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!
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram