Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sapphire Radeon 9250 good with Vista/Aero?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 4, 2006 10:15:17 PM

Hi all!

I'm in the proccess of upgrading my system for Vista. My system is ready everywhere except its video card. My system uses the older PCI-X architecture.

I'm looking to install Microsoft Windows Vista RC1 5600 and use all aspects of the Vista Premium version including Windows Aero

The video card that I found that I think will work is the Sapphire Radeon 9250 128MB PCI

Does anyone know if it is worth it to purchase this video card or should I just go all out and purchase a new motherboard that will support a PCI-E card?

Or is there a different PCI or PCI-X card (im not sure if companies even make PCI-X cards...) that would work better with Aero/Directx 9?
October 4, 2006 10:31:28 PM

Lol! There is no way that thing will support what you are hoping for. Your best bet is to get a PCI-Express mobo and buy a PCI-X card like the 850XT for $100.
October 4, 2006 10:56:09 PM

You mean a PCIe graphics card I assume. PCI-X is the server variant of the PCI bus. PCI, and now PCIe are the consumer variants.

@eville84: I would upgrade to a motherboard that supports PCIe seeing as how it's really become quite the standard and look for a decently priced PCIe graphics card, something around $200 will work fine until you want to upgrade to a card that supports DX10.
Related resources
October 4, 2006 10:57:45 PM

I'm not so sure... I'm running RC1 on an Athlon64 X2 3800, and my motherboard does have a PCI-E slot, but I don't have a video card right now so I'm using the builtin GeForce 6100. Aero runs fine with it. Although, if I were you I'd try for an AGP version of the Radeon. Other than that, you should be fine as long as you have a decent proc and 1GB RAM.

BTW, try to get Build 5728... its the latest. Rumor has it that another build, 5743, (RC2?) is due out this friday.
October 4, 2006 10:59:00 PM

I would certainly stick with an ATI card as the Nvidia drivers are buggy though some of the updates may have fixed that. The drivers from Nvidia were even worse constantly loading and reloading.

I have an E6600 w/ x1900xts and Vista in its current state is no upgrade to XP. Everything feels slow, and apps I run are slower by 5-10% in the 32bit version and 10-15% in the 64bit version. The funny thing is just about every new feature in the interface has been linux for years and it doesn't bring those OS's to their knees.

If you just want to check it out stick with what you have. I have P4 3Ghz test machine at the office with Intel integrated graphic and it runs Vista just fine with aero. Just don't go crazy with the new screen savers. Don't be fooled by the RC BS this OS still need a whole lot of work. Also if you do allot multitasking you need not apply vista. As multple program accessing the disk at the same time can cause the whole interface to freeze.
October 4, 2006 11:07:52 PM

Quote:
Lol! There is no way that thing will support what you are hoping for. Your best bet is to get a PCI-Express mobo and buy a PCI-X card like the 850XT for $100.



Heh, that will be a lot more work, but if i have to I will do it. I have a pretty good system, P4 CPU, SCSI HD, 1GB of ram.

Froogle is only showing the 850XT at $119 w/ newegg before shipping. Newegg doesnt ship to canada. It looks like that card is going to cost at least $150 for me.
October 4, 2006 11:21:39 PM

I believe Aero requires a Dx9 card at least, but I'm far from sure.

What I do know is, the 9250 is a Dx8 card...
October 4, 2006 11:21:49 PM

Quote:
You mean a PCIe graphics card I assume. PCI-X is the server variant of the PCI bus. PCI, and now PCIe are the consumer variants.




No, I mean PCI-X. I know a lot of people confuse that acronym. Its the Dell Poweredge 700 I like the SCSI interface. I d/l a lot. Im running Win2k3 SB on it right now, but no longer need it (was using it for IIS as a back up server for a Fedora Cpanel Webserver).

I've been using my laptop as a desktop but it is not anywhere close to be ready for vista/aero (its a tecra s2)


Quote:
@eville84: I would upgrade to a motherboard that supports PCIe seeing as how it's really become quite the standard and look for a decently priced PCIe graphics card, something around $200 will work fine until you want to upgrade to a card that supports DX10.

Is there any cards worth buying now that will support DX10? If im going to have to upgrade anyways maybe it would be worth to spend more. But if when the time comes there is going to be a DX10 card that is better then what is out now then I will hold back.
October 4, 2006 11:31:03 PM

Quote:
I'm not so sure... I'm running RC1 on an Athlon64 X2 3800, and my motherboard does have a PCI-E slot, but I don't have a video card right now so I'm using the builtin GeForce 6100. Aero runs fine with it. Although, if I were you I'd try for an AGP version of the Radeon. Other than that, you should be fine as long as you have a decent proc and 1GB RAM.




My MB does not support AGP.

Your set up with nVidia GeForce 6100 GPU is running fine with Aero? That may be a good solution. I could always upgrade with second PCI-E card in the future when nesseary.

Quote:

BTW, try to get Build 5728... its the latest. Rumor has it that another build, 5743, (RC2?) is due out this friday.


Sorry, my bad. My source displayed the older version first. I do have access to the Build 5728 x86 version. I wont have this set up till a few weeks after friday anyways. Im sure i'll be able to get the latest build in there.
October 4, 2006 11:31:19 PM

you have a long wait ahead of you, DC10 cards dont come out until after mid Nov.
October 5, 2006 12:05:25 AM

Quote:
I would certainly stick with an ATI card as the Nvidia drivers are buggy though some of the updates may have fixed that. The drivers from Nvidia were even worse constantly loading and reloading.

Heh, i guess that puts the 6150 GPU out of the question....

Quote:
I have an E6600 w/ x1900xts and Vista in its current state is no upgrade to XP. Everything feels slow, and apps I run are slower by 5-10% in the 32bit version and 10-15% in the 64bit version.

Its still just a release candidate. I'd expect it to run slower. Mircosoft always finds way to use more resources with their new OS's. With your analogy Windows 95 should run slower on my PC then Windows XP. That simply just doesnt happen.

Quote:

The funny thing is just about every new feature in the interface has been linux for years and it doesn't bring those OS's to their knees.

I have seen, read and used what Linux is capable in terms of pure GUI eye candy. ie: Compiz + Xgl + Ubuntu Dapper = 3D Desktop (Youtube)

Im a SysAdmin. I config linux all day long. When I'm on my desktop I dont want to have to work as hard to get things going. Thats why ive always seen Linux as a server OS not a Desktop. 90% of the installed apps i use are XP. Im not seeing Linux become a viable Desktop OS untill service based software becomes more popular and powerfull.

Quote:

If you just want to check it out stick with what you have. I have P4 3Ghz test machine at the office with Intel integrated graphic and it runs Vista just fine with aero. Just don't go crazy with the new screen savers. Don't be fooled by the RC BS this OS still need a whole lot of work. Also if you do allot multitasking you need not apply vista. As multple program accessing the disk at the same time can cause the whole interface to freeze.

I'm just going to install this as a dual boot option to start.

From what I've read it still does need a lot of work. I just want to get it started.

I do a lot of multitasking. I will just have to see what the GUI is capable of and what it is not. I'm sure that there will be ways to restrict the eyecandy sometimes during heavy multitasking so it doesnt constantly crash.
October 5, 2006 1:08:50 AM

Quote:
I believe Aero requires a Dx9 card at least, but I'm far from sure.

What I do know is, the 9250 is a Dx8 card...


Cleeve's right... I did a bit of researching and it turns out that the 9250 will NOT run Aero due to DirectX9 incompatibility. Funny thing is, cards from the previous generation, such as the 9550 and 9700 (not 9000) WILL run Aero. I always thought that technologies supported by each generation of cards were identical. Guess not.
October 5, 2006 1:21:46 AM

Quote:
I believe Aero requires a Dx9 card at least, but I'm far from sure.

What I do know is, the 9250 is a Dx8 card...


Cleeve's right... I did a bit of researching and it turns out that the 9250 will NOT run Aero due to DirectX9 incompatibility. Funny thing is, cards from the previous generation, such as the 9550 and 9700 (not 9000) WILL run Aero. I always thought that technologies supported by each generation of cards were identical. Guess not.

heh, false advertising by sapphire
October 5, 2006 2:18:05 AM

I'm not sure you understand what I mean by slower. In the 9x days I couldn't perceive the slow down with high-end hardware. This is dramatic no need for benchies here.

Unless they make huge improvements I don't see them selling many copies. It multitasking more like a 9x OS then XP or 2k. You'll see what I mean when have it installed. It also micro manages like Me.

Also I wasn't suggesting the Linux was the future, just pointing out the interface is a resource hog that just coping others. Good luck with the install, and glad your grounded with your expectations.
October 5, 2006 2:19:48 AM

NOWAY! a Radeon 9200 will not support Vista, it will be a big *ss bottleneck. Not even any 9500 or 9600 series.

I believe the only card that might run with a little lag would be the Radeon 9800PRO. Anything up will be good.
October 5, 2006 2:32:18 AM

My x1900xtx w/ 512 is bottleneck by Vista standard 6.4 satisfaction rating.
A cheap intel integrated graphic card using 128M of shared ram is like 4.2. Assuming it supports Dx9 it should be fine if it doesn't he's SOL.
October 5, 2006 4:04:12 AM

I've tried a few of the vista releases and I can say that it runs fairly well on a 9800Pro, decent on a 9550, and horrible on a 9000se.

With the 9800 I can enable the eye candy and it doesnt slow down, at least not too noticibly. With the 9550, have be easy with the settings and it will run well, with the 9000se it's almost unbearably slow, there is very little eye candy that you can turn on, and the things that can be turned on, take this card down to a reverse crawl.

The only thing that bothered my at the begging was the crashing drivers but they have gotten better. I was also pretty ticked when it defaulted to a really low brightness and low contrast. It was really hard to find a way to change it back(even the setting on the monitor didnt help much).

All the machines that I have run it on have similar specs to the one in my sig, excluding the vid cards.

Well thats my experience with Vista, HTH someone
October 5, 2006 9:15:17 AM

Quote:
I'm not sure you understand what I mean by slower. In the 9x days I couldn't perceive the slow down with high-end hardware. This is dramatic no need for benchies here.

Unless they make huge improvements I don't see them selling many copies. It multitasking more like a 9x OS then XP or 2k. You'll see what I mean when have it installed. It also micro manages like Me.

Also I wasn't suggesting the Linux was the future, just pointing out the interface is a resource hog that just coping others. Good luck with the install, and glad your grounded with your expectations.


I understand what you mean here. I hope they make improvements. Releases are scheduled soon. If this turns into another Me I'm gonna be pissed im buying all this new hardware. I guess i could always just turn into a hardcore gamer.
October 5, 2006 9:17:47 AM

Quote:
I've tried a few of the vista releases and I can say that it runs fairly well on a 9800Pro, decent on a 9550, and horrible on a 9000se.

With the 9800 I can enable the eye candy and it doesnt slow down, at least not too noticibly. With the 9550, have be easy with the settings and it will run well, with the 9000se it's almost unbearably slow, there is very little eye candy that you can turn on, and the things that can be turned on, take this card down to a reverse crawl.

The only thing that bothered my at the begging was the crashing drivers but they have gotten better. I was also pretty ticked when it defaulted to a really low brightness and low contrast. It was really hard to find a way to change it back(even the setting on the monitor didnt help much).

All the machines that I have run it on have similar specs to the one in my sig, excluding the vid cards.

Well thats my experience with Vista, HTH someone


the 9800pro issnt to pricey. I guess i can go AGP concidering I have to replace the MB.
October 5, 2006 2:27:40 PM

Do not go AGP if you're going to replace the motherboard. Go PCI-E or you'll be wasting money, IMO. A PCI-E X800GTO is going for less than $85 nowadays, that plus motherboard and you're looking to spend around $150 give or take a couple bucks.
October 5, 2006 2:58:12 PM

Quote:
Hi all!

I'm in the proccess of upgrading my system for Vista. My system is ready everywhere except its video card. My system uses the older PCI-X architecture.

I'm looking to install Microsoft Windows Vista RC1 5600 and use all aspects of the Vista Premium version including Windows Aero

The video card that I found that I think will work is the Sapphire Radeon 9250 128MB PCI

Does anyone know if it is worth it to purchase this video card or should I just go all out and purchase a new motherboard that will support a PCI-E card?

Or is there a different PCI or PCI-X card (im not sure if companies even make PCI-X cards...) that would work better with Aero/Directx 9?



You're not even close if you want the full Aero interface.

You need a DirectX 10 card, nVidia's are coming out mid Nov. chepest is gonna be $450. Plus it will be PCI-e only so you'll need to upgrade your mobo, which probably also means new CPU and ram.
October 5, 2006 3:01:47 PM

Quote:
I would certainly stick with an ATI card as the Nvidia drivers are buggy though some of the updates may have fixed that. The drivers from Nvidia were even worse constantly loading and reloading.

I have an E6600 w/ x1900xts and Vista in its current state is no upgrade to XP. Everything feels slow, and apps I run are slower by 5-10% in the 32bit version and 10-15% in the 64bit version. The funny thing is just about every new feature in the interface has been linux for years and it doesn't bring those OS's to their knees.

If you just want to check it out stick with what you have. I have P4 3Ghz test machine at the office with Intel integrated graphic and it runs Vista just fine with aero. Just don't go crazy with the new screen savers. Don't be fooled by the RC BS this OS still need a whole lot of work. Also if you do allot multitasking you need not apply vista. As multple program accessing the disk at the same time can cause the whole interface to freeze.



Are you on crack? I have both an Nvidia and an ATI GPU and have nothing but trouble with ATI's drivers. Nvidias drivers are way better than ATI plus ATI doesn't have a clue about Linux.
October 5, 2006 3:11:33 PM

I've really never had troubles with ATI's drivers. *shrug*
October 5, 2006 3:24:40 PM

I recommend that you use 2 GB of ram since Vista uses twice as much memory compared to XP Pro.

(off topic) Also I find that RC1 load my start-up menu and applications like Photoshop and Illustrator CS twice as fast compared to XP Pro and my hard drive has a rating of 2.8. (Maxtor 60 GB with over 20 GB free space. (This rating is bad in my book)) I like Vista and all its eye candy and can not wait to purchase the full version. (/off topic)
October 5, 2006 3:29:05 PM

Quote:
I believe Aero requires a Dx9 card at least, but I'm far from sure.

What I do know is, the 9250 is a Dx8 card...


DX 8.1
October 5, 2006 4:48:51 PM

Quote:
DX 8.1


:p 

Still can be referred to as DirectX 8 in passing, you nitpicking bugger... :) 
October 5, 2006 5:23:51 PM

Quote:
DX 8.1


:p 

Still can be referred to as DirectX 8 in passing, you nitpicking bugger... :) 

Hey, it's not my fault i'm pedantic, blame the British education system!
October 5, 2006 7:29:17 PM

Quote:
DX 8.1


:p 

Still can be referred to as DirectX 8 in passing, you nitpicking bugger... :) 

Hey, it's not my fault i'm pedantic, blame the British education system!

Too right that... I remember the unbelievably inflexible grading scheme they used when I gave my A Level exams.
October 5, 2006 8:03:17 PM

Quote:
DX 8.1


:p 

Still can be referred to as DirectX 8 in passing, you nitpicking bugger... :) 

Hey, it's not my fault i'm pedantic, blame the British education system!

Too right that... I remember the unbelievably inflexible grading scheme they used when I gave my A Level exams.

They also make you question EVERYTHING, but then only give you the marks for the things that you didn't question....Still got AAB however.
October 5, 2006 10:09:16 PM

Hah! I still had A(Math 99),A(Physics 96), A(Chem 96).
Wait... why am I showing off?
October 6, 2006 6:23:00 AM

Quote:
Hah! I still had A(Math 99),A(Physics 96), A(Chem 96).
Wait... why am I showing off?


The reason you're showing off is that you beat me.

I did Maths, Politics and History. Got my B in History...
October 6, 2006 7:49:33 AM

Quote:
You mean a PCIe graphics card I assume. PCI-X is the server variant of the PCI bus. PCI, and now PCIe are the consumer variants.




No, I mean PCI-X. I know a lot of people confuse that acronym. Its the Dell Poweredge 700 I like the SCSI interface. I d/l a lot. Im running Win2k3 SB on it right now, but no longer need it (was using it for IIS as a back up server for a Fedora Cpanel Webserver).

I've been using my laptop as a desktop but it is not anywhere close to be ready for vista/aero (its a tecra s2)


Quote:
@eville84: I would upgrade to a motherboard that supports PCIe seeing as how it's really become quite the standard and look for a decently priced PCIe graphics card, something around $200 will work fine until you want to upgrade to a card that supports DX10.

Is there any cards worth buying now that will support DX10? If im going to have to upgrade anyways maybe it would be worth to spend more. But if when the time comes there is going to be a DX10 card that is better then what is out now then I will hold back.

Why don't you get a copy of x86 RC1, burn a dvd, and 'suck it and see?' All of this endless BS is getting on my nerves.... "vista needs a dx10" "Vista needs a 1kw PSU" "vista is slower than me" "Vista needs 2 GB ram"

Bullcrap. vista needs a minimum of 512 MB ram to enable aero. It will run on many older cpu's, with aero enabled. I'm personally not sure that it will run on a DX 8 (.1 for the Sheep... ;-) ) But it does run just fine on most any dx9 card I've tried.

Like XP you can play with load orders, what to load etc., but a default install works just fine for me. (Just don't get the suggested trend micro AV)

Minor note(s), by default it treats your desktop as if its a laptop... Need to change the power profile to shutdown.

Also need to change the whinging security settings.

HDD's are cheap... You needed another anyway, didn't you? OOOpppsss... You use SCSI's... Well, not so cheap, but still reasonable.
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2006 3:00:49 PM

Quote:

Does anyone know if it is worth it to purchase this video card or should I just go all out and purchase a new motherboard that will support a PCI-E card?


Depends on what experience you want, but you could get away quite well with using your current rig with just a few tweaks.

Aero does need at least DX9 / and 256MB of VRAM (even TC and HyperMemory) in order to do fully vectored (according to M$), but you can use even as little as 32MB of VRAM for basic Aero.

Quote:
Or is there a different PCI or PCI-X card (im not sure if companies even make PCI-X cards...) that would work better with Aero/Directx 9?


BEST PCI card you could get for Vista-Aero that would support the fully vectored desktop;
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Category=...

Also regarding the BS about drivers, ATi is still the only one to get the full nod from M$ on drivers and hardware so far, so Niz is full of Shiz!

Not that that nod means much, it was like PCI-SIG giving the nod to the GF6800 before the X800, both got it eventually, and few people cared.

BTW, there's even a handy tool to find out how ready your system is;
http://www.ati.com/technology/windowsvista/GetReady.htm...
October 6, 2006 9:54:12 PM

It's not really the dx version that will allow you to enable the aero features, its the pixelshader 2.0 support that you need. After a lot of googling, seems some dx8.1 cards might have supported this. The dx8.1 drivers , I believe supported ps 2.0.
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2006 10:04:04 PM

Quote:
It's not really the dx version that will allow you to enable the aero features, its the pixelshader 2.0 support that you need. After a lot of googling, seems some dx8.1 cards might have supported this. The dx8.1 drivers , I believe supported ps 2.0.


Nope, the DX8.1 cards do not support all of PS2.0, but there may be supcomponents that are more important, of course certainity will come one everything can be tested, what I've read sofar is no Vista for DX8.1 cards (ATi and Matrox, nV doesn't have an 8.1 card [unless you count the FXs]). MAtrox has VS2.0 support, but not PS2.0, and ATi has neither.
October 6, 2006 10:30:18 PM

Quote:
It's not really the dx version that will allow you to enable the aero features, its the pixelshader 2.0 support that you need. After a lot of googling, seems some dx8.1 cards might have supported this. The dx8.1 drivers , I believe supported ps 2.0.


Nope, the DX8.1 cards do not support all of PS2.0, but there may be supcomponents that are more important, of course certainity will come one everything can be tested, what I've read sofar is no Vista for DX8.1 cards (ATi and Matrox, nV doesn't have an 8.1 card [unless you count the FXs]). MAtrox has VS2.0 support, but not PS2.0, and ATi has neither.

Finally looked up some reviews and all (even Sapphire's site) seem to suggest that the 9250 supports dx 9.0, is agp 8.x...

But no where that I can find (so far) tells what ps version it supports. I still go with the 'suck it and see' approach as I can assume that if it fully supports dx 9.0 then it must also support ps 2.0.

But we all know what 'assume' can do.
October 7, 2006 2:00:01 AM

Quote:
NOWAY! a Radeon 9200 will not support Vista, it will be a big *ss bottleneck. Not even any 9500 or 9600 series.


A 9500 or 9600 work work with Vista.....and run AeroGlass just fine.
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2006 8:07:57 AM

Quote:

Finally looked up some reviews and all (even Sapphire's site) seem to suggest that the 9250 supports dx 9.0, is agp 8.x...


Look harder homer.

R9250 is not DX9.0 compliant, you can load DX9 on your system however it will not use DX9-only features and will on use the subset of DX8.1/8/7/... features. The R9250 is DX8.1 (PS1.4/VS1.1)

Quote:
But no where that I can find (so far) tells what ps version it supports. I still go with the 'suck it and see' approach as I can assume that if it fully supports dx 9.0 then it must also support ps 2.0.

But we all know what 'assume' can do.


Yeah and when someone tells you otherwise, don't use your ASSumptions, do more reasearch before posting again, it' makes you look stoopid for spending the time to post instead of spending the time researching. Here, this should at least reduce your misinformation if you feel you must post;

http://www.rojakpot.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=88
October 7, 2006 8:25:52 AM

Quote:

Finally looked up some reviews and all (even Sapphire's site) seem to suggest that the 9250 supports dx 9.0, is agp 8.x...


Look harder homer.

R9250 is not DX9.0 compliant, you can load DX9 on your system however it will not use DX9-only features and will on use the subset of DX8.1/8/7/... features. The R9250 is DX8.1 (PS1.4/VS1.1)

Quote:
But no where that I can find (so far) tells what ps version it supports. I still go with the 'suck it and see' approach as I can assume that if it fully supports dx 9.0 then it must also support ps 2.0.

But we all know what 'assume' can do.


Yeah and when someone tells you otherwise, don't use your ASSumptions, do more reasearch before posting again, it' makes you look stoopid for spending the time to post instead of spending the time researching. Here, this should at least reduce your misinformation if you feel you must post;

http://www.rojakpot.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=88

Directly from Sapphire's web site:

RADEON 9250 Specifications

128MB or 256MB of 400MHz DDR memory accelerates the latest cutting edge 3D applications
Available in both a 128-bit and 64-bit memory data path interface
ATI RADEON™ 9250 VPU operating at 240 MHz
Supports the AGP 8X and AGP 4x standard or PCI Bus, providing a high-speed link between the graphics board and the rest of the PC
Four pixel shader pipeline
Full support for Microsoft® DirectX® 8.1 and DX9 compliance and the latest OpenGL® functionality
VIDEO IMMERSION™ and FULLSTREAM™ technologies which provide for amazing video playback quality.
Integrated DV support for Flat Panel displays
Powered by CATALYST™ - The industry's most stable unified graphics software


... And no where on their web site do they state what PS version they support.

I think that I did add the caveat that we all know what the 'assume' statement can mean....

So thank you for the flame....
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2006 8:45:29 AM

Quote:

Directly from Sapphire's web site...


... And no where on their web site do they state what PS version they support.[/quote]

Well then I guess you shouldn't have stopped looking now should you!?! :roll:

Quote:
I think that I did add the caveat that we all know what the 'assume' statement can mean....

So thank you for the flame....


You're welcome, and if you want more just keep posting the same uninformed tripe. Next time, read what people say, absorb it and stop wasting our time by forcing us to correct your mistakes.

BTW, ever thought of checking ATi's site since it's their chip, not Sapphires? Or do you always read the secondary vendor's biased and obviously false PR? Car dealers must love you! :roll:

Seriously you act like this is a state secret, go to ATi's website and it's right there up front...

http://www.ati.com/products/radeon9200/index.html

High-Performance 3D
Radeon® 9200 series was the first mainstream graphics solution to combine Microsoft® DirectX® 8.1 support with AGP 8X. Twice the bandwidth of other graphics processors provides substantial horsepower for the most demanding desktop 3D applications.


http://www.ati.com/products/radeon9200/radeon9200/specs...

* SmartShader™ technology

o Full support for DirectX ® 8.1 programmable pixel and vertex shaders in hardware
o 1.4 pixel shaders support up to 22 instructions and up to 6 textures per rendering pass
o 1.1 vertex shaders support vertex programs up to 128 instructions

Thus ends lesson 2, no more for you until you learn to research for yourself.

Now stop trying to achieve escape velocity, and just simply crash into the sun. :!:
October 7, 2006 9:17:27 AM

Quote:

Directly from Sapphire's web site...


... And no where on their web site do they state what PS version they support.

Well then I guess you shouldn't have stopped looking now should you!?! :roll:

Quote:
I think that I did add the caveat that we all know what the 'assume' statement can mean....

So thank you for the flame....


You're welcome, and if you want more just keep posting the same uninformed tripe. Next time, read what people say, absorb it and stop wasting our time by forcing us to correct your mistakes.

BTW, ever thought of checking ATi's site since it's their chip, not Sapphires? Or do you always read the secondary vendor's biased and obviously false PR? Car dealers must love you! :roll:

Seriously you act like this is a state secret, go to ATi's website and it's right there up front...

http://www.ati.com/products/radeon9200/index.html

High-Performance 3D
Radeon® 9200 series was the first mainstream graphics solution to combine Microsoft® DirectX® 8.1 support with AGP 8X. Twice the bandwidth of other graphics processors provides substantial horsepower for the most demanding desktop 3D applications.


http://www.ati.com/products/radeon9200/radeon9200/specs...

* SmartShader™ technology

o Full support for DirectX ® 8.1 programmable pixel and vertex shaders in hardware
o 1.4 pixel shaders support up to 22 instructions and up to 6 textures per rendering pass
o 1.1 vertex shaders support vertex programs up to 128 instructions

Thus ends lesson 2, no more for you until you learn to research for yourself.

Now stop trying to achieve escape velocity, and just simply crash into the sun. :!:[/quote]

I stand corrected, Oh Your Grapeness...

You are correct. The 9250 is only certified for ps 1.4, but seems to also qualify somehow for dx 9.0. It is listed as such on the MS site.

However, my original point to the OP was that all that was required to run Aero was a ps 2.0 capable graphics system and 1 GB RAM. Not a dx10, and that one did not need 2GB or 4GB mem, nor a 1kw PSU... Then we get in to the esoteric points of what constitutes a dx 9 card. Apparently PS 1.4 qualifies.

OP, original post stands. All you need is a graphics solution that is PS 2.0 capable. And the aforementioned 1GB ram...
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2006 10:01:12 AM

Quote:
Then we get in to the esoteric points of what constitutes a dx 9 card. Apparently PS 1.4 qualifies.


No it doesn't.

Quote:
You are correct. The 9250 is only certified for ps 1.4, but seems to also qualify somehow for dx 9.0. It is listed as such on the MS site.


Show the link.

I think you're confusing what contitutes DX9 capable/compliant/equipped and what is involved in running DX9.0C on a machine, and using it subsets to support features of a card which may be of lower spec.

You can run DX9.0C on a system with an original Radeon or Geforce, yet they don't have anywhere near all the features supported by DX9.0C

Seems pretty clear what Microsoft expects for Aero support;

"Support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)2, Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32 bits per pixel."
October 7, 2006 2:37:00 PM

Quote:
The 9250 is only certified for ps 1.4, but seems to also qualify somehow for dx 9.0.


[sigh] Why do people stubbornly argue with someone who knows alot more about the subject than they do? [/sigh]

Grape is right. Any Radeon from 8500 to 9499 is a DirectX 8 card.

Any videocard can get 'certified' for any version of DirectX on the driver side.

But as for hardware, if the program requires a higher version of DirectX (PS and VS), it can be certified all they like but the visual features ain't goona work.
October 7, 2006 8:29:24 PM

Quote:
The 9250 is only certified for ps 1.4, but seems to also qualify somehow for dx 9.0.


[sigh] Why do people stubbornly argue with someone who knows alot more about the subject than they do? [/sigh]

Grape is right. Any Radeon from 8500 to 9499 is a DirectX 8 card.

Any videocard can get 'certified' for any version of DirectX on the driver side.

But as for hardware, if the program requires a higher version of DirectX (PS and VS), it can be certified all they like but the visual features ain't goona work.

What he said.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 4, 2009 8:07:40 PM

I'm new to the forums so hello and nice to meet you all! :D 

Just for the record: I am using the Sapphire Radeon 9250 right now on the Windows Vista HP platform and it DOES NOT support Aero. Unforatunately for me, I bought the card thinking that it did, as it is advertised claiming to support DirectX 9. Obviously this is not the case if Aero is not working. I am now in the process of filing a complaint.

Kind regards,

Amph.
!