Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Radeon 9100? What is it?

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Radeon
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 1, 2003 4:37:41 PM

Is it just an 8500 in disguise?

"Consiousness of the past alone
can make us understand the present" - Herbert Luethy

More about : radeon 9100

February 1, 2003 4:42:39 PM

yep.

no matter how hard you try, you can't polish a turd. :]
February 1, 2003 4:46:33 PM

Is it worse than the original 8500? Memory speeds?

"Consiousness of the past alone
can make us understand the present" - Herbert Luethy
Related resources
February 1, 2003 5:00:44 PM

they are slower- usually 250/230 or even 250/200 core/memory speeds (the faster memory is usually on the 64mb version).good 8500s can be 275/275 or at least 250/250

no matter how hard you try, you can't polish a turd. :]
February 1, 2003 9:51:45 PM

Would a Radeon 9000Pro 275/275 outperform an 8500 at 275/275?

"Consiousness of the past alone
can make us understand the present" - Herbert Luethy
February 1, 2003 10:10:35 PM

no , a 9000pro is slower than an 8500 at the same clock speed.

BUT, this might not be true for the 9100.

what interests me tho, is how THG said the 9000pro was an IMPROVED version of the 8500. the review said it had an "optimized" geometry engine. but this is just not true. its slower...
February 2, 2003 1:36:49 AM

I don't really know what you guys are talking about. A Retail R9100 is clocked at 250/250. Just a R8500LE in a different box I presume.

...And all the King's horses and all the King's men couldn't put my computer back together again...
February 2, 2003 1:53:38 AM

not all 9100s are clocked at 250/250.i looked at sapphire as an example and theirs were 250/230 for the 64mb and 250/200 for the 128mb.

no matter how hard you try, you can't polish a turd. :]
February 2, 2003 2:13:07 AM

wtf are you talkin about?

he was comparing a 9000pro to a 8500 at the same clock speed

as he obviously said in his post o_o
February 2, 2003 2:24:24 AM

Does the Sapphire one use 5.0 memory like their 128mb 8500le?
a b U Graphics card
February 2, 2003 3:01:23 AM

If they're clocking it at 200MHz you can bet their using 5ns memory as faster memory would cost more!

<font color=blue>There are no stupid questions, only stupid people doling out faulty information based upon rumors, myths, and poor logic!</font color=blue>
February 2, 2003 10:50:44 AM

Huh? jonB said is a 9100 just a 8500LE in diguise and as far as I knew, they both were clocked at 250/250 and use same features and everything so I said yes.

...And all the King's horses and all the King's men couldn't put my computer back together again...
February 2, 2003 3:13:36 PM

The 9100 makes me happy to own an 8500le. It's an excellent card. Too bad this messes up their naming system. Shouldn't the 9100 be DirectX9-ready?

<font color=blue>
--------------------------------------------------
Guns kill people just like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
<font color=blue><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by holyshiznit on 02/02/03 03:31 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
February 2, 2003 4:24:09 PM

9100 is? Show me where I can buy a 128mb non Powercolor/Sapphire version. The Sapphire are unedrclocked and have afeful memeory. Powercolor is expensive.
February 2, 2003 5:19:45 PM

I see R9100 128MB for $90 for a Sapphire and $110 for the PowerColor. If the Sapphire is clocked really low, it may not be a good idea. I say send an email to newegg and ask for the clock/RAM speeds.

...And all the King's horses and all the King's men couldn't put my computer back together again...
February 2, 2003 5:23:23 PM

Well Sap 128 has 250/200 which is aweful and to top it of a 5 memory speed.
February 2, 2003 6:10:25 PM

so by the model number, the 9100 is faster than the 9000pro?


but this isnt posssible, because its clocked slower! the 9100(8500) is only faster than the 9000pro when clocked the same or higher

it makes me wonder what ATI is up to. why did they release the 9100??
February 2, 2003 6:18:40 PM

The 9000 and 9100 are built on different cores.

Because they're trying to use up all the R200 inventory.

*Dual PIII-800 @900 i440BX and Tualeron 1.2 @1.74 i815*
February 2, 2003 9:30:27 PM

My previous card was a Gigabyte 9000Pro, and it was probably the best third party 9000Pro I could get. Well, I burned it, and bought a Built by ATI 8500LE, 64mb, 250/275 3.3ns memory. I have it clocked at 290/305 easily, and it got me over 1000 3D Marks higher then the 9000. Plus I paid $79.00 for it at Fry's Electronics, where the 9000Pro was 130.00.....what a steal.

If someone with multiple personalities, threatens to commit suicide, is that a hostage situation?..xXZoomInstagibXx
February 2, 2003 11:54:27 PM

holy crap

they must have alot of freakin extra chips to make a whole new product from an old one rofl

*yeah the 8500LE is a GREAT steal. if your giong to get anytihng less than a GF4TI, that is THE card to get. nothing cheaper for the performance.....
February 3, 2003 2:41:45 PM

I guess my question to all of you now is, does a Radeon 9000Pro (275/275) outperform a 9100 (250/250), even though the 9100 is built on the faster 8500 core?

"Consiousness of the past alone
can make us understand the present" - Herbert Luethy
February 3, 2003 2:53:02 PM

well, my guess would be that they would be VERY close in speed, with those 2 difference clock and memory speeds

because an 8500(9100) is faster at the same clock, but the 9100 is clocked lower than the 9000pro, they should be like almost identicle

this doesnt make sense. why would ATI do this? there must be more to the picture
maybe ATI is including new features with the 9100. features that werent available on the 8500. or maybe theyre going to release it later on with faster memory and a higher clocked core (say 300 core, and 600 memory??)

really , this is confusing...
!