Radeon 9200 SE: any good?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

I have just seen a Sapphire Radeon 9200 SE with 128 MB RAM for a fairly low
price. I guess this card has an ATI chipset, just like the old 3Dfx Voodoo
cards who had a 3Dfx chipset but were made by a 3rd party manufacturer,
right? Also, the main thing I'd like to know is if this Radeon 9200 SE 128
MB RAM would be any better than my current GeForce 2 MX 400 64 MB RAM. Would
there be a noticeable difference or would it only be slightly better? Thanks
for any input!
6 answers Last reply
More about radeon 9200 good
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:24:20 -0400, "Ampersand"
    <ampersand@yourbestfriend.com> wrote:

    >I have just seen a Sapphire Radeon 9200 SE with 128 MB RAM for a fairly low
    >price. I guess this card has an ATI chipset, just like the old 3Dfx Voodoo
    >cards who had a 3Dfx chipset but were made by a 3rd party manufacturer,
    >right? Also, the main thing I'd like to know is if this Radeon 9200 SE 128
    >MB RAM would be any better than my current GeForce 2 MX 400 64 MB RAM. Would
    >there be a noticeable difference or would it only be slightly better? Thanks
    >for any input!
    >

    The 2D is "probably" crisper with the ATI instead of the
    GF2MX, and it would be faster, but not a lot, not enough to
    suddenly start playing semi-modern games well. Main issue
    is what you hope to gain, since they're both low-end cards
    it's likely you need something midrange or better to see
    significant enough performance benefit to make it worthwhile
    for gaming.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
    news:4stnk0hd9c01jlec1342v6modnl2otivt4@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:24:20 -0400, "Ampersand"
    > <ampersand@yourbestfriend.com> wrote:
    >
    > >I have just seen a Sapphire Radeon 9200 SE with 128 MB RAM for a fairly
    low
    > >price. I guess this card has an ATI chipset, just like the old 3Dfx
    Voodoo
    > >cards who had a 3Dfx chipset but were made by a 3rd party manufacturer,
    > >right? Also, the main thing I'd like to know is if this Radeon 9200 SE
    128
    > >MB RAM would be any better than my current GeForce 2 MX 400 64 MB RAM.
    Would
    > >there be a noticeable difference or would it only be slightly better?
    Thanks
    > >for any input!
    > >
    >
    > The 2D is "probably" crisper with the ATI instead of the
    > GF2MX, and it would be faster, but not a lot, not enough to
    > suddenly start playing semi-modern games well. Main issue
    > is what you hope to gain, since they're both low-end cards
    > it's likely you need something midrange or better to see
    > significant enough performance benefit to make it worthwhile
    > for gaming.

    In this case, I also had the opportunity to pay a bit more to get a Radeon
    9550 SE, a Radeon 9600 256 MB, a GeForce MX 4000 (MX 440), or a GeForce FX
    5200. Is there a huge difference between any of these 4 cards? Will either
    of them make a huge difference with my current GeForce 2 MX 400 64 Mb?
    Thanks a lot!
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 13:12:07 -0400, "Ampersand"
    <ampersand@yourbestfriend.com> wrote:

    >
    >"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
    >news:4stnk0hd9c01jlec1342v6modnl2otivt4@4ax.com...
    >> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:24:20 -0400, "Ampersand"
    >> <ampersand@yourbestfriend.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> >I have just seen a Sapphire Radeon 9200 SE with 128 MB RAM for a fairly
    >low
    >> >price. I guess this card has an ATI chipset, just like the old 3Dfx
    >Voodoo
    >> >cards who had a 3Dfx chipset but were made by a 3rd party manufacturer,
    >> >right? Also, the main thing I'd like to know is if this Radeon 9200 SE
    >128
    >> >MB RAM would be any better than my current GeForce 2 MX 400 64 MB RAM.
    >Would
    >> >there be a noticeable difference or would it only be slightly better?
    >Thanks
    >> >for any input!
    >> >
    >>
    >> The 2D is "probably" crisper with the ATI instead of the
    >> GF2MX, and it would be faster, but not a lot, not enough to
    >> suddenly start playing semi-modern games well. Main issue
    >> is what you hope to gain, since they're both low-end cards
    >> it's likely you need something midrange or better to see
    >> significant enough performance benefit to make it worthwhile
    >> for gaming.
    >
    >In this case, I also had the opportunity to pay a bit more to get a Radeon
    >9550 SE, a Radeon 9600 256 MB, a GeForce MX 4000 (MX 440), or a GeForce FX
    >5200. Is there a huge difference between any of these 4 cards? Will either
    >of them make a huge difference with my current GeForce 2 MX 400 64 Mb?
    >Thanks a lot!
    >

    Drop the GeForce4MX (440). While performance is ok, the part isn't
    even a DirectX8 part. It doesn't support ANY shaders, so it will be
    dog slow in any games which use shaders (nearly all of the more recent
    games). For all intents, you can consider it a faster version of what
    you have now.

    The GeForceFX 5200 is complicated. While it is a DX9 part, it comes
    in 3 versions. A 64bit memory version, a 128bit memory version and an
    Ultra version (128bit memory, faster core/memory clock speed). The
    differences with each version are very different. Definitely avoid
    the 64bit memory version of the card. That version will be
    approximately the same speed as what you have now, but with shader
    support. Rather pointless, given that while you get shader support,
    the core performance wouldn't be good enough for any of the games that
    might use it. The 5200 128bit version of the card is better,
    performance is comparable to a GeForce3Ti200, so it's not that great
    either, but certainly faster than a GeForce2MX400. The Ultra version
    is better, but pricing is a bit weird for that one. It's a bit
    overpriced for what it can do, and it's priced at about $10-20 Cdn
    less than the GeForce5600 -- which is considerably higher performance.

    Radeon 9550SE/9600. Their numbering scheme here is really screwed up.
    First, let's look at the 9600, which is their full priced/full
    featured version of this card. I don't think you're thinking of the
    9600, as it's a full $100 Cdn higher than the any of the other cards
    listed, so it's significantly more expensive. You're probably
    thinking of the 9600SE, which is in the same price range.

    Anyways, the 9600, 9600SE, 9550, and 955SE are all the same chipset,
    more or less. All DX9 compliant. The differences?

    The 9600 is the original version of this. You can look all of this up
    on ATI's site (I had to to read it a few times to figure this out).
    This is the original and is our point of comparison.

    The 9550 is the same as the 9600, but with a slower clocked GPU (75Mhz
    slower) That's the one I opted for (I upgraded from a 5200. Before
    that, I had a GF2MX400 like you).

    The 9600SE is a version using 64bit memory. The GPU is clocked the
    same as the regular 9600.

    The 9550SE is a version using 64bit memory and a slower clocked GPU.

    In terms of performance within the family?
    9600 > 9550 > 9600SE > 9550SE

    See what I mean when I say the numbering is screwed up?

    Anyways, Disqualify the 5200 and MX for the reasons stated above, but
    if you can afford a Radeon 9600(no suffix) or a 5200Ultra, you're
    already in the next price range up, and can find better cards for not
    much more. Of course, then we're also getting into "slippery slope"
    territory.


    ---------------------------------------------

    MCheu
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 13:12:07 -0400, "Ampersand"
    <ampersand@yourbestfriend.com> wrote:


    >> The 2D is "probably" crisper with the ATI instead of the
    >> GF2MX, and it would be faster, but not a lot, not enough to
    >> suddenly start playing semi-modern games well. Main issue
    >> is what you hope to gain, since they're both low-end cards
    >> it's likely you need something midrange or better to see
    >> significant enough performance benefit to make it worthwhile
    >> for gaming.
    >
    >In this case, I also had the opportunity to pay a bit more to get a Radeon
    >9550 SE, a Radeon 9600 256 MB, a GeForce MX 4000 (MX 440), or a GeForce FX
    >5200. Is there a huge difference between any of these 4 cards? Will either
    >of them make a huge difference with my current GeForce 2 MX 400 64 Mb?
    >Thanks a lot!
    >


    The question is, "huge difference" at what?
    Doom3, for example, will not run very well from any of the
    above cards, nor will most forthcoming 3D titles unless
    they're just a rehash of yesteryear's gaming engines.

    Of the cards you list, the Radeon 9600 is better. There is
    a handy guide here:
    http://www.rojakpot.com/default.aspx?location=3&var1=88&var2=0
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "MCheu" <mpcheu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:v20pk0ptr0hb1ul6fhj5r3ajec6c65kob6@4ax.com...
    > On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 13:12:07 -0400, "Ampersand"
    > <ampersand@yourbestfriend.com> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
    > >news:4stnk0hd9c01jlec1342v6modnl2otivt4@4ax.com...
    > >> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:24:20 -0400, "Ampersand"
    > >> <ampersand@yourbestfriend.com> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >I have just seen a Sapphire Radeon 9200 SE with 128 MB RAM for a
    fairly
    > >low
    > >> >price. I guess this card has an ATI chipset, just like the old 3Dfx
    > >Voodoo
    > >> >cards who had a 3Dfx chipset but were made by a 3rd party
    manufacturer,
    > >> >right? Also, the main thing I'd like to know is if this Radeon 9200
    SE
    > >128
    > >> >MB RAM would be any better than my current GeForce 2 MX 400 64 MB RAM.
    > >Would
    > >> >there be a noticeable difference or would it only be slightly better?
    > >Thanks
    > >> >for any input!
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> The 2D is "probably" crisper with the ATI instead of the
    > >> GF2MX, and it would be faster, but not a lot, not enough to
    > >> suddenly start playing semi-modern games well. Main issue
    > >> is what you hope to gain, since they're both low-end cards
    > >> it's likely you need something midrange or better to see
    > >> significant enough performance benefit to make it worthwhile
    > >> for gaming.
    > >
    > >In this case, I also had the opportunity to pay a bit more to get a
    Radeon
    > >9550 SE, a Radeon 9600 256 MB, a GeForce MX 4000 (MX 440), or a GeForce
    FX
    > >5200. Is there a huge difference between any of these 4 cards? Will
    either
    > >of them make a huge difference with my current GeForce 2 MX 400 64 Mb?
    > >Thanks a lot!
    > >
    >
    > Drop the GeForce4MX (440). While performance is ok, the part isn't
    > even a DirectX8 part. It doesn't support ANY shaders, so it will be
    > dog slow in any games which use shaders (nearly all of the more recent
    > games). For all intents, you can consider it a faster version of what
    > you have now.
    >
    > The GeForceFX 5200 is complicated. While it is a DX9 part, it comes
    > in 3 versions. A 64bit memory version, a 128bit memory version and an
    > Ultra version (128bit memory, faster core/memory clock speed). The
    > differences with each version are very different. Definitely avoid
    > the 64bit memory version of the card. That version will be
    > approximately the same speed as what you have now, but with shader
    > support. Rather pointless, given that while you get shader support,
    > the core performance wouldn't be good enough for any of the games that
    > might use it. The 5200 128bit version of the card is better,
    > performance is comparable to a GeForce3Ti200, so it's not that great
    > either, but certainly faster than a GeForce2MX400. The Ultra version
    > is better, but pricing is a bit weird for that one. It's a bit
    > overpriced for what it can do, and it's priced at about $10-20 Cdn
    > less than the GeForce5600 -- which is considerably higher performance.
    >
    > Radeon 9550SE/9600. Their numbering scheme here is really screwed up.
    > First, let's look at the 9600, which is their full priced/full
    > featured version of this card. I don't think you're thinking of the
    > 9600, as it's a full $100 Cdn higher than the any of the other cards
    > listed, so it's significantly more expensive. You're probably
    > thinking of the 9600SE, which is in the same price range.
    >
    > Anyways, the 9600, 9600SE, 9550, and 955SE are all the same chipset,
    > more or less. All DX9 compliant. The differences?
    >
    > The 9600 is the original version of this. You can look all of this up
    > on ATI's site (I had to to read it a few times to figure this out).
    > This is the original and is our point of comparison.
    >
    > The 9550 is the same as the 9600, but with a slower clocked GPU (75Mhz
    > slower) That's the one I opted for (I upgraded from a 5200. Before
    > that, I had a GF2MX400 like you).
    >
    > The 9600SE is a version using 64bit memory. The GPU is clocked the
    > same as the regular 9600.
    >
    > The 9550SE is a version using 64bit memory and a slower clocked GPU.
    >
    > In terms of performance within the family?
    > 9600 > 9550 > 9600SE > 9550SE
    >
    > See what I mean when I say the numbering is screwed up?
    >
    > Anyways, Disqualify the 5200 and MX for the reasons stated above, but
    > if you can afford a Radeon 9600(no suffix) or a 5200Ultra, you're
    > already in the next price range up, and can find better cards for not
    > much more. Of course, then we're also getting into "slippery slope"
    > territory.
    >
    >
    > ---------------------------------------------
    >
    > MCheu

    Thank you for your advice! I just took another look at the prices for these
    cards and they go like this (not mentioning the MX440, which wasn't my first
    choice anyway) (all prices in $Cdn): FX5200: 90$, Radeon 9550 SE: 105$,
    Radeon 9600 (no suffix, I think) with 256 MB: 130$.

    Given these prices, the most attractive would be the Radeon 9600. Would it
    be worth the price? Thanks!
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 09:58:51 -0400, "Ampersand"
    <ampersand@yourbestfriend.com> wrote:


    >
    >Thank you for your advice! I just took another look at the prices for these
    >cards and they go like this (not mentioning the MX440, which wasn't my first
    >choice anyway) (all prices in $Cdn): FX5200: 90$, Radeon 9550 SE: 105$,
    >Radeon 9600 (no suffix, I think) with 256 MB: 130$.
    >
    >Given these prices, the most attractive would be the Radeon 9600. Would it
    >be worth the price? Thanks!
    >

    I can't say for sure. It will definitely be a big difference coming
    from a GF2MX400.

    I own a 9550 (no suffix) which as I mentioned previously is the same
    as a 9600 but with the GPU at a slower clock speed, so performance is
    slightly lower (but not by much, based on benchmarks)

    http://www.tweaknews.net/reviews/9550/index6.php

    That's a 9550 review, so the highlit orange entries are for that card.
    There is a representative 9600 card in there, which should approximate
    what you're considering.

    At the time, the price difference was much greater. Since then, it
    seems not many people sell the 9550 (no suffix) anymore, and the price
    gap has narrowed to $5.

    Is it worth it? That depends on what you expect. I've played DOOM3,
    Farcry, DeuxEX2, and Halo on this card. All of these, I guess you
    could consider cutting edge. I get framerates in the 20-30fps range,
    but I run at 800x600 resolution with no AA. All other options
    enabled. I can run at 1024x768, but performance is uneven, with the
    games reasonably smooth most of the time, but slowing to a crawl when
    multiple enemies appear (sorry, no benchmark numbers, this is
    subjective).

    I'd expect you'd get similar results with the 9600, probably a bit
    better, but not by much.
    ---------------------------------------------

    MCheu
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards Hardware RAM Radeon Graphics Product