smeezekitty wrote:

Ok maybe I overstated a bit. I ran 3dmark vantage 1.02 on the performance preset and my 6670 scored about 4K Compare to this: ht […]
Show full quote

Ok maybe I overstated a bit.
I ran 3dmark vantage 1.02 on the performance preset and my 6670 scored about 4K
Compare to this:
http://media.bestofmicro.com/W/B/176123/origi … 95_chart-12.png

Just a bit. 🤣

Although my CPU was bottlenecking because I saw it 100% is many of the tests

That actually isn't a good indicator of the CPU "bottlenecking" - to test if the CPU is a limiting factor you'd need another, ideally higher performance, graphics adapter which you'd run the same test on - if the score didn't improve then you'd know the CPU was holding up the show.

Still it isn't hard for even a midrange modern GPU to beat a high end old GPU

So "high end old GPU" scores close to 3x your chosen midrange chip, and "it isn't hard to beat"? 🤣 (I'm just razzing you here; not trying to goad anything)

Seriously speaking: I understand (and agree with) what you're saying broadly - compared to something like an FX 5800 Ultra or 7800GT, the 6670 is probably going to be faster, but it isn't safe to assume that newer always equals faster, especially post-console stagnation and when comparing entry/mid-range parts to former top-dogs. My point is, there is no good rule-of-thumb for this situation.

That actually isn't a good indicator of the CPU "bottlenecking" - to test if the CPU is a limiting factor you'd need another, ideally higher performance, graphics adapter which you'd run the same test on - if the score didn't improve then you'd know the CPU was holding up the show.

I don't have another GPU to test. But realistically it would be nice to not have to run a 6+ year old CPU.

So "high end old GPU" scores close to 3x your chosen midrange chip, and "it isn't hard to beat"? 🤣 (I'm just razzing you here; not trying to goad anything)

Seriously speaking: I understand (and agree with) what you're saying broadly - compared to something like an FX 5800 Ultra or 7800GT, the 6670 is probably going to be faster, but it isn't safe to assume that newer always equals faster, especially post-console stagnation and when comparing entry/mid-range parts to former top-dogs. My point is, there is no good rule-of-thumb for this situation.

True there is no real rule of thumb. But a 6670 isn't mid range either. More like low-end

[quote="smeezekitty"]
I don't have another GPU to test. But realistically it would be nice to not have to run a 6+ year old CPU.
[quote]

Certainly. Also remember that 3DMark is notoriously hard on systems with older or lower-spec'd CPUs; usually much moreso than real-world games.

I have one DX9 game that may be problematic. Stranglehold.

A friend gave it to me last summer. Fun for the most part, but I did get a bit bored halfway through and uninstalled it. I did notice that on the 2nd or 3rd level though, there were a lot of graphical issues on my 7850 and Windows 7. Geometry would just disappear or flicker, that kind of stuff. It was a level with floating houses for anyone interested.

Quite a few of the 9800 series cards I have seen are dead, finding a working one takes some skill or cash (more then $10).

Unknown_K wrote:

Quite a few of the 9800 series cards I have seen are dead, finding a working one takes some skill or cash (more then $10).

I've wondered if there was/is a problem with the R300's and longevity: back "in the day" I had both a 9600Pro and 9700, and both of them were outlived by GeForce counterparts; no idea what caused them to fail, they just both eventually developed tons of artefacts/distortion on their outputs and I recycled them. 😢

They didn't really get subjected to anything worse/different than the GeForce cards, but I figured it was just an odd coincidence that I had two of them fail more or less together (they did not fail when they were new; we're talking years later this happened after a lot of use).

obobskivich wrote:

Unknown_K wrote:

Quite a few of the 9800 series cards I have seen are dead, finding a working one takes some skill or cash (more then $10).

I've wondered if there was/is a problem with the R300's and longevity: back "in the day" I had both a 9600Pro and 9700, and both of them were outlived by GeForce counterparts; no idea what caused them to fail, they just both eventually developed tons of artefacts/distortion on their outputs and I recycled them. 😢

They didn't really get subjected to anything worse/different than the GeForce cards, but I figured it was just an odd coincidence that I had two of them fail more or less together (they did not fail when they were new; we're talking years later this happened after a lot of use).

Probably heat. I think they ran significantly hotter. That being said and a little off topic. Some NVidia Riva TNT2's get so hot you could fry an egg on them, yet they seem to keep going.

The low end Radeon 9200SE, 9200 and 9250's seem to last forever.

[quote="Totempole"
Probably heat. I think they ran significantly hotter. That being said and a little off topic. Some NVidia Riva TNT2's get so hot you could fry an egg on them, yet they seem to keep going.

The low end Radeon 9200SE, 9200 and 9250's seem to last forever.[/quote]

I have two such TNT2s - 🤣 I know one of them still works, haven't tested the other one recently. Honestly don't know what temps the 9600 and 9700 tended to run at; I don't even remember the 9600 having a temp sensor/readout to be honest (it may have, I'm just not remembering it).

Totempole wrote:

Probably heat. I think they ran significantly hotter.

Definitely heat. The stock coolers on 9600-9800 cards absolutely suck. Not enough metal, plus whiny little fans that spin at approximately 3 billion RPM.

My 9800 Pro actually seems to suffer from the "Voodoo2 Effect." When I had it running in a 3GHz A64/NF3 rig a few months ago it would occasionally display artifacts and sometimes even lock up. The heatsink would be too hot to touch. I think the reason it's still alive and working well today is that it spent most of its life being driven by a PIII-S...🤣. I can even overclock it a tad without losing stability in the P3 system.

Crappy coolers appear to be a DAAMIT tradition - look at the R290X!

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

But the Radeon 9700 / 9800 has always had a cult status. It dethroned Nvidia for a short while and will always be a sought after card.

Yep, that very short while between the 9700pro and the X1950XTX, just four generations, a mere nothing.

The heatsink on Radeon 9500/9700 cards frequently doesn't even make contact with the die. The shim causes a ~0.5mm gap and a thick wax thermal interface is used. Apparently it was adequate though. You can't use regular paste with that gap though.

9800 heatsinks have a raised center area. With these they use a paste. Unfortunately their paste dries up and this makes it a fine thermal insulator. Always check for cheapo dried up paste on old hardware.

Still it isn't hard for even a midrange modern GPU to beat a high end old GPU

This statement assumes that the manufacturer hasn't done anything to the newer GPU that breaks backwards compatibility with older games. If backwards compatibility is broken, then the older GPU will be the better one to use.

sliderider wrote:

Still it isn't hard for even a midrange modern GPU to beat a high end old GPU

This statement assumes that the manufacturer hasn't done anything to the newer GPU that breaks backwards compatibility with older games. If backwards compatibility is broken, then the older GPU will be the better one to use.

With the exception of very old games (pre 2002), I have found very few that don't work on modern GPUs
Sometimes you need to run an older driver though.

Directx 9 games are still made so they won't be breaking compatibility any time soon.

Standard Def Steve wrote:

Definitely heat. The stock coolers on 9600-9800 cards absolutely suck. Not enough metal, plus whiny little fans that spin at app […]
Show full quote

Totempole wrote:

Probably heat. I think they ran significantly hotter.

Definitely heat. The stock coolers on 9600-9800 cards absolutely suck. Not enough metal, plus whiny little fans that spin at approximately 3 billion RPM.

My 9800 Pro actually seems to suffer from the "Voodoo2 Effect." When I had it running in a 3GHz A64/NF3 rig a few months ago it would occasionally display artifacts and sometimes even lock up. The heatsink would be too hot to touch. I think the reason it's still alive and working well today is that it spent most of its life being driven by a PIII-S...🤣. I can even overclock it a tad without losing stability in the P3 system.

Crappy coolers appear to be a DAAMIT tradition - look at the R290X!

This progression is almost exactly what my 9700 went through - it went from working, to periodic artefacts/lock-ups, to constant artefacts, to no longer booting over the course of ~5 years. By the time it died I wasn't too worried about it - we're talking like 2007-2008 when it was finally done-in.

Also, 290X - 🤣

For a card with an external power connector the Radeon 9800 had a very small cooler.

I might put an aftermarket cooler on mine, just like I did with the FX 5950.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

For a card with an external power connector the Radeon 9800 had a very small cooler.

I might put an aftermarket cooler on mine, just like I did with the FX 5950.

The Arctic Cooling ATI Silencer 3 would probably do well, if you can find one. I have had good experiences with Silencers.

maximus wrote:

The Arctic Cooling ATI Silencer 3 would probably do well, if you can find one. I have had good experiences with Silencers.

That or one of the Zalman heatsinks like VF700/900. 😀

The modern Arctic heatsinks are also very good, if you can get them to fit on your card. Some of them are massive (as in your card will turn into a 3/4 slot monster); something to keep in mind.

I like the Silencers too but I had to replace the fan on one I had twice. The bearing is a sleeve and it wears and eventually becomes noisy. With enough time of course. Maybe that doesn't matter for old hardware that rarely gets use now.

There are some very cheap Zalman VF700 knock offs on ebay. I bought 3 of them at $5 each. For example (ebay). These are quiet and I think can handle even a 6800. I also like Accelero S1 and S2.

I know the real VF700 AlCu can handle the 6800GT @ Ultra clocks (400MHz core); no idea about the knockoffs. I vaguely remember there being a review out there showing the AlCu vs the full-copper version not making much difference aside from weight and cost.

As far as newer Arctic coolers, the Accelero Mono Plus is magnificent. I've heard good things about the L2 from friends as well.

I forgot that I actually have one installed on my 6800 Ultra. The original cooler was pretty loud.