Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I have a weird feeling.

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 6, 2003 8:07:05 PM

The Radeon 9800 Pro is alrite i guess, it beats both the 9700pro and FX 5800 Ultra in SOME tests.
Wuts really beginning to be really weird to me is the Radeon 9600 Pro.
I think its going to be another 8500, 9000 Pro problem where the 8500 was acually faster then the 9000 Pro.
The 9600 Pro doesn't consume that much power and the fan is ALOT smaller to me and the 4 pipe line thing is really going through my head, while the 9500 Pro has a bigger fan, needs more power, and has 8 pipe lines.
Wut do u guys think.
Oh and i saw some benchmarks provided by nVidia on the new FX 5600 and 5200, and i think the benchmarks are full of crap. The forget the site but the 5600 Ultra was beating the Radeon 9500 Pro by ALOT.(I think)

Well wut u guys think on this Radeon 9600 Pro and FX 5600, 5200 Ultra thingy.

More about : weird feeling

March 6, 2003 9:18:07 PM

I am also worried now about waiting for the R9600PRO. On one hand, it does run cooler, it does use some DirectX 9 enhancements. It also runs at a higher clock speed.
On another, it is stripped to 4 pipes with 1 TMU last I checked.
On a third hand (!), Anandtech reports it will still have an enhanced memory controller, more advanced than the R350's. Now I don't know whether it will tie or outbest the R9500PRO and don't know whether I should hold my purchase thoughts.

As for the FX5600 Ultra, I waited to see some info about it, but Lars reports its performance is not better than the R9500PRO, so forget about it.
This without mentioning the poor AA and Aniso performance.

It's getting confusing, truly!

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
March 6, 2003 10:13:53 PM

It could be a marketing decision. What are the prices of the 9500 and 9600? Are they discontinuing the 9500?

<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">The French are being described as cheese-eating surrender monkeys.</A></font color=red>
Related resources
March 7, 2003 1:20:04 AM

i believe they are discontinuing the 9700/9500 series and replacing them with these

--------------
I LOVE DANGER DEN WATERCOOLING, they went out of their way to both personalize my kit and change my order when i needed to, i had to change my sig to give them props
March 7, 2003 1:45:07 AM

It'd be a tragedy if they remove the 9500PRO and the 9600PRO is not an improvement.

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
March 7, 2003 1:47:52 AM

wuuuuuuuuuuup IT means Price will go down soon :) 

right ? or not?
a b U Graphics card
March 7, 2003 3:59:00 AM

Look at history:

ATI9600 Pro is probably slower than 9500 Pro
ATI 9100 is slower than 8500, it's a relabled 8500LE.
GeForce2 MX200 was slower than the TNT2 in some test, so nVidia dropped the TNT2 and kept the slower TNT2-M64 to "correct" this problem.

It's been going on a long time.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
March 7, 2003 4:03:57 AM

I'm glad I bought my Radeon 9500 Pro earlier. When I heard before the cards were even released that the RV350 was supposed to match with the Radeon 9700 Pro i was scared that i needed to buy a new card. But looking at this information now the Radeon 9600 Pro doesn't seem as cool as it did before. I doubt it will be better then the Radeon 9500 Pro but we have to wait and see.
a b U Graphics card
March 7, 2003 2:25:44 PM

It's not even reviewed yet and people are already saying it's worse than the 9500. Now that MAY, or even LIKELY will, be the case, but wait for some kinda benchmarks beore deciding anything. Even after the Benchmarks appear in print, let alone here, you will still be able to get a 9500, just don't wait TOO long after that.

For me the better power consumption and lack of external plug is good enough, as long as it's CLOSE.

- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <font color=red>RED</font color=red> <font color=green>GREEN</font color=green> :tongue: GA to SK
March 7, 2003 3:21:29 PM

I would have to agree. This is all speculation. Just STFU and wait for the benchmarks and reviews to hit. Hopefully by the end of the month there will be benchmarks for all this crap.

HULK SMASH!!!
March 8, 2003 2:09:03 AM

If you're disappointed about the 9800 benchmarks, then you're missing the point. Yes, it is true that the GeforceFX is faster in SOME of the benchmarks. But take a closer look. The GeforceFX is faster when AA and AF are TURNED OFF. I don't know about you, but if I'm gonna buy a top-of-the-line video card, I'll want the best image quality, and that means AA and AF should be cranked up. Take another look at the AA and AF benchmarks for the 9800. They are beat the GeforceFX, regardless of resolution, by a healthy margin. Anyways, forget about fps--that aspect of video cards has plateaued. Honestly, can anyone see the difference between 200fps and 170fps? Didn't think so. From now on, image quality will be the most important factor.

Call me Caine.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ne_corridor on 03/07/03 11:15 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
March 8, 2003 2:50:06 AM

Well you do make some good points, though I might add there is definitely still room for improving raw FPS. Have you checked out the benchmarks for Comanche4, and Aquanox? How slow will Doom ]|[ be when it comes out? Modern graphics cards may run games like Quake 3 at mad FPS, but newer games are capable of bringing even the newer cards to their knees. There's still a lot of room for improving FPS.

And incidentally, I really wish more hardware sites would do more benchmarks on minimum FPS. To me, low minimum FPS = chop. I'd rather have a high FPS 0f 80 and minimum of 60 than a high of 120 and a minimum of 40.
<-----Insert witty sig line here.


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Twitch on 03/07/03 11:52 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
March 8, 2003 11:01:20 PM

I totally agree! They really should do minimum FPS for all games they bench. I don't buy into the big FPS they show when they are testing especially in medium settings without telling us, and no minimum FPS is shown!

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
March 10, 2003 11:09:27 AM

as far as i remember, i've seen somewhere minimumfps tests, and the gfFX was much more unstable than the radeon, meaning the radeon had much higher minimumfps.. just don't remember where... (9700 that was, of course)

"take a look around" - limp bizkit

www.google.com
March 10, 2003 3:39:10 PM

The funny part is, I think we're going to end up in a situation where the 9600 is SOMETIMES faster and SOMETIMES slower than a 9500 Pro.

1. The clockspeed and optimizations will boost it past the 9500 Pro in current games I bet, but:

2. In future titles that use alot of multitexturing (Yes, we're all thinking Doom 3), I reckon it'll be a bit slower than the 9500 PRO because of the reduced Pixel Pipelines.

Time will tell tho.

- Cleeve

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Cleeve on 03/10/03 12:41 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
March 10, 2003 5:59:25 PM

anandtech does the minimum fps test

<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">The French are being described as cheese-eating surrender monkeys.</A></font color=red>
March 10, 2003 7:17:37 PM

I think it's interesting though, as I just skimped through the R9600PRO specs. It seems to me this card is, if THG did not do a type once again, 400MHZ core clocked.
At such point, 4 pixel pipelines is not a major issue, because it can compensate eventually for the lost fillrate. Additionally, the R9500PRO is not multitexture capable, as it is 8*1. It just bares 4*2 performance when MT is involved.

EDIT: As I checked Anandtech, yes I was not wrong, it should be able to compete the R9500PRO's fillrate. Then you have more bandwidth AND an improved,(in fact ATi's MOST advanced one even compared to the R350) memory controller. I assume that is enough to compensate.
--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile: <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 03/10/03 04:25 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
March 10, 2003 8:19:10 PM

1 texture unit per pipe, Ack!

Damn brainfart, I was thinking back to the Radeon 8500's 2 texture units per pipe. Sorry. :p 
March 11, 2003 1:07:05 AM

look at anandtech's review on the Geforce FX 5600, 5200 Ultra tests.
I personally think the Radeon 9500 Pro beat them clearly.
If the Radeon 9600 Pro is supposed to compete with the Geforce FX 5600 Ultra then there might be a good chance that the Radeon 9600 has alrdy won. 9600 is supposed to replace the 9500 is it not?
if the 9500 could beat em and the 9600 is its replacement then it should beat it. If it doesn't maybe ATI will bring back the 9500 Pro just like it did with the 8500LE just they renamed it to 9100.
When the time comes we will see.
March 11, 2003 2:10:08 AM

The 9500 will be phased out once current supplies of the chip are exhusted and all outstanding orders for third party card makers have been filled.
March 11, 2003 3:38:43 AM

Thanks for the info.

<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">The French are being described as cheese-eating surrender monkeys.</A></font color=red>
!