x300 vs. 9700 - Page 2

True to a point...which is why a 2ghz Pentium M beats a 3ghz Pentium 4, however in the case of the X300 vs. the 9700 they are very close in performance and nowhere near your rating of '2' for the x300 and '5' for the 9700.

The real problem with the X300 is the bus width to the video ram. This is why the 9700 performs better in older games.
Regards,
Rabid Bunny

That shouldn't affect the 128MB X300 as it has a 128-bit memory bus same as the MR9700.

UMM the 9700 and 9600 are better cards then the x300. The X600 is basically a 9600 pro ported over to the pci-e bus the X300 is definitly weaker than either of them by a good deal.

And you can't really count overclocking since you can overclock any of the cards listed and their is no 'guarantee' to what kind of speeds you will get.

Martian wrote -
M70 + 256MB Quadro FX Go1400

Comparing the i6000 with x300 here against the i9200 with mr9700 and it is no comparison.

It cracks me up how people state: "look how it compares in 3dm2k5"
Did you see the fps during tests?
How does 1 to 3 fps look to you?
Yep, that is what x300 is getting..
It can't go lower than 1, so if it is actually .5 fps, it rates it as one.
Double performance of 1 and you get 2.
It does score better than 1 - 3 in a couple tests, which helps boost it's overall score.
See why you can't use 3dm2k5?
Use something that has full range of fps, like 3dm2k1se.
Here, the x300 scores around 7000, while mr9700 scores 12,000.
Overclocked (same tool for both) as high as reliable, and x300 scores 7700, while mr9700 scored 14250.
So this shows the mr9700 is nearly 50% faster than x300 in crappy 3dmark tests that actually show reliable fps.

In gaming, mr9700 runs HL2 1440x900 at game recommended settings of high in all catagories, and still averages 45fps. Haven't tested x300 in HL2 yet, but other sites show it not doing well at all.

For further comparison of real testing here with 3dm2k1se.
The x300 scores about 10% slower than a desktop ATi 8500/9100 AGP card.
The mr9700 scores about 10% slower than a desktop ATi 9700 Pro.

I also find it very odd that some people post 3dmark scores, and fail to tell others in the post that they are NOT running the test at default, but are in some cases running it at 800x600. Others then take these results as proof that the cards run the numbers. Take a look at ALL the scores at madonion, and compare yourselve. True tests at default (3dmark test default resolution and settings, not card default, as card should be overclocked) put the x300 far below mr9700, mr9600, and x600. EDIT: To prove this point, just ran a 3dm2k1se test with i9200 MR9700 and scored 17250! Wow, mr9700 is faster than mr9800 Pro.

EDIT:
Doesn't it seem strange that with all the screaming fast x300's here, there are very few who actually published their scores at Madonion, so that others could see these amazing results, and compare line by line with their own cards? Please, if you think it is fast, publish it at madonion. Saying you can is one thing, but stats there do not lie, and they say, no contest. Yes, there will be that freak machine that will set records. But the more published results there are, the more of an average can be obtained. Back up your talk with published benchmarks that show what you really are doing!

I am surprised at the x300.
Running WMV-HD at 1080P and 720P, it does just as well as mr9700 (45%-70% CPU usage).
They did make some huge improvements in that regard compared to ATi 8500/9100's that the x300 compares to in gaming.

mobility cards are a bit slower but the X300 is far slower than a 9600 or 9700.

For you benchmarking whores: My laptop vs a friend's shuttle running 3.2 Ghz P4 775, 512 MB ddr 3200, ATi X600 @ 128 mb.

Me: 26,000 aquamarks
Him: 25,400 aquamarks

My system? My laptop, stock speed.

If a X600 has nearly the same performance as a 9600 pro, than, why would a X300 have more performance than a 9600... wouldn't that also be more powerful than a X600?

Well RobsTV, I dont know much about the 9700, but your numbers are wrong about the x300 overclocked numbers.

Quote:"Overclocked (same tool for both) as high as reliable, and x300 scores 7700, while mr9700 scored 14250.
So this shows the mr9700 is nearly 50% faster than x300 in crappy 3dmark tests that actually show reliable fps."



I get 14699 in 3dmark 2001se
and 1821 in 3dmark2005
and the x300 is underclocked out of the box.

Quote:"Overclocked (same tool for both) as high as reliable, and x300 scores 7700, while mr9700 scored 14250.
So this shows the mr9700 is nearly 50% faster than x300 in crappy 3dmark tests that actually show reliable fps."

I dont know much about the 9700, it may be better than the x300 as it was being offered in the high end Dells (the 9100 i believe) 6 months ago.... however my x300 scored a rather respectable 12910 in 3dmark 2001se before overclocking....

Quote:"Please, if you think it is fast, publish it at madonion. Saying you can is one thing, but stats there do not lie, and they say, no contest"

I have published my results (under aquazi) and i dont even have a particularly fast CPU (1.73). From the stats of the ATI cards i would have expected the x300 to be atleast as powerful, if not more powerful than the 9600.. I personally used to own a i8600 with the mr9600, which has since been replaced by my i6000 and i have noticed no performance decrease/increase with the x300, playing the same games on both machines (UT and Doom 3). I suspect those who disagree are the bitter owners of the now outdated i8600.

I am no gamer mind you, but just got interested in this thread. If i want to play game i prefer my PS2.

my outdated 8600 still performs well. Not all X300 owners have a "faster then the older 9600/9700" cards.

Just to ease my mind, why would a DESKTOP X600 card be near the same perfomance capacity as a MR9600PT? Shouldn't the X600 be more powerful then the X300? And this was done with aquamark3 benchmarking test

If you can explain that. It would very easily beat my disagreements.

good for you, u want a cookie?

However i still perfer the sturdieness, sonoma, faster ram, design of the 6kd over the 8600.

First, I have to say that STOCK, the mobility 9600, 9700 and X600 should be faster then the 128MB X300 but the gap closes if the laptop manufacturer underclocks the 9600, 9700 and X600 (which isn't that uncommon especially for thin laptops).

I've said it in other threads, the core for the desktop x300, x600, 9600 and mobility x300, x600, 9600 and 9700 series are all pretty much the same. There's also the desktop 9550, not to be confused with desktop 9500np or 9500pro.

The performance differences you'll see between them will depend mainly on three things. Clockspeed of the core, clockspeed of the video memory, and the memory bus width (64-bit vs 128-bit).

If you check ATI's website, they list up to only a 64MB mobility X300 which is crippled with a 64-bit memory bus. It makes sense to market the X300 as a budget solution if it only has a 64-bit memory bus.

The 128MB X300 performs so well because it's not crippled so it's just an underclocked mobility 9600, 9700 and X600 (ignoring AGP vs PCI-E since performance difference between is nil right now).

For desktop cards, the 9550 and X300 are severely underclocked compared to the 9600-series and X600-series. Usually, they also come with slower ram.

Now for overclocking, the 9600 core was a great overclocker when it first came out, and the manufacturing process has only improved with time. No doubt there will be the unlucky few with X300's that can't overclock much, but I'm pretty sure that most X300s shouldn't have a problem with it.

Really. Do you have both laptops to do a side-by-side comparision?

Um, no. Please re-read some of the results us x300 owners are getting. Please check my .sig -> the x300 is getting close to the same scores as your mr9700's 14250.

You're sort-of right.

Take a look at this:
http://www.rojakpot.com/default.aspx...ar1=162&var2=0
and this:
http://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/

So basically we're all fighting about the SAME GPUs:
x600 desktop core = x300 desktop core = mobility x600 core = mobility x300 core = mobility 9700 core = mobility 9600 core = 9600 desktop core = 9550 desktop core.

The only differences are clockspeed and agp/pci express interfaces.

When comparing which GPU is faster, compare core/memory speeds.
A 300MHz/300MHz MR9600 = 300/300 MR9700 = 300/300 x300.
I can clock mine at 408/306 without issue. My GPU is EQUAL to an MR9600 or MR9700 clocked at 408/306.

Can we all please stop fighting?

Cheers!

Jay

Is the x300 64mb from the 6000d 64 or 128 bit?

anything > radeon x300

in the desktop world, the x300 is comparable to the geforce 6200, both very low end cards. the x600 (9600) is mid range and outperforms x300 in every way possible, and the 9700 (pretty much a 9800) was the fastest graphics card of last generation now topped by the x800 and geforce 6800 series. from what i understand the x300 on laptop is nearly identical to the desktop sibling and i know the mobility 9700 do not have the same specification as the desktop ones (they are a little castrated)

the x300 is decent enough to play games of today like counterstrike source and bf2, but anyone who thinks x300 is anywhere near the performance of a 9700 is in total denial and needs to admit that it performs nowhere near of other the higher end cards. end of story

----
Dell Latitude D610 1.6ghz Dothan 60gb HD 1.5gb RAM Radeon X300

I think they're referring to the mobile 9700 which was just a slightly higher clocked 9600.

yeah and the difference between an x300 and 9600 is day and night on desktops

You sure? I thought the x300 was just a slower clocked 9600? It has same number of pipelines and vertex shaders.

interesting, while that may seem to be thecase, the x300 still performs really poorly whether it's an underclocked 9600 or not... and a 9600 is a card that holds its own. the x300 competes with the geforce 6200 which is nvidia's low end line