Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Radeon 9200 or 8500?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Radeon 9200 or 8500?

    They are pretty much the same price (~$80US @ newegg), and I'm looking for good 2D with 3D fast enough to play today's games at decent resolutions/detail. 9500+ are all too expensive right now.

    As far as I know the 9200 is basically the 9000 with 8X support, but the 9000 is worse than the 8500. Is this still true for the 9200?

    The last radeon discussion on this board stopped before the 9200 came out

    Thanks,
    Thien
    Gigabyte GA-K8N Ultra 9, Opteron 170 Denmark 2x2Ghz, 2 GB Corsair XMS, Gigabyte 6600, Gentoo Linux
    Motion Computing M1400 -- Tablet PC, Ubuntu Linux

    "if I said you had a beautiful body would you take your pants off and dance around a bit?" --Zapp Brannigan

  • #2
    HardwareZone is the leading online technology portal in Asia Pacific gives you latest tech Updates, technology news, products & gadgets reviews and more.


    The above link would bring you to a hardware review.. i linked it cos there is a table comparing the features of 8500 to 9200.

    Basically 9200 has 8x agp support, fullstream technology and a better tv-output.
    Where 8500 has 2 Texture Units per Pipeline and a Peak Texture Fill Rate (Mtexels/s) of 2,200
    while 9200 has only 1 Texture Unit per Pipeline and a Peak Texture Fill Rate (Mtexels/s) of 1,100

    edit : I will leave what difference the above makes to the rest of the guys
    Last edited by Belwarrior; 10 June 2003, 06:52.
    Life is a bed of roses. Everyone else sees the roses, you are the one being gored by the thorns.

    AMD PhenomII555@B55(Quadcore-3.2GHz) Gigabyte GA-890FXA-UD5 Kingston 1x2GB Generic 8400GS512MB WD1.5TB LGMulti-Drive Dell2407WFP
    ***Matrox G400DH 32MB still chugging along happily in my other pc***

    Comment


    • #3
      The 8500 has a reputation around here for its lousy image quality. Is the same true of the 9000/9100/9200?

      Also, are they still doing that trick where they only apply full aniso filtering on polygons at certain angles?
      Last edited by Ribbit; 10 June 2003, 09:49.
      Blah blah blah nick blah blah confusion, blah blah blah blah frog.

      Comment


      • #4
        In answer to the original question:

        - Depends on the clock speed. The ordinary 9000's were worse than the 8500. The 9000 PRO, on the other hand, when clocked right was better - because it supports the DX9 hardware features. The 9200, if clocked correctly (I don't know offhand where it's clocked) would be better than a 9000 pro, so...

        Ribbit:

        The "built by ATI" 8500's are nice. The OEM'ed ones are a crapshoot. There's a big difference.

        - Gurm
        The Internet - where men are men, women are men, and teenage girls are FBI agents!

        I'm the least you could do
        If only life were as easy as you
        I'm the least you could do, oh yeah
        If only life were as easy as you
        I would still get screwed

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Gurm
          - because it supports the DX9 hardware features. - Gurm
          it does? i thought 9500 and upwards was DX9.
          Main Machine: Intel Q6600@3.33, Abit IP-35 E, 4 x Geil 2048MB PC2-6400-CL4, Asus Geforce 8800GTS 512MB@700/2100, 150GB WD Raptor, Highpoint RR2640, 3x Seagate LP 1.5TB (RAID5), NEC-3500 DVD+/-R(W), Antec SLK3700BQE case, BeQuiet! DarkPower Pro 530W

          Comment


          • #6
            Nope. 9000 is too, but it's a lot slower than 9500. Sort of the same idea as the GF FX 5200... supports new features but dog slow as a result.

            BUT, the 9200 is clocked higher, and actually a halfway decent card.

            Beware the 9100, which is just a rebadged 8500...

            - Gurm
            The Internet - where men are men, women are men, and teenage girls are FBI agents!

            I'm the least you could do
            If only life were as easy as you
            I'm the least you could do, oh yeah
            If only life were as easy as you
            I would still get screwed

            Comment


            • #7
              Er, not as far as I am aware - the 9000, 9100 (=8500) and the 9200 are all DirectX 8.1 cards. They might well have Dx9 drivers, because the cats are dx9 compliant, but no dx9 HARDWARE features.

              Basically, 9000, 9100/8500 and 9200 all have the same featureset, with the possible exception of truform (which iirc is done in software for the 9000 and 9200).

              G
              DM says: Crunch with Matrox Users@ClimatePrediction.net

              Comment


              • #8
                the only cards from ATI that are DX9-capable are those 9500s and above.
                The future's no use today.
                <a href="http://autarkic.org/geek.html">RIG*</a>

                Comment


                • #9
                  Yeah, currently only the 9500, 9600, 9700 and the 9800 are 9.0 in hardware. Everything else is 8.1 hardware.

                  J1NG

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    And the 9000 cards are said to have similar mediocre image quality as the 8500 ones.
                    If you want a good picture, go for a R7500 (slow) or a 9500Pro (really fast).
                    But we named the *dog* Indiana...
                    My System
                    2nd System (not for Windows lovers )
                    German ATI-forum

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The 8500 has a reputation around here for its lousy image quality.
                      Where did this nonsense come from?? Are we talking 2d or 3d? If this is in reference to 3D, its complete BULLsh!t. The 3D image quality on the 8500 is excellent! I don't see any problems with 2D image quality either.
                      Bart

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by The Rock
                        Where did this nonsense come from?? Are we talking 2d or 3d? If this is in reference to 3D, its complete BULLsh!t. The 3D image quality on the 8500 is excellent! I don't see any problems with 2D image quality either.
                        Well, it is. The 8500 is a step down in IQ from its predecessors, but the 9500 (and other 9's) seem to bring it back up.
                        Gigabyte P35-DS3L with a Q6600, 2GB Kingston HyperX (after *3* bad pairs of Crucial Ballistix 1066), Galaxy 8800GT 512MB, SB X-Fi, some drives, and a Dell 2005fpw. Running WinXP.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It's all about 2D quality (this is a Matrox forum...)

                          Nearly all R200 (=R8500 + R9100) and RV250 (=R900 + R9200) had worse signal quality than the original Radeon had or the R7500 boards have - except for the Hercules R8500 128MB, but including the BBA cards.

                          The R300 (R9500/Pro, R9700/Pro) based cards have better signal quality again, don't know about the RV350 ones (R9600/Pro).

                          I could see this myself as well, going from an original Radeon 64MB VIVO (BBA) to a Radeon 8500 (BBA) resulting in lower signal quality at high resolutions. My 9700 (BBA) is on par again regarding 2D. Not quite Matrox, but close enough for me.
                          But we named the *dog* Indiana...
                          My System
                          2nd System (not for Windows lovers )
                          German ATI-forum

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Well, that's scary because my original Radeon(R100) was decent but compared to my 9700 Pro, it looks like crap!
                            Ladies and gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and slide on the ice.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I went from a 64meg original Radeon to an 8500 and didn't notice any loss in quality. Maybe my eyes are bad, or my Samsung 900NF monitor isn't good enough to notice.
                              Bart

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X