversion will surface in about 2 weeks time from Rivatuner.

If I werent' buying the GeForce FX come next month or March, I would probably get the Radeon 9500 128MB.

That video card happens to bench only a bit below my current system, which is running Deus Ex at the highest possible settings, no FSAA or ansiotropic filtering, at 1280x1024 at a minimum of 30fps... and I have been playing all of the recent games with a system that gets barely 500 points above this card's 3dmark score... so I really think that it isn't a bad card, especially when you consider the price (did your Ti-4200 or that 9500 you mentioned cost $30? thats what I thought...). If all you can afford is one of these, then its worth getting - however, if your budget can fit it, it would be very recommendable to get a more powerful videocard...

ToshiroOC

digitalwanderer · Jan 8, 2003, 11:40 PM

...you could blow about $10us more and pick up a decent 64MB GF2 MX400 which will blow the doors off a 7000 in terms of gaming.

The pricewatch page for GF2 MX400s lists quite a few for under $40.

I had a 32MB 7200 & a 64MB GF2 MX400 back when I used to do "benchy races", they both finally broke 3K on 3dm2k1se the same night.

But the GF2 gamed better, period. I still have the GF2, it's in me son's PC, and it's still a great card. I gave the 7200 away.

Consider it, please.

Jan 7, 2003, 09:04 PM	#1
litiglio DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 1 Rep Power: 0	Radeon 7000 64DDR - Performance?? I just want to know what peoples thoughts are on this GPU, wrt game performance. ie. What new games can it handle. What system requirements are for certain games. etc. What are your thoughts?? __________________ L - Network Admin Student

Jan 7, 2003, 09:30 PM	#2
The_Neon_Cowboy HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 16,009 Rep Power: 92 System Specs	umm... get 8500 or better 7000 is a wee bit slow for the new games __________________

Jan 7, 2003, 10:34 PM	#4
toddsmack2k It Never..... Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 3,173 Rep Power: 0	i used to have a 7000. it wasnt a bad card but dont expect it to even touch what a g force 4 4200 or up or a radeon 8500 and up can do. most games i had to run at 800x600 resolution to get the smoothness and fps i wanted. it will run the newer games like ut 2003 and such. i have played quake 3, nascar 2002, and star wars jkII on it but without a whole lot of detail cranked up it looked ok though. as far as any other issue's i had not one problem with the card. it was a decent card that came with my system. what are looking to get out of this card and what others are you comparing it too? __________________ [color=blue]*Bleeding From the Inside Pouring Out, The* *DriverHeaven* Spiral, We Shall Never Let Go Of.[/color]

Jan 7, 2003, 11:05 PM	#5
ToshiroOC Unbiased. Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 4,812 Rep Power: 0	With the 7000 at $30 right now, there is really very little in the market right now that can touch it's performance for the price - the 8500 and 4200 mentioned above cost 3x-5x more than the 7000 - however, if you can afford it, I would very highly suggest going for a more powerful card... __________________ [img][/img] [color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color] Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

Jan 7, 2003, 11:20 PM	#7
ToshiroOC Unbiased. Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 4,812 Rep Power: 0	That may be true, but it is hard to find those Kyros and GF2MX's in the $30 range too - I think I'm going to need to go check pricewatch now, since this is going to bug me, as I have only seen the other cards for $30 on rare occasion... __________________ [img][/img] [color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color] Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

Jan 7, 2003, 09:39 PM	#3
Krychek57 Long time lurker Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Parkland, WA Posts: 50 Rep Power: 0	7500 Works fine however :-)

Jan 7, 2003, 11:10 PM	#6
Matth Flash Banner Hater Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: UK Posts: 3,426 Rep Power: 93 System Specs	From a review in PC Plus magazine... "One of the slowest cards in this lab test" 64 Bit memory bus (DDR) No hardware texture and lighting support Basically, it's a Radeon VE with fewer features I'll sum up - it slugged it out with the Geforce 2 MX and the original Kyro chipset at the bottom of the table. The GF2 MX beat it at 16 bit depth, and the situation was reversed at 32 bit depth

Jan 7, 2003, 11:36 PM	#8
toddsmack2k It Never..... Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 3,173 Rep Power: 0	if the 7000 is all you can afford go for it. these guys are right though, your best bet would be to save up and get a better card. __________________ [color=blue]*Bleeding From the Inside Pouring Out, The* *DriverHeaven* Spiral, We Shall Never Let Go Of.[/color]

Jan 8, 2003, 12:13 AM	#9
mbeeston HardwareHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: alberta, canada (thats north of the usa people) Posts: 1,037 Rep Power: 68 System Specs	radeon with out T&L not that bad but don't ecept super performance __________________ R.I.P Roadee - you will be missed T_T peace,love, and war... 3 things people look for... "if your going off the deep end, show off, do a cannon ball!" - me

Jan 8, 2003, 04:46 PM	#10
Matth Flash Banner Hater Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: UK Posts: 3,426 Rep Power: 93 System Specs	I rechecked the review... The 7000 was a 32Mb DDR model (64 bit 366MHz DDR) The Geforce 2 MX was a MX200 model 32Mb (64 bit 166 MHz SDR - the lowest of the low) 3Dmark 2001 scores at 16 bit, 1024 / 1280 and 32 bit 1204 / 1280 Rad7000 - 2183 1536 1905 1277 Gf2MX200 - 2391 1672 1354 831 The Mx200 is hitting memory bandwith limits a 32 bit depth - the MX400 would hold up significantly better, as would the original 2MX. I get 2200 at 1024x768 32 bit, using an original GF2MX - so the MX200 IS seroiously bandwith limited - if 64 bit DDR is weak compared to 128 bit, then 64 bit SDR is weaker still! Max Payne 1024 / 1280 and Quake 3 1024 / 1280 results (frames/sec): Rad7000 - 16 11 42 26 Gf2MX200 - 11 <10 32 20 Bit depth not specified, but the figures look like it must be 32 bit for the Radeon to beat the 2MX In real terms (for 3DMark) that means tolerable frame rates at low detail, unacceptably low in some parts at high detail. Dropping to 800 x 600 (or even 640 x 480) would be advisable for satisfactory game performance. Neither can perform the "Nature" test as that requires DirectX 8 shaders, but even though Directx 9 is out, few games are really dependent on DX8 features yet - though the lack of hardware T&L may rule it out for some things. - eg. http://www.americasarmy.com/faq.php?...20Requirements (Minimum - Hardware T&L) But according to THIS http://www.americasarmy.com/faq.php?...n=Video#video8 It IS "supported" but the very next item indicates a problem! To stand some chance of being "Future proof", save up for DX8 hardware, which should also be reasonably capable under DX9. DX8 hardware includes Radeon 8500 (even LE version), Radeon 9000, while the 9500 appears to be a cut down 9700 with DX9 (uncertain if full Dx9 hardware) In the Nvidia camp, Geforce 3, and Geforce 4 (NOT MX) are hardware DX8.

Jan 8, 2003, 07:47 PM	#11
mbeeston HardwareHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: alberta, canada (thats north of the usa people) Posts: 1,037 Rep Power: 68 System Specs	get this if you can afford it...http://www.ncix.com/usa/productdetail.php?sku=7586 __________________ R.I.P Roadee - you will be missed T_T peace,love, and war... 3 things people look for... "if your going off the deep end, show off, do a cannon ball!" - me

Jan 8, 2003, 09:52 PM	#12
~~Optimummind~~ Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Orange, California Posts: 632 Rep Power: 0	Please don't buy that card!! =) Like most people here, I completely advise you NOT to get that card. I was once the owner of that poor, poor card before my current PNY GeForce 4 Ti-4200. It couldn't run even Deus Ex at 800x600 with all the details set to low without in-game jerks and slowdowns!! Very, very frustrating!! And Deus Ex is such an old game!! Which means, any future games will throw that card on its knees!! If you can, I would say buy the ATI Radeon 9500 128MB (non-Pro) and convert it to Radeon 9700 128MB (non-Pro). Supposedly, the software to make the conversion will surface in about 2 weeks time from Rivatuner. If I werent' buying the GeForce FX come next month or March, I would probably get the Radeon 9500 128MB.

Jan 8, 2003, 10:21 PM	#13
tigerarmyAFI DriverHeaven Lover Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: England Posts: 111 Rep Power: 0	if you want a card you wont want to replace in the near future then invest some money in a decent card. if you buy a card thats already outdated youre not gonna be impressed with any modern (or even not-so-modern) game performance. basically i would see it as a waste of perfectly good money __________________ AMD AthlonXP 1800+ ThoroughBred B JIUHB @ 2137MHz Geforce4 Ti 4200 128Mb @ 310/600 (ASUS V8420) ABIT KX-7 333 v1.1 512Mb Micron PC2700 DDR Creative Live! 5.1 Aircooled (45c Full load)

Jan 8, 2003, 10:23 PM	#14
DriveEuro HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Gurnee Illinois Posts: 4,677 Rep Power: 0	Go with a Ti4200.....or a 8500..... If you can just hold out for a while to gain the money then you will be pleased. __________________ [color=orange]ASUS P4P800 Deluxe [color=black]-[/color] 2.4C --> 3300mhz [color=black]-[/color] Mushkin PC3200 at 220 5-2-2-2 (cpu limited) [color=black]-[/color] BBAti 9800Pro at 430/375 [/color] [color=black]3[/color][color=gray]D[/color]M[color=black]a[/color][color=gray]r[/color]k[color=yellow]01[/color] [color=black]3[/color][color=gray]D[/color]M[color=black]a[/color][color=gray]r[/color]k[color=yellow]03[/color] 16001200 12801024

Jan 8, 2003, 11:40 PM	#16
digitalwanderer Colour Commentator Join Date: May 2002 Location: Highland, IN USA Posts: 5,619 Rep Power: 0	From my experience... ...you could blow about $10us more and pick up a decent 64MB GF2 MX400 which will blow the doors off a 7000 in terms of gaming. The pricewatch page for GF2 MX400s lists quite a few for under $40. I had a 32MB 7200 & a 64MB GF2 MX400 back when I used to do "benchy races", they both finally broke 3K on 3dm2k1se the same night. But the GF2 gamed better, period. I still have the GF2, it's in me son's PC, and it's still a great card. I gave the 7200 away. Consider it, please. __________________ WTF is up with the sigs?