Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GeForce FX 5200 or Radeon 9200?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
August 12, 2004 5:49:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Hi all,
I'm looking to upgrade to a 128MB graphics card for the time being
(saving for a 9800XT, or maybe even X800) and I am looking for the
best possible performance, i have no preference one way or the other
with ATI or nVidia. I am experienced with overclocking, so if this is
an option please say so. I currently have an ATI Radeon 9000 DDR
(salvaged from a compaq presario) with 64MB RAM, in a system that
follows:

ECS K7S5A Pro (rev. 5)
Athlon XP 1900+ overclocked to 2100+
256MB PC3200 DDR
SoundBlaster PCI128 (running through my Dolby Digital home theater
system)
Seagate Barracuda 80GB 7200RPM

Thanks for your help,
-hukuis
Anonymous
August 12, 2004 8:39:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

hukuis wrote:

> Hi all,
> I'm looking to upgrade to a 128MB graphics card for the time being
> (saving for a 9800XT, or maybe even X800) and I am looking for the
> best possible performance, i have no preference one way or the other
> with ATI or nVidia. I am experienced with overclocking, so if this is
> an option please say so. I currently have an ATI Radeon 9000 DDR
> (salvaged from a compaq presario) with 64MB RAM, in a system that
> follows:
>
> ECS K7S5A Pro (rev. 5)
> Athlon XP 1900+ overclocked to 2100+
> 256MB PC3200 DDR
> SoundBlaster PCI128 (running through my Dolby Digital home theater
> system)
> Seagate Barracuda 80GB 7200RPM
>
> Thanks for your help,
> -hukuis

I'm almost tempted to say the 9200 would do better in a low to mid range
processor system, but from experience a 5200 Ultra with 128MB and a
128-bit bus (not the crippled cards) does pretty well too. I've seen
proper 5200U's perform better in Battlefield Vietnam than higher cards
like 5600's and Radeon 9500's.

I would definitely spend as little as possible in your case though,
you're going to need it later for a better CPU (maybe a Sempron if you
can support it, otherwise a 3200 will do great) and DEFINITELY more RAM
(try a Gig).

Then upgrade to a better card.
Anonymous
August 12, 2004 11:17:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

> I'm looking to upgrade to a 128MB graphics card for the time being
> (saving for a 9800XT, or maybe even X800) and I am looking for the
> best possible performance

I'd save my money if I were you. The 9200 is nothing more than a 9000
at 8x AGP, and even with 128MB of RAM, probably isn't worth the
upgrade. Stick with the 9000 until you've got enough for the high end
card you really want.

But between the two, I'd take a 5200. I've got one of those in my
work system, and for the occasional weekend BF1942, it does pretty
well. Just make sure to get one with a 128-bit memory bus. (Wouldn't
it be nice if the 64-bit version had a different name, like 5200SE or
something? Get with the program, Nvidia!)
Related resources
August 13, 2004 2:29:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Neither - look for a 2nd hand GeForce4ti on Ebay

"deimos" <deimos@localhost.net> wrote in message
news:2o26c0F60uldU1@uni-berlin.de...
> hukuis wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > I'm looking to upgrade to a 128MB graphics card for the time being
> > (saving for a 9800XT, or maybe even X800) and I am looking for the
> > best possible performance, i have no preference one way or the other
> > with ATI or nVidia. I am experienced with overclocking, so if this is
> > an option please say so. I currently have an ATI Radeon 9000 DDR
> > (salvaged from a compaq presario) with 64MB RAM, in a system that
> > follows:
> >
> > ECS K7S5A Pro (rev. 5)
> > Athlon XP 1900+ overclocked to 2100+
> > 256MB PC3200 DDR
> > SoundBlaster PCI128 (running through my Dolby Digital home theater
> > system)
> > Seagate Barracuda 80GB 7200RPM
> >
> > Thanks for your help,
> > -hukuis
>
> I'm almost tempted to say the 9200 would do better in a low to mid range
> processor system, but from experience a 5200 Ultra with 128MB and a
> 128-bit bus (not the crippled cards) does pretty well too. I've seen
> proper 5200U's perform better in Battlefield Vietnam than higher cards
> like 5600's and Radeon 9500's.
>
> I would definitely spend as little as possible in your case though,
> you're going to need it later for a better CPU (maybe a Sempron if you
> can support it, otherwise a 3200 will do great) and DEFINITELY more RAM
> (try a Gig).
>
> Then upgrade to a better card.
Anonymous
August 13, 2004 11:38:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"hukuis" <thehukuis@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:ef3007a6.0408121249.643dfc0f@posting.google.com...
> Hi all,
> I'm looking to upgrade to a 128MB graphics card for the time being
> (saving for a 9800XT, or maybe even X800) and I am looking for the
> best possible performance, i have no preference one way or the other
> with ATI or nVidia. I am experienced with overclocking, so if this is
> an option please say so. I currently have an ATI Radeon 9000 DDR
> (salvaged from a compaq presario) with 64MB RAM, in a system that
> follows:
>
> ECS K7S5A Pro (rev. 5)
> Athlon XP 1900+ overclocked to 2100+
> 256MB PC3200 DDR
> SoundBlaster PCI128 (running through my Dolby Digital home theater
> system)
> Seagate Barracuda 80GB 7200RPM
>
> Thanks for your help,
> -hukuis

I was in a similar situation to yours a few months ago. I opted for a
9600Pro to "tide" me over till I could grab a 9800. Still saving
unfortunately but I'm happy with the Pro for now.

If you trying to keep this under $100 I'd consider this card:

http://www.upgrade-solution.com/detail.cfm?show=yes&PID...

Good performance and this one's overclockable. Probably a little more than
you'd pay for an FX5200 or a Radeon 9200. If you need to keep the price
even lower, than I'd go for the FX5200. As mentioned before get the 128-bit
bus.
Anonymous
August 13, 2004 11:23:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

That particular card is about $40 more than I would really like to
spend. Does anyone know where and for how much I could find a GeForce
FX 5200 Ultra? I haven't seen them on NewEgg.com or on Tiger Direct.
Also, is there a pro or XT version of the 9200 that can be had for
near the same price as a 5200 Ultra?
Thanks,
-Hukuis
Anonymous
August 13, 2004 11:37:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

> I would definitely spend as little as possible in your case though,
> you're going to need it later for a better CPU (maybe a Sempron if you
> can support it, otherwise a 3200 will do great) and DEFINITELY more RAM
> (try a Gig).
>
> Then upgrade to a better card.

I'm planning on purchasing an XP 2400+ and overclocking to 2.6 gHz...
my friend has done this with three systems and they are running like a
dream. Just a side note, what about the Radeon 9250 with 128MB and
the 128-bit memory bus? Powercolor has one that costs about the same
as a 9200.
Thanks,
-Hukuis
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 1:46:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On 12 Aug 2004 13:49:25 -0700, thehukuis@netscape.net (hukuis) wrote:

>Hi all,
>I'm looking to upgrade to a 128MB graphics card for the time being
>(saving for a 9800XT, or maybe even X800) and I am looking for the
>best possible performance, i have no preference one way or the other
>with ATI or nVidia. I am experienced with overclocking, so if this is
>an option please say so. I currently have an ATI Radeon 9000 DDR
>(salvaged from a compaq presario) with 64MB RAM, in a system that
>follows:
>
>ECS K7S5A Pro (rev. 5)
>Athlon XP 1900+ overclocked to 2100+
>256MB PC3200 DDR
>SoundBlaster PCI128 (running through my Dolby Digital home theater
>system)
>Seagate Barracuda 80GB 7200RPM
>
>Thanks for your help,
>-hukuis

the fx5200u is a great card i had before a non ultra from asus the 128bits version and it di'nt let
me down.

whit a big cpu and in egig if ram it will so the thing i'm sure.
max paine 2 ut2004 splinter cell will run great on that combo...
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 1:27:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

hukuis wrote:

> Hi all,
> I'm looking to upgrade to a 128MB graphics card for the time being
> (saving for a 9800XT, or maybe even X800) and I am looking for the
> best possible performance, i have no preference one way or the other
> with ATI or nVidia. I am experienced with overclocking, so if this is
> an option please say so. I currently have an ATI Radeon 9000 DDR
> (salvaged from a compaq presario) with 64MB RAM, in a system that
> follows:
>
> ECS K7S5A Pro (rev. 5)
> Athlon XP 1900+ overclocked to 2100+
> 256MB PC3200 DDR
> SoundBlaster PCI128 (running through my Dolby Digital home theater
> system)
> Seagate Barracuda 80GB 7200RPM
>
> Thanks for your help,

Look at a Radeon 9100.

If I were forced to the choice between a Geforce FX 5200 or a Radeon 9200
I'd go with the 5200. Not much of a choice though really--neither one has
any performance to speak of. The only Radeon with a number between 9000
and 9499 that would be a real performance upgrade from your 9000 is the
9_1_00. The 9000, 9200, and 9250 all use the same POS chip that was
designed to compete at the low end of the market, with the 9000 non-pro
being the worst of a bad lot. The 9100 uses the older R200 chip that was
ATI's performance leader until the Radeon 9500 and 9700 came along, and
while it doesn't outperform the Ti4200, it gives it a run for its money.

In terms of bang for the buck though the Ti4200, if you can find one, is
still the best bet--its performance is in the same ballpark as the current
generation of midrange boards, the only thing it lacks is DirectX 9
acceleration. The only board that you're considering that has that is the
5200 and it's for the most part not fast enough to take advantage of it.

So, to reiterate, go for the Radeon 9100.


> -hukuis

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 3:55:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On 13 Aug 2004 19:23:27 -0700, thehukuis@netscape.net (hukuis) wrote:

>That particular card is about $40 more than I would really like to
>spend. Does anyone know where and for how much I could find a GeForce
>FX 5200 Ultra? I haven't seen them on NewEgg.com or on Tiger Direct.
>Also, is there a pro or XT version of the 9200 that can be had for
>near the same price as a 5200 Ultra?
>Thanks,
>-Hukuis

I don't know much about the ati9200 card but if i recall what I've read it's possible that the cards
is a 64bits path memory bus that run benchmark lower that a regular 9000pro series. well it a dx8
card but for people who want to do WordPerfect text...

What i had
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030714/vga_c...
http://usa.asus.com/prog/spec.asp?m=V9520/TD&langs=09
What you shouldn't get
http://www.asus.com/prog/spec.asp?m=a9200%20SE/T&langs=... forget the se version.

what you should look for: from ati
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030714/vga_c...
Radeon 9200 PRO 128-MB 128-bit DDR (300/ 600); official price: $129-$149

Have a look at that there's all the card you want in one place whit all the spec.
http://www.jengajam.com/r/3224

notice that the 9200 is clocked at the same speed than the fx5200 non ultra and iis a dx8.8 card
boooo!

For the fx5200u here's the
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030714/vga_c...
notice that ultra version are memory clocked way beyond the non ultra.
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1426&p...
http://www.ultimatehardware.net/fx5600u/fx5600u.htm ( the fx5200 u and non u is there)
It's an albatron but hey it perform very well to me my fx5200 non ultra
manage to get 6000 point or more in the 3dmark01se benchmark program.
and that is all set to default.

the fx5200u vs a 9700pro
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1426&p...

maybe you should have a look at that place to get you video card...
http://www.compuvest.com/

Here's for some other readers
9700 to 9800 differences
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030306/radeo...


IMO the fx5200u is a survivor like the 9000pro did 5 year ago and like it will be for the 9800pro
card...

Make your choice and tell us how you feel. :-)
Anonymous
August 22, 2004 10:17:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

> The only Radeon with a number between 9000
> and 9499 that would be a real performance upgrade from your 9000 is the
> 9_1_00. The 9000, 9200, and 9250 all use the same POS chip that was
> designed to compete at the low end of the market, with the 9000 non-pro
> being the worst of a bad lot.
What about the Radeon 9550SE? I found one for only $70 and am
considering it as a serious possibility unless anyone tells me
something to change my mind.
Anonymous
August 23, 2004 2:12:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On 22 Aug 2004 18:17:37 -0700, thehukuis@netscape.net (hukuis) wrote:

>> The only Radeon with a number between 9000
>> and 9499 that would be a real performance upgrade from your 9000 is the
>> 9_1_00. The 9000, 9200, and 9250 all use the same POS chip that was
>> designed to compete at the low end of the market, with the 9000 non-pro
>> being the worst of a bad lot.
>What about the Radeon 9550SE? I found one for only $70 and am
>considering it as a serious possibility unless anyone tells me
>something to change my mind.

The 9550SE is a 64bit memory bus card. You don't want this at
all. Even a Radeon 9000Pro would beat this card performance wise. The
only thing the 9550SE can claim is that it has DX9 shader support, but
since it's so slow, any application that uses these shaders would
either run like a slide show, or not even run at all.
For $70.00, you can get a used Nvidia GeForce 4Ti card off
eBay (I scored a GF4 Ti4400 128MB for $65 back in April). The GF4 Ti,
and ATI 8500/9100 line are showing their age in the newest games, but
compared to what your asking about, they are power houses. If you only
want ATI, and want the DX9 support for under $100, I just looked on
newegg.com, and they have a Radeon 9600LE for $89.00. It's still not a
good card for any new games, but it has a 128bit bus, 8X AGP, 256MB,
325Mhz core/400Mhz memory which is faster than the 9550 cards.
Anonymous
August 23, 2004 10:11:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

> The 9550SE is a 64bit memory bus card. You don't want this at
> all. Even a Radeon 9000Pro would beat this card performance wise. The
> only thing the 9550SE can claim is that it has DX9 shader support, but
> since it's so slow, any application that uses these shaders would
> either run like a slide show, or not even run at all.
Thanks, I was about 5 minutes from buying it when i read your post.

> If you only
> want ATI, and want the DX9 support for under $100, I just looked on
> newegg.com, and they have a Radeon 9600LE for $89.00. It's still not a
> good card for any new games, but it has a 128bit bus, 8X AGP, 256MB,
> 325Mhz core/400Mhz memory which is faster than the 9550 cards.
I never said anything about only wanting ATI, however, I would rather
not purchase a GeForce 4 Ti because of its limits in respect to
DirectX 9. According to several review sites I've been to, even the
Radeon 9000 has support for some DX 9 APIs, in fact, [H]ard|OCP says
that it only lacks the extra texture unit to make it fully DX 9
compatible, as it limits the shader capabilities. I've been able to
overclock my Radeon 9000 to a core clock of 325 mHz and a RAM clock of
450 mHz using PowerStrip, wouldn't this make it faster than some of
the cheaper GeForce 4 Ti cards? Is this enough extra performance to
last me until later this year when I can afford a better card? Also,
I have been thinking about waiting until March and buying a Radeon
9800SE, and I have read about how to soft mod this card into a 9800
Pro. Does this method work reliably enough for me to consider as an
option?
Thanks,
-Hukuis
Anonymous
August 23, 2004 10:14:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 10:12:36 -0500, Larry Roberts <skin-e@juno.com> wrote:

>On 22 Aug 2004 18:17:37 -0700, thehukuis@netscape.net (hukuis) wrote:
>
>>> The only Radeon with a number between 9000
>>> and 9499 that would be a real performance upgrade from your 9000 is the
>>> 9_1_00. The 9000, 9200, and 9250 all use the same POS chip that was
>>> designed to compete at the low end of the market, with the 9000 non-pro
>>> being the worst of a bad lot.
>>What about the Radeon 9550SE? I found one for only $70 and am
>>considering it as a serious possibility unless anyone tells me
>>something to change my mind.
>
> The 9550SE is a 64bit memory bus card. You don't want this at
>all. Even a Radeon 9000Pro would beat this card performance wise. The
>only thing the 9550SE can claim is that it has DX9 shader support, but
>since it's so slow, any application that uses these shaders would
>either run like a slide show, or not even run at all.
> For $70.00, you can get a used Nvidia GeForce 4Ti card off
>eBay (I scored a GF4 Ti4400 128MB for $65 back in April). The GF4 Ti,
>and ATI 8500/9100 line are showing their age in the newest games, but
>compared to what your asking about, they are power houses. If you only
>want ATI, and want the DX9 support for under $100, I just looked on
>newegg.com, and they have a Radeon 9600LE for $89.00. It's still not a
>good card for any new games, but it has a 128bit bus, 8X AGP, 256MB,
>325Mhz core/400Mhz memory which is faster than the 9550 cards.

I still think that the fx5200 ultra beat that card and as every thing you need (dx9), the only thing
i can say is that card is a opengl 1.4

325 MHz Engine Clock
650 MHz Memory Clock
128MB DDR SDRAM
TV-out + DVI + VIVO(Optional)
http://www.chaintech.com.tw/tw/eng/product_spec.asp?MPS...

i bet you find that at 109$ us dollars
Anonymous
August 23, 2004 10:30:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 10:12:36 -0500, Larry Roberts <skin-e@juno.com> wrote:

>On 22 Aug 2004 18:17:37 -0700, thehukuis@netscape.net (hukuis) wrote:
>
>>> The only Radeon with a number between 9000
>>> and 9499 that would be a real performance upgrade from your 9000 is the
>>> 9_1_00. The 9000, 9200, and 9250 all use the same POS chip that was
>>> designed to compete at the low end of the market, with the 9000 non-pro
>>> being the worst of a bad lot.
>>What about the Radeon 9550SE? I found one for only $70 and am
>>considering it as a serious possibility unless anyone tells me
>>something to change my mind.
>
> The 9550SE is a 64bit memory bus card. You don't want this at
>all. Even a Radeon 9000Pro would beat this card performance wise. The
>only thing the 9550SE can claim is that it has DX9 shader support, but
>since it's so slow, any application that uses these shaders would
>either run like a slide show, or not even run at all.
> For $70.00, you can get a used Nvidia GeForce 4Ti card off
>eBay (I scored a GF4 Ti4400 128MB for $65 back in April). The GF4 Ti,
>and ATI 8500/9100 line are showing their age in the newest games, but
>compared to what your asking about, they are power houses. If you only
>want ATI, and want the DX9 support for under $100, I just looked on
>newegg.com, and they have a Radeon 9600LE for $89.00. It's still not a
>good card for any new games, but it has a 128bit bus, 8X AGP, 256MB,
>325Mhz core/400Mhz memory which is faster than the 9550 cards.

I still think that the fx5200 ultra beat that card and as every thing you need (dx9), the only thing
i can say is that card is a opengl 1.4

325 MHz Engine Clock
650 MHz Memory Clock
128MB DDR SDRAM
TV-out + DVI + VIVO(Optional)
http://www.chaintech.com.tw/tw/eng/product_spec.asp?MPS...

i bet you find that at 109$ us dollars

in a second thought the 9550se performe as well a fx5200u but it depend on what machine you use it.
(that is base on synthetic benchmark)

the 9550 version would offer allot more...
for the same price.

ATI Radeon 9550 256Mb [TV Out]
115$ us that is where i live...
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 1:05:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On 23 Aug 2004 18:11:10 -0700, thehukuis@netscape.net (hukuis) wrote:

>> The 9550SE is a 64bit memory bus card. You don't want this at
>> all. Even a Radeon 9000Pro would beat this card performance wise. The
>> only thing the 9550SE can claim is that it has DX9 shader support, but
>> since it's so slow, any application that uses these shaders would
>> either run like a slide show, or not even run at all.
>Thanks, I was about 5 minutes from buying it when i read your post.
>
>> If you only
>> want ATI, and want the DX9 support for under $100, I just looked on
>> newegg.com, and they have a Radeon 9600LE for $89.00. It's still not a
>> good card for any new games, but it has a 128bit bus, 8X AGP, 256MB,
>> 325Mhz core/400Mhz memory which is faster than the 9550 cards.
>I never said anything about only wanting ATI, however, I would rather
>not purchase a GeForce 4 Ti because of its limits in respect to
>DirectX 9. According to several review sites I've been to, even the
>Radeon 9000 has support for some DX 9 APIs, in fact, [H]ard|OCP says
>that it only lacks the extra texture unit to make it fully DX 9
>compatible, as it limits the shader capabilities. I've been able to
>overclock my Radeon 9000 to a core clock of 325 mHz and a RAM clock of
>450 mHz using PowerStrip, wouldn't this make it faster than some of
>the cheaper GeForce 4 Ti cards? Is this enough extra performance to
>last me until later this year when I can afford a better card? Also,
>I have been thinking about waiting until March and buying a Radeon
>9800SE, and I have read about how to soft mod this card into a 9800
>Pro. Does this method work reliably enough for me to consider as an
>option?
>Thanks,
>-Hukuis

I have an old Radeon 9000 64MB sitting in my closet. It was my
first DX8.1 card. Although it worked good enough for me, this GF4
Ti4400 is like night & day in more demanding games at it's stock
speed.
The Radeon 9000 is based on the Radeon 8500, and it does lack
1 texture unit, while the 8500 as 2 units. However it doesn't support
any DX9 features.
I was reading some reviews of the Radeon 9800SE while I was on
newegg.com, and it seems that the softmod can be a hit, and miss deal,
but you would need to get a 256bit memory bus version for the mod to
work. I seen that they had a Sapphire 9800SE with a 256bit memory bus
for $129. I'm thinking of going this route myself as my buget is very
limited, and the 9600XT is still near the $200.00 price.
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 5:10:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

hukuis wrote:

>> The 9550SE is a 64bit memory bus card. You don't want this at
>> all. Even a Radeon 9000Pro would beat this card performance wise. The
>> only thing the 9550SE can claim is that it has DX9 shader support, but
>> since it's so slow, any application that uses these shaders would
>> either run like a slide show, or not even run at all.
> Thanks, I was about 5 minutes from buying it when i read your post.
>
>> If you only
>> want ATI, and want the DX9 support for under $100, I just looked on
>> newegg.com, and they have a Radeon 9600LE for $89.00. It's still not a
>> good card for any new games, but it has a 128bit bus, 8X AGP, 256MB,
>> 325Mhz core/400Mhz memory which is faster than the 9550 cards.
> I never said anything about only wanting ATI, however, I would rather
> not purchase a GeForce 4 Ti because of its limits in respect to
> DirectX 9. According to several review sites I've been to, even the
> Radeon 9000 has support for some DX 9 APIs, in fact, [H]ard|OCP says
> that it only lacks the extra texture unit to make it fully DX 9
> compatible, as it limits the shader capabilities.

If that were the case then the 8500 would be "fully DX 9 compatible". Which
it is because "DX 9 compatible" means that it won't crash with DX9. That
doesn't mean that it provides hardware acceleration for any significant
subset of the new features of DX9.

> I've been able to
> overclock my Radeon 9000 to a core clock of 325 mHz and a RAM clock of
> 450 mHz using PowerStrip, wouldn't this make it faster than some of
> the cheaper GeForce 4 Ti cards?

Put it this way--the Radeon 9000 is a crippled 8500 and the 8500 never
managed to quite match the GeForce Tis.

> Is this enough extra performance to
> last me until later this year when I can afford a better card?

When you find something it won't do _then_ worry about upgrading.

> Also,
> I have been thinking about waiting until March and buying a Radeon
> 9800SE, and I have read about how to soft mod this card into a 9800
> Pro. Does this method work reliably enough for me to consider as an
> option?
> Thanks,
> -Hukuis

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 5:22:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

> The Radeon 9000 is based on the Radeon 8500, and it does lack
> 1 texture unit, while the 8500 as 2 units. However it doesn't support
> any DX9 features.
> I was reading some reviews of the Radeon 9800SE while I was on
> newegg.com, and it seems that the softmod can be a hit, and miss deal,
> but you would need to get a 256bit memory bus version for the mod to
> work. I seen that they had a Sapphire 9800SE with a 256bit memory bus
> for $129. I'm thinking of going this route myself as my buget is very
> limited, and the 9600XT is still near the $200.00 price.
Thanks for the help, I'll probably end up saving for the Sapphire.
Just as a side note, is 325/450 a good overclock for a Radeon 9000? I
haven't been able to find anything to compare it to, but it seems
substantial when compared with the 250/400 speed it is clocked at
stock.
Thanks for all your help,
-Hukuis
Anonymous
August 25, 2004 3:08:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

You might as well stick in a POS $35 GF2 card in there...

5200 & 9200 are useless for gaming.. especially at $70.... Ive seen
sales of 9600(non SE) for $100... which is a world of difference with
a higher resale value.


On 12 Aug 2004 13:49:25 -0700, thehukuis@netscape.net (hukuis) wrote:

>Hi all,
>I'm looking to upgrade to a 128MB graphics card for the time being
>(saving for a 9800XT, or maybe even X800) and I am looking for the
>best possible performance, i have no preference one way or the other
>with ATI or nVidia. I am experienced with overclocking, so if this is
>an option please say so. I currently have an ATI Radeon 9000 DDR
>(salvaged from a compaq presario) with 64MB RAM, in a system that
>follows:
>
>ECS K7S5A Pro (rev. 5)
>Athlon XP 1900+ overclocked to 2100+
>256MB PC3200 DDR
>SoundBlaster PCI128 (running through my Dolby Digital home theater
>system)
>Seagate Barracuda 80GB 7200RPM
>
>Thanks for your help,
>-hukuis


- - - - -
Remember: In the USA - it is dangeroud to draw or write about Heir Bush in a negative way. The police or SS are called, people threaten to kill you. (What country is this again?)

- Fahrenheit 9/11 - Unless you see it for yourself, don't call it "a bunch of lies"... that would be unAmerican.
- White House blows cover of an undercover agent because her husband said there were no WMD (before the USA started the war) - her job was finding terrorist.
God bless the land of the free. Where you can burn the Constitution... Ashcroft does it every day.
!