Radeon 7000 Retro Review...was it that bad?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 ноя 2023
- This is the Radeon 7000, the slowest Radeon video card ever made, yes sir, we’ve reached rock bottom!
✅ System 1
→ Athlon XP 2000+
→ 512 DDR
→ Windows 98 SE
✅ System 1
→ Core2 Duo E6600
→ 2 GB DDR2
→ Windows XP SP2
#retro #computer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
🎧Discord: / discord
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Наука
This channel is a hidden gem. At first I overlooked your videos that appeared in my recommended, but after eventually watching one, I binged almost all your videos! Cheers!
Spor la treaba!
Thank you very much, I'm glad you're enjoying the stuff! Multumesc.
@@MidnightGeek99 hey dude I just wanted to ask you something. Where do you get retro hardware, finding stuff like that in Romania sure is hard
Nice video. Interesting retro card. Like!
Thanks :)
Awesome video 😊
Hey, thanks Phil :)
Also, thank you for the "Native 1024x768 on 19" 1280x1024 LCD Monitor" tip, it never crossed my mind to use it like that, and it makes total sense :)
@@MidnightGeek99 Yes but you already have a CRT 😎
@@philscomputerlab True, but I also have 4:3 / 5:4 LCDs, and I prefer playing some games on those displays.
This card is a piece of... history, is that kind of card to just have in your collection for fun, not for performance. I really like your detailed reviews, keep it up!!
Thanks! It sure is a card to add to the collection.
Back in the day, a 14'' monitor worked comfortably at 640x480, while a 15'' monitor looked good at 800x600, but 640x480 wasn't too bad either. Back when I had a TNT 2, I would run at 16-bit color, turned off shadows, and at 640x480, and it was pretty good. I would use DxDiag to force games to run at 85 or even 100 hz, because 60 hz on a CRT had a visible (for me) flicker that I couldn't stand.
Yeah, 60 Hz is hard on your eyes, 100 Hz is what you want.
16-bit was ok, but turning shadows off is a big difference in visual quality for some games.
How about trying the ATI 9100 or 8500 next ?
4 pixel shaders, 2 vertex shaders, 8 tmus & 4 rops with either 64 mb or 128 mb vram the ati 8500 LE is basically the same as the 9100 as well.
I would, if I could!
Unfortunately I don't have any of those cards :(
Can you run minecraft latest version in over 15fps on a pentium 4 631 i got minecraft 1.20.2 to run on 40-60fps but the chunk gen sucks
Minecraft Java?
One of the worst cards that I ever encountered was a Geforce MX4000 witha 32 bit memory bus. I had not seen a card with such a small bus since the 1990's and the performance was terrible as a result. I would love to compare it with this, unless it happens that your MX4000 is that one!
I had one bro... I suffered a lot back on the day, lol
@@TheEcletickGamer7 I'm so sorry for you. I had the luxury of getting to choose whether or not I used it. I was so shocked when it came up slower than a Geforce 2 MX 200.
32-bit? Wow...talking about low-end :))
I have a 64-bit MX 4000.
I'm surprised that 16x AF doesn't give much performance penalty.
I surprised too, but here it is, and because it's consistent across more games, it means that it's also true :)
At the time Ati were doing far better with the memory system on their cards than Nvidia - if the drivers were functioning as intended. 32bit colours also has far less of a penalty than competing Nvidia cards of the time - though still not as good as the 10% maximum penalty that S3 was managing with drivers that were in theory worse.
What is the game you play at the end of the video?
Icewind Dale 2, CD version.
It was my first proper AGP video card, unfortunately. A computer guy sold one of these new to my father for our family computer… in 2005. It was barely better than the onboard VIA graphics.
Oops...this card in 2005 does not sound good :)
Bro, please do a video about games with the mythical shader 3.0 I remember that i got so pissed that my GeForce MX couldn't handle the new Prince o Persia that I selled my system and bought a classic Xbox.
I might do, comparisons between 2.0 and 3.0, performance and visuals.
In 2001 I bought a Radeon 32 DDR. I loved it and I wish I still had it.
Yeah, I feel you, I also had some components that are long gone now.
top tier-review
Thank you, I'm planning to do similar reviews to all the videos cards that I own.
I had a gf440mx, that thing was a piece of shit too, but it worked untill pixel shader 3.0 games came around and suddenly u needed a more recent shader version for almost any game.
Yeah, after 2004 games started demanding stuff from the video card. We had T&L requirements first, then shaders second.
Eu ți-am mai spus nu contează chestiile astea că sunt slabe plăcile video sau de bază
Au fost bune la vremea lor da au fost
Totuși după părerea mea merită păstrate acolo undeva la loc de cinste și peste ani și ani îți vei aduce aminte de ele ce trăiri frumoase ai avut cu ele
Dar na părerea mea este
Și încă ceva succes în cea ce faci și frumos content faci de cea mai bună calitate 😊😊😊😊
Exact, merita pastrate, si multe din componentele vechi pe care noi le consideram "varza", sunt super ok acum.
@@MidnightGeek99 pe lângă alți mari oameni de RUclipsri ești unul după părerea mea unul deosebit felul tău cum prezinți cea ce ai făcut cea ce ai testat felul cum îți construiești propriile sisteme de pc compoziția lor felul și cum explici ce folosești ce tip de carcasă și așa mai departe
Este felul tău de a fi și da te urmăresc cu mare drag ori de câte ori îmi face plăcerea să urmăresc de exemplu un videoclip de al tău care l-am vizionat de 10 ori îmi place să le revăd din nou și cele noi care le încarci
Apreciez foarte mult că faci și depui un efort mare ca să poți face atâta de multe dar și să oferi un content foarte bun de calitate
I have a Radeon 7000 with 64 MB running as a PCI version with a Cyrix 6x86 at 150 MHz 😁
Exactly my point at the end, this card is good for those that use it for specific purposes :)
Far better than my example. Palit Radeon VE only clocked at 145MHz for the core and memory (which is SDR). Making bandwidth barely better than my Apollo SiS 315E (143MHz).
Funnily enough my ECS SiS 315 is also clocked the same as the 315E, albeit still using SDR instead of DDR memory (DDR cards theoretically exist but I have never actually seen evidence - the curse of not being Ati or Nvidia at the budget end), so with worse memory bandwidth than your VE/7000.
What my Palit Radeon VE (145/145 SDR) scores in 3DMark compared to directly competing cards (default, Athlon XP 3000+ w/400MHz FSB and DDR400):
- 3DMark 99: 7,005 marks
- 3DMark 2000: 2,814 marks
- 3DMark 2001SE: 3DMark would crash when going above 640x480 with any settings
SiS 315 - Elitegroup AG315P-64 (143/143 SDR):
- 3DMark 99: 11,455 marks
- 3DMark 2000: 3,727 marks
- 3DMark 2001SE: 1511 marks
Apollo 3D Thrill 315E-32MB (143/143):
- 3DMark 99: 7,650 marks
- 3DMark 2000: 2,197 marks
- 3DMark 2001SE: 711 marks
Fastware TNT2 Vanta-16MB (125/125):
- 3DMark 99: 6,367 marks
- 3DMark 2000: 2,197 marks
- 3DMark 2001SE: crashes above 800x600 32bit
I have a GF2 MX400 at the reference spec as well - but I have not used it outside my Duron 1000/1300 PC since it arrived as it was purely bought to replace the OG+very dead MX400 (excluding drives and replacing the terrible Audio PCI, very original 2001 PC). When paired with a Duron 1000 on the Gigabyte GA-7IXEH with PC133 SDRAM:
- 3DMark 99: 5,771 marks
- 3DMark 2000: 4,118 marks
- 3DMark 2001SE: don't have results
Wow, wild! I have a similar situation with a GeForce2 MX 400, 64-bit and SDR memory, 1.3 GBs bandwidth...rubbish!
@@MidnightGeek99 That's why I was very careful picking my card out. The second MX400 I bought (a version of the Leadtek GF2 Max - not sure the specific model) meets the reference specs and has the added bonus of a temperature probe.
The initial replacement I bought was very short lived, generic (branded "3G Graphic") and was barely clocked better than an MX200 (SDRAM was slow enough that they might as well have used a 64bit bus and fewer chips).
I do think you need to adjust your standard some. 30+ fps is great performance for back then. Especially on 1024x768. Heck i would have taken a little less most of the time as long as the average isn't less than 20fps.
Today's standards of wanting 50+fps should not be applied to games of the 90s.
Trust me, I'm not so picky when it comes to FPS, and yes, 30+ is very good, unless you're playing Serious Sam...it feels awful at 30 :)
Like
Thanks :)
I found a 9600 128 mb. CRYSIS WILL HAPPENING. End vid na
lol
Don't kill that classic 9600 with a bully such a Crysis!
I had this card (still have one actually) and it was a big disappointment for me.
The card was just a 2D outputer :P
What a piece of junk! I guess if you just wanted something that could game at 64x480 in 2001 it would have done the job but there were much better options for not much more money! Another good one to test on this card would have been Max Payne which released in 2001 and was quite the system pusher when it first came out!
Yes, the card was rubbish, in itself, but NOW you can find many uses for it, that's why I love the retro niche :)