Radeon 600 Pro (256Mb) or 9800 Pro (128Mb)

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

The 600 Pro is available for £99 and the 9800 Pro for £95.

Which card is best?

I do mostly Internet, video playing, music, photo processsing and some games
(Doom).

Windows XP Pro, 1Gb RAM.

Cheers.

Bobby
12 answers Last reply
More about radeon 256mb 9800 128mb
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    Bobby wrote:
    > The 600 Pro is available for £99 and the 9800 Pro for £95.
    >
    > Which card is best?
    >
    > I do mostly Internet, video playing, music, photo processsing and some games
    > (Doom).
    >
    > Windows XP Pro, 1Gb RAM.
    >
    > Cheers.
    >
    > Bobby
    >
    >

    The 9800 Pro with 128Mb is far far better than the 9600Pro with 256Mb.

    Despite having 'less' on board memory, it uses its memory much more
    efficiently - it has twice the bus width (256bit vs 128bit on the 9600
    Pro - note do not confuse this with the memory amount) and it has twice
    as many pipelines (8 vs 4). This means that it runs much faster than a
    9600 Pro. The extra memory on the 9600 Pro will not be used at all
    efficiently so makes it null and void

    You can see a comparison of the cards in this table as well:
    http://techreport.com/etc/comparo/graphics/

    Note that the 9800 Pro has higher power requirements than the 9600 Pro -
    you need to have at a minimum a good 300W CPU with at least 15A on the
    12V rail (which you can find out by looking at the side of your PSU -
    there will be a sticker with all the details)
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    Thanks for the feedback.

    But I meant the Radeon 600 - not the 9600 Pro.

    How does the 9800 Pro compare to more recent (AGP) cards such as the Radeon
    700 or 800?

    Bobby

    "ofn01" <netusr@internet.not> wrote in message
    news:TZSdnanCw_0pki3fRVnyuQ@pipex.net...
    > Bobby wrote:
    >> The 600 Pro is available for £99 and the 9800 Pro for £95.
    >>
    >> Which card is best?
    >>
    >> I do mostly Internet, video playing, music, photo processsing and some
    >> games (Doom).
    >>
    >> Windows XP Pro, 1Gb RAM.
    >>
    >> Cheers.
    >>
    >> Bobby
    >
    > The 9800 Pro with 128Mb is far far better than the 9600Pro with 256Mb.
    >
    > Despite having 'less' on board memory, it uses its memory much more
    > efficiently - it has twice the bus width (256bit vs 128bit on the 9600
    > Pro - note do not confuse this with the memory amount) and it has twice as
    > many pipelines (8 vs 4). This means that it runs much faster than a 9600
    > Pro. The extra memory on the 9600 Pro will not be used at all efficiently
    > so makes it null and void
    >
    > You can see a comparison of the cards in this table as well:
    > http://techreport.com/etc/comparo/graphics/
    >
    > Note that the 9800 Pro has higher power requirements than the 9600 Pro -
    > you need to have at a minimum a good 300W CPU with at least 15A on the 12V
    > rail (which you can find out by looking at the side of your PSU - there
    > will be a sticker with all the details)
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    Bobby wrote:
    > Thanks for the feedback.
    >
    > But I meant the Radeon 600 - not the 9600 Pro.
    >
    > How does the 9800 Pro compare to more recent (AGP) cards such as the Radeon
    > 700 or 800?
    >
    > Bobby

    Ah right - I wasn't aware that the X700 and X800 had come out in AGP
    flavours.

    Both the X700 and X800 (if they're AGP cards and therefore comparable to
    a 9800 Pro which is only AGP), will be more powerful than a 9800 Pro. An
    X800 Pro will be almost twice as fast - an X700 will still be faster.

    An X600 though will be slower as it is comparable mostly to a 9600 and
    still only has 4 pipelines and I think only a 128bit interface.

    I would still choose a 9800 Pro over an X600

    >
    > "ofn01" <netusr@internet.not> wrote in message
    > news:TZSdnanCw_0pki3fRVnyuQ@pipex.net...
    >
    >>Bobby wrote:
    >>
    >>>The 600 Pro is available for £99 and the 9800 Pro for £95.
    >>>
    >>>Which card is best?
    >>>
    >>>I do mostly Internet, video playing, music, photo processsing and some
    >>>games (Doom).
    >>>
    >>>Windows XP Pro, 1Gb RAM.
    >>>
    >>>Cheers.
    >>>
    >>>Bobby
    >>
    >>The 9800 Pro with 128Mb is far far better than the 9600Pro with 256Mb.
    >>
    >>Despite having 'less' on board memory, it uses its memory much more
    >>efficiently - it has twice the bus width (256bit vs 128bit on the 9600
    >>Pro - note do not confuse this with the memory amount) and it has twice as
    >>many pipelines (8 vs 4). This means that it runs much faster than a 9600
    >>Pro. The extra memory on the 9600 Pro will not be used at all efficiently
    >>so makes it null and void
    >>
    >>You can see a comparison of the cards in this table as well:
    >>http://techreport.com/etc/comparo/graphics/
    >>
    >>Note that the 9800 Pro has higher power requirements than the 9600 Pro -
    >>you need to have at a minimum a good 300W CPU with at least 15A on the 12V
    >>rail (which you can find out by looking at the side of your PSU - there
    >>will be a sticker with all the details)
    >
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    ofn01 wrote:
    > Bobby wrote:
    >
    >> The 600 Pro is available for £99 and the 9800 Pro for £95.
    >>
    >> Which card is best?
    >>
    >> I do mostly Internet, video playing, music, photo processsing and some
    >> games (Doom).
    >>
    >> Windows XP Pro, 1Gb RAM.
    >>
    >> Cheers.
    >>
    >> Bobby
    >>
    >
    > The 9800 Pro with 128Mb is far far better than the 9600Pro with 256Mb.
    >
    > Despite having 'less' on board memory, it uses its memory much more
    > efficiently - it has twice the bus width (256bit vs 128bit on the 9600
    > Pro - note do not confuse this with the memory amount) and it has twice
    > as many pipelines (8 vs 4). This means that it runs much faster than a
    > 9600 Pro. The extra memory on the 9600 Pro will not be used at all
    > efficiently so makes it null and void
    >
    > You can see a comparison of the cards in this table as well:
    > http://techreport.com/etc/comparo/graphics/
    >
    > Note that the 9800 Pro has higher power requirements than the 9600 Pro -
    > you need to have at a minimum a good 300W CPU with at least 15A on the
    > 12V rail (which you can find out by looking at the side of your PSU -
    > there will be a sticker with all the details)

    I made that "mistake when I bought my 9600 PRO with 256mb, which is not
    really exploited anyway! Mind you, with the Athlon 3200+ I paired it
    with, none of the games I own to date suffer performance problems at
    all. They are probably a good match, actually.


    ---
    avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
    Virus Database (VPS): 0524-2, 15/06/2005
    Tested on: 15/06/2005 21:04:14
    avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
    http://www.avast.com
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    "Bobby" <bobby@aventuremail.com> wrote in message
    news:3haf94Ffro64U1@individual.net...
    > The 600 Pro is available for £99 and the 9800 Pro for £95.
    >
    > Which card is best?

    Hands down, the 9800 Pro by 25% to 40% at any and all resolutions. AFAIK
    it's a moot point since I don't think the X600 Pro is available in AGP and
    the 9800 Pro is AGP only.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    PC World is selling an AGP X600 (I think) for £99 (256Mb).

    But it sounds like the 9800 Pro is the better card.

    How does the 9800 Pro compare to newer cards like the X700 or X800?

    What's the best AGP card right now? My budget is limited to around £100
    (hence the £94 9800 being attractive).

    Bobby

    "Augustus" <augustus@wrtt.net> wrote in message
    news:3G2se.62487$9A2.12882@edtnps89...
    >
    > "Bobby" <bobby@aventuremail.com> wrote in message
    > news:3haf94Ffro64U1@individual.net...
    >> The 600 Pro is available for £99 and the 9800 Pro for £95.
    >>
    >> Which card is best?
    >
    > Hands down, the 9800 Pro by 25% to 40% at any and all resolutions. AFAIK
    > it's a moot point since I don't think the X600 Pro is available in AGP and
    > the 9800 Pro is AGP only.
    >
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    "ofn01" <netusr@internet.not> wrote in message
    news:trmdnc_Fsrae6SzfRVnytg@pipex.net
    > Bobby wrote:
    >> PC World is selling an AGP X600 (I think) for £99 (256Mb).
    >>
    >> But it sounds like the 9800 Pro is the better card.
    >>
    >> How does the 9800 Pro compare to newer cards like the X700 or X800?
    >>
    >> What's the best AGP card right now? My budget is limited to around £100
    >> (hence the £94 9800 being attractive).
    >>
    >> Bobby
    >
    > I had a look at the X700 specifications on the ATI site here:
    > http://www.ati.com/products/radeonx700/specs.html
    >
    > It seems that you get either 4 or 8 piplines and either a 64 or 128bit
    > memory interface.
    >
    ....

    isn't it amazing how Ati fools with people? - no mentioning, even in the
    specs, about neither the gpu clock speed nor the ram bus speed. The specs
    are just basic blabla...


    --
    Avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
    Virus Database (VPS): 0524-4, 16/06/2005
    Tested on: 17/06/2005 10:53:33 AM
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:47:41 +1000, "Steve K" <nospam@iprimus.com.au>
    wrote:

    >"ofn01" <netusr@internet.not> wrote in message
    >news:trmdnc_Fsrae6SzfRVnytg@pipex.net
    >> Bobby wrote:
    >>> PC World is selling an AGP X600 (I think) for £99 (256Mb).
    >>>
    >>> But it sounds like the 9800 Pro is the better card.
    >>>
    >>> How does the 9800 Pro compare to newer cards like the X700 or X800?
    >>>
    >>> What's the best AGP card right now? My budget is limited to around £100
    >>> (hence the £94 9800 being attractive).
    >>>
    >>> Bobby
    >>
    >> I had a look at the X700 specifications on the ATI site here:
    >> http://www.ati.com/products/radeonx700/specs.html
    >>
    >> It seems that you get either 4 or 8 piplines and either a 64 or 128bit
    >> memory interface.
    >>
    >...
    >
    >isn't it amazing how Ati fools with people? - no mentioning, even in the
    >specs, about neither the gpu clock speed nor the ram bus speed. The specs
    >are just basic blabla...


    That's probably because it's a specifications page for the class of
    X700 cards rather than a specific model. Click on the ATI Products
    link at top left, just under Specifications.

    Patrick

    <patrickp@5acoustibop.co.uk> - take five to email me...
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    "patrickp" <patrickp@5acoustibop.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:3mt5b1ds9j640bjue4j0e8i25svcb2noec@4ax.com
    > On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:47:41 +1000, "Steve K" <nospam@iprimus.com.au>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> ...
    >>
    >> isn't it amazing how Ati fools with people? - no mentioning, even in the
    >> specs, about neither the gpu clock speed nor the ram bus speed. The specs
    >> are just basic blabla...
    >
    >
    > That's probably because it's a specifications page for the class of
    > X700 cards rather than a specific model. Click on the ATI Products
    > link at top left, just under Specifications.
    >

    I cant find any details about this...must be hidden somewhere ..


    --
    Avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
    Virus Database (VPS): 0524-5, 17/06/2005
    Tested on: 18/06/2005 7:48:23 AM
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 07:38:13 +1000, "Steve K" <nospam@iprimus.com.au>
    wrote:

    >"patrickp" <patrickp@5acoustibop.co.uk> wrote in message
    >news:3mt5b1ds9j640bjue4j0e8i25svcb2noec@4ax.com
    >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:47:41 +1000, "Steve K" <nospam@iprimus.com.au>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> ...
    >>>
    >>> isn't it amazing how Ati fools with people? - no mentioning, even in the
    >>> specs, about neither the gpu clock speed nor the ram bus speed. The specs
    >>> are just basic blabla...
    >>
    >>
    >> That's probably because it's a specifications page for the class of
    >> X700 cards rather than a specific model. Click on the ATI Products
    >> link at top left, just under Specifications.
    >>
    >
    >I cant find any details about this...must be hidden somewhere ..


    Scroll down to the bottom of the page (it's the X700 Pro page) the
    link takes you to.

    Patrick

    <patrickp@5acoustibop.co.uk> - take five to email me...
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    "patrickp" <patrickp@5acoustibop.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:6bs7b1hkktv8eb15d5vgtsn8u2c0mgi710@4ax.com
    > On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 07:38:13 +1000, "Steve K" <nospam@iprimus.com.au>
    > wrote:
    >
    ........
    >
    >
    > Scroll down to the bottom of the page (it's the X700 Pro page) the
    > link takes you to.
    >
    > Patrick
    >

    no time for this ....


    --
    Avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
    Virus Database (VPS): 0524-6, 18/06/2005
    Tested on: 19/06/2005 8:15:55 AM
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 08:14:10 +1000, "Steve K" <nospam@iprimus.com.au>
    wrote:

    >"patrickp" <patrickp@5acoustibop.co.uk> wrote in message
    >news:6bs7b1hkktv8eb15d5vgtsn8u2c0mgi710@4ax.com
    >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 07:38:13 +1000, "Steve K" <nospam@iprimus.com.au>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >.......
    >>
    >>
    >> Scroll down to the bottom of the page (it's the X700 Pro page) the
    >> link takes you to.
    >>
    >> Patrick
    >>
    >
    >no time for this ....


    You have time to post 3 messages apparently looking for a piece of
    information, but not to click a link and scroll to the bottom of a
    page?

    Strange priorities!

    Patrick

    <patrickp@5acoustibop.co.uk> - take five to email me...
Ask a new question

Read More

Radeon Graphics