Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

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

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 15, 2005 3:46:58 PM

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
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 4:23:32 PM

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)
June 15, 2005 5:13:00 PM

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)
Related resources
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 6:25:05 PM

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)
>
>
>
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 1:04:13 AM

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
June 16, 2005 3:17:19 AM

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.
June 16, 2005 12:29:04 PM

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.
>
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 2:47:41 PM

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
Anonymous
June 17, 2005 8:16:13 PM

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...
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 11:38:13 AM

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
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 2:05:43 PM

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...
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 12:14:10 PM

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
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 3:49:44 PM

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...
!