Radeon is no good for UT play

[blah]

Based on my present experience with "low end" Radeon..

I needed something 1.5V for 875P board, so I was tempted to get Radeon 9200SE because of its $48 price tag and read that it is performing better than GF4 440MX, and as I am just doing office/business things and play UT sometimes I got it for P4c system. As it came out my 2.6C with it can't even play on medium settings 10x7 res. I have XP1700+ with GF2 MX400!! and with everything set high it is smooozzzzer than with Radeon on low.

SE IS GARBADGE, and Radeon is junk for UT even benchmarks are showing that is it faster and has better image, but the image with MX is far more solid than with Radeon, caz ATI has that "liquid" pixilation going in the game on DX settings. This is really dissapointing, if I new, I would get "low end" GF instead, caz I ended up shoving P4 onto the shelf and went back to XP with VERY unhappy face :*(

PS: I wish my Voodoo 3500 would fit into AGP slot on P4

P$$: are those banchmarks worth anything these days?


..this is very useful and helpful place for information...

 

[TheRod]

Of course a Radeon 9200 SE is running games like crap, it's a worst card than my old Radeon 8500 that runs new games nearly like crap!

are those banchmarks worth anything these days?

Yes and no. Many review site don't consider lowest/avg./higher FPS. This can be misleading. Because a card might reach a HIGH 100 FPS in a game bu would go down to 10 FPS often. Then the other card would not get higher than 75 FPS, but would never drop under 25 FPS. I would rather buy the second card.

HardOPC.com changed their approach in GPU comparison, they rely on gaming and not benchmarking to compare cards. They figure out what is the highest resolution/quality setting for each cards they test. So basically, they do we all do. Install a card, install a game, test the game at different quality and res. to find out what is the best compromise on our rig.

--
What's the <b><font color=green>AMD Mobile Athlon 64</font color=green></b> overclocking potential? <b>It's huge!</b> Humm... Maybe not that huge...

 

[cefoskey]

Remember the SE is 64 bit. The MX is supposed to be on par with a standard 9200, not a 9200SE.

"Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my drive?"
P4 3.0 HT, Intel D865GBF, 512MB Crucial PC3200 DDR, WD 36GB Raptor 10,000RPM, BBA Radeon 9600PRO, SB Audigy, Hauppage WinTV

 

[cleeve]

Yeah, you should've asked us on the forum first.

Never buy an Ati SE card... You would be MUCH happier with a cheap 9000 PRO.

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9700 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 329/337)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>~2750+</b></font color=red> <i>(2400+ @ 2208 Mhz)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,876</b>

 

[blah]

The thing is that UT is 5 YEARS old game, I thought that any and I mean any modern card will run it with ease. Heck, I was playing it at high on P3-600 with Voodoo 3000 (which is crapp comparing to even 9200SE) without even sweating the heatsink, and Glide looked better than anything right now. I am so disappointed with today’s "technologies". Well, I think I'll wait till new GF comes out and get something in upper FX region, that will make sure my "breaks" will be more enjoyable

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...

 

[blah]

""Never buy an Ati SE card""

It was a cheapest (most important fanless) solution for basic office crapp and I thought it will cut the corners for UT as well, so it "does"

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...

 

[coylter]

You = Owned

Athlon 2700xp+ (oc: 3200xp+ with 200fsb)
Radeon 9800pro (oc: 410/360)
1024mb pc3200 (5-3-3-2)
Asus A7N8X-X

 

[blah]

My slang blah is not yanking it? Wo0T?

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...