• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Looking Back At ATI Technologies

regorwin56 said:
Your HD5870 can support H 264 1080P30FPS video decoding

But does not support H264 1080P 60FPS video?


I just want to know the HD5000's video decoding capability
Click to expand...
It does support it, but drops half of frames and sometimes even 720p60 is bit too much for it. But that's YT, it may playback h264 files locally fine, I just never tested that. And BTW, it does have somewhat different drivers than Radeons, so 3D quality is higher, I wonder if drivers also somewhat different for decoder too.
 
I remember also tried Omega drivers instead of the ATi Catalyst.
Don't remember further details though, I mostly used the ATi Catalyst drivers.
 
Good old days.... I used most of the ati card... i remember the 8500 64Mb was my first ATi, worked well for years... then i surely had a Rage Fury MAXX (changed after 2 days in a Geforce256, drivers where a disaster, in many games was slower than a TNT2pro) 9800 Pro, x1800gt, x2600xt, HD4850, HD5850... I used to work in a computer shop in those years that's why i had many.
 
Radeon 7000? Those didn't even have the features that the GeForce 2 MX 200 did, but I saw it run GTA III well! But then it of course became obsolete quickly after that!

Then I felt like I was tricked in 2003, after buying a Radeon 9000 Pro on July 1, 2003! It was a card that looked like a nerfed 8500, likely under new lithography, looked like it kept getting spanked by an 8500!

Was that the beginning-of-the-end for ATi, including the Radeon 9600 SE, which was a nerfed 9600 and the reported 9550? That was not a 9500, it was a crippled 9600 SE, as if it weren't crippled enough! :(

The Radeon 9600 SE was disappointing enough that I returned it in 2004, when still new to PC upgrading and got a GeForce 4 Ti 4200! I bought the Radeon 9600 SE in 2004 and 3D Mark 2001 SE'ed it!

The verdict: The GeForce 4 Ti 4200 was the upgrade for me! Even when an older arch!
 
Last edited:
P4-630 said:
And oh the just 50~60Mb drivers with basic OC features...
Simple but it just worked, for me at least.
Click to expand...
Back when I downloaded drivers over my dial-up connection, 50MB(!) would have been insane. You'd need an hour or more to download that.
 
bug said:
Back when I downloaded drivers over my dial-up connection, 50MB(!) would have been insane. You'd need an hour or more to download that.
Click to expand...
I have done it via my mobile phone tethered with PC with edge(?) I think, before there was 3G in Bangkok...
 
bug said:
Back when I downloaded drivers over my dial-up connection, 50MB(!) would have been insane. You'd need an hour or more to download that.
Click to expand...
I think it took more like 30-40-ish minutes on 56K. But that still sucked! Even when nothing, compared to downloading Ubuntu on 56K, LOL. :roll:
 
@regorwin56 Now I tested offline files and dang, it does handle 4K 60 fps, ~10kbps, 4:2:0 video just fine. That was shocking finding, considering that YT runs like absolute pile from loo. I wanted to test 8K 60 fps file, but I wasn't able to find anything, I have suspicion that it would run fine too, as long as it is h264. I have found out that V8800 doesn't support DXVA-HD DDI, which might explain YT problem. Or it might just be that Firefox's Open H264 decoder is not great or at least inferior to VLC's. Also it seems that VLC put a lot of load on CPU and it used 50-80% of it and whopping half gig of RAM for playback of video, so maybe it wasn't even done on GPU at all.
 
Personally, I am very thankful for Ati as a company. I had no money as a kid, but the Ati radeon gpu I needed to run Stronghold in 2001 and other classic PC games would not have been possible without them. Thanks to their budget cards I was able to enjoy countless memories.

I'll never forget opening Warcraft 3 Reign of Chaos on launch day, and my tin box of Civilization III Limitied Edition (which I still have), and the list goes on and on. just great memories. thank you so much Ati :rockout: :love:
 
without art-X, the company would have never rolled NVIDIA with the 9700 pro

All their dx7 hardware was clunky 3 pipes per rop, and their dx8 hardware was a direct architectural copy of NVIDIA
 
ATI 9200...9600XT...x850XT PE...x1800XT...
 

Attachments

  • SANY0402.JPG
    SANY0402.JPG
    867.9 KB · Views: 56
Flanker said:
Had a HD6770 can't remember if it was AMD or ATI
Click to expand...
It was AMD branded. That right about the time they did the switch-over.

defaultluser said:
without art-X, the company would have never rolled NVIDIA with the 9700 pro

All their dx7 hardware was clunky 3 pipes per rop, and their dx8 hardware was a direct architectural copy of NVIDIA
Click to expand...
Not sure where you got that, but no, that's not what happened.
 
lexluthermiester said:
It was AMD branded. That right about the time they did the switch-over.


Not sure where you got that, but no, that's not what happened.
Click to expand...


only a fool would claim such a thing: year 2000,its barely faster than geforce 2 gts at 32-bit 1600x1200

image010.gif


6 months r later,NVIDIA has bumped gts performance by 50 percent, whilst introducing the groundbreaking GeForce3 (with double the radeon ddrs [performance)
image006.gif


in that same time portion NVIDIA's driver team both found 50 percentage performance bump,while simultaneously writing the brand- new geforce 3 driver-set , ati only managed to tread water

given nth fact that the 8500 was plagued by quack 3 clunkiness,they nefef to bring in an entirely new teanm to fix ati' crap radeon driverset
 
Last edited:
defaultluser said:
only a fool would claim such a thing: year 2000,its barely faster than geforce 2 gts at 32-bit 1600x1200

image010.gif


6 months r later,NVIDIA has bumped gts performance by 50 percent, whilst introducing the groundbreaking GeForce3 (with double the radeon ddrs [performance)
image006.gif


in that same time portion NVIDIA's driver team both found 50 percentage performance bump,while simultaneously writing the brand- new geforce 3 driver-set , ati only managed to tread water

given nth fact that the 8500 was plagued by quack 3 clunkiness,they nefef to bring in an entirely new teanm to fix ati' crap radeon driverset
Click to expand...
Please keep your low-brow insults to yourself. Also, your disinformation is showing for all to see. Quit embarrassing yourself. If you're going to quote performance data, keep in context or keep it to yourself. I was there. I know what performed well, when and how. ATI's purchase of ArtX had very little to do with the Radeon 9000 series cards.
 
lexluthermiester said:
Please keep your low-brow insults to yourself. Also, your disinformation is showing for all to see. Quit embarrassing yourself. If you're going to quote performance data, keep in context or keep it to yourself. I was there. I know what performed well, when and how. ATI's purchase of ArtX had very little to do with the Radeon 9000 series cards.
Click to expand...
I noticed that the wikipedia says that the original Artx team developed the Radeon 9000

The R3xx chip was designed by ATI's West Coast team (formerly ArtX Inc.), and the first product to use it was the Radeon 9700 PRO (internal ATI code name: R300; internal ArtX codename: Khan), launched in August 2002. The architecture of R300 was quite different from its predecessor, Radeon 8500 (R200), in nearly every way. The core of 9700 PRO was manufactured on a 150 nm chip fabrication process, similar to the Radeon 8500. However, refined design and manufacturing techniques enabled a doubling of transistor count and a significant clock speed gain.


This is written by wikipedia 's article I don't know if this article is correct
 
Last edited:
I use only Radeons. Have had:
X1600 PRO
HD 4890 / HD 4670 in secondary system, it has RX 550 today
HD 6870
R9 380
for a short while I used RX 560

My current notebook is Ryzen 5 2500U with Vega iGPU and RX 560X

I have also used Matrox G200. Matrox G200 - Wikipedia

With regards to 2D, G200 was excellent in speed and delivered Matrox's renowned analog signal quality. The G200 bested the older Millennium II in almost every area except extremely high resolutions. With 3D, it scored similar to but generally behind a single Voodoo2 in Direct3D, and was slower than NVIDIA Riva TNT and S3 Savage 3D. However, it was not far behind and was certainly competitive.[2][3] G200's 3D image quality was considered one of the best due to its support of 32-bit color depth.
Click to expand...

1666003168797.png

The Ati vs. Nvidia Image Quality Thread | TechPowerUp Forums
 
regorwin56 said:
I noticed that the wikipedia says that the original Artx team developed the Radeon 9000

The R3xx chip was designed by ATI's West Coast team (formerly ArtX Inc.), and the first product to use it was the Radeon 9700 PRO (internal ATI code name: R300; internal ArtX codename: Khan), launched in August 2002. The architecture of R300 was quite different from its predecessor, Radeon 8500 (R200), in nearly every way. The core of 9700 PRO was manufactured on a 150 nm chip fabrication process, similar to the Radeon 8500. However, refined design and manufacturing techniques enabled a doubling of transistor count and a significant clock speed gain.


This is written by wikipedia 's article I don't know if this article is correct
Click to expand...
That's probably correct, but that's not what Mr defaultuser was saying. They said...
defaultluser said:
without art-X, the company would have never rolled NVIDIA with the 9700 pro
Click to expand...
...which is patently false as the Radeon 9000 series cards were an extension of the original Radeon design that was already in development when the ArtX deal took place. All that ArtX added was a few insturction sets ATI could have lived without. The Radeon 8000 and 9000 series cards were always going to be competitive with the Geforce cards of the time. ArtX had little if any impact on that.
 
bug said:
I drooled a lot over that card, could never afford it. I had a modified version of the 8500 instead (9100 was it?).
Click to expand...
9100 was my first ATi card. It was an 8500LE rebranded for the 9000-series.

I also had 9700Pro envy around that time, and remember hunting for a specific Sapphire Radeon 9500 with 128MB of 256-bit DDR so I could hardmod it into a 9700 with a resistor resoldered (+ a bios flash). I was a uni student doing my masters so budgets didn't stretch to a 9700Pro, but my 9500 modded to a 9700 could reach 9700Pro clocks, almost. I reached the core clocks but the memory started artefacting about 5MHz short.

That modded card lasted a while and sticks in my memory because Nvidia stalled/faltered with their late, hot, noisy, and underperforming Geforce FX series, of "dustbuster" fame. I felt pretty smug about my budget Almost-9700Pro and kept it for 2-3 years which was (and still is) an eternity for me.
 
Audioave10 said:
ATI 9200...9600XT...x850XT PE...x1800XT...
Click to expand...
Speaking of HIS...

I wonder what happened to them? I don't recall seeing any announcement of bankruptcy or anything. They just suddenly disappeared. Their IceQ cards used to be pretty common.
 
ShrimpBrime said:
3Dmark 2000 WR X1800XT 256mb. One of my favorite cards.

It's benched with me across at least 50 cpus for a video output also!!

This one has a custom bios too. I mod most of my cards though. :)
Click to expand...
I remember that Radeon 9000 / X /X1 doesn't have drivers for Windows 7. Did you install the drivers for Vista?
What bugs will he encounter when installed on Windows 7?

lexluthermiester said:
That's probably correct, but that's not what Mr defaultuser was saying. They said...

...which is patently false as the Radeon 9000 series cards were an extension of the original Radeon design that was already in development when the ArtX deal took place. All that ArtX added was a few insturction sets ATI could have lived without. The Radeon 8000 and 9000 series cards were always going to be competitive with the Geforce cards of the time. ArtX had little if any impact on that.
Click to expand...

You are right. If ArtX is not acquired, the Radeon 9000 will still be born, but this Radeon 9000 and his R300 architecture may be different.
 
regorwin56 said:
I remember that Radeon 9000 / X /X1 doesn't have drivers for Windows 7. Did you install the drivers for Vista?
What bugs will he encounter when installed on Windows 7?



You are right. If ArtX is not acquired, the Radeon 9000 will still be born, but this Radeon 9000 and his R300 architecture may be different.
Click to expand...
Yes, compatibility mode is good stuff.

Even have recently run x500-1050 series on W11.

No bugs, works as it should.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top