9500pro vs 9100; which one?

[videobruce]

I'm upgrading from a GeForce2 MX400. I know either card would be a improvement. I don't plan to overclock. I don't need the fastest on the block (I'm not on a ego trip). I question dealing with Athlon Micro/Sapphire since I don't know their track record. After doing a serach through Pricegrabber I get these results:

ATI 9500pro retail 3 year warrenty: $201 at Newegg ($195 at Allstarshop.com)
Sapphire 9100 64MB OEM 1 year warrenty: $73 at Newegg ($71 at Allstarshop.com)

$160 for 2 more years on the warrenty, ATI support (might not be a benefit), 64MB more of memory (is it REALLY needed?), retail box (big deal). Does that make the 9500 really worth almost 3x the price?

 

[Glitchny]

the 9500 pro definatly, it supports directx 9 and is jsut about as fast if not faster than anything in its price range. The 9100 is just a rebadged 8500 that ATI renamed because it perfroms above the 9000. But definatlky go for the 9500Pro

 

[Doctorweir]

9100=8500 (DX8part)
9500pro= DX9 (9700 with 128bit memory bus instead of 256) => much faster than 9100 => double price
128MB=mandatory nowadays...

 

[videobruce]

Why is 128MB mandatory? I have 32 now ans as far as resolution and refresh rates it's enough! I only run 1024x768x16 with 1280x1024x16 as a option with one game and 32 is enough.
Is Direct X 9 worth it now?

 

[pavy]

just try to play battlefield 1942 with a 32mb vid card

i'm got a 2.4 ghz with 512 mb ram and a 32 mb vid card, and it creaps throgh some lvls. if your comp can't run battlefield good, than you need to upgrade, cause everything comming out in the future will about be the same.

 

[VirginiaDonkey]

the price of 9500's will drop soon when the 9800/9900 series comes out. If you can wait i would, if not, get a 128mb 9100 to tide you over. I have a 64mb 9100 and it plays everything just fine at 1024x768 high detail

If your processor is slow, use the saved money to upgrade the cpu and RAM

 

[BoberFett]

128 is not mandatory for a 9100. If you're buying a budget card like the 9100, any games that run poorly will run poorly not because they need more video memory but because the 9100 is a generation behind and the GPU itself is the bottleneck.

If you buy a 9500, you're probably planning to keep it for a while, so 128 makes more sense.

 

[mrzed]

If it helps Videobruce - I am in exactly the same situation. Running a 32Mb MX400 on my XP1700+ 1.84Ghz. I was dying to upgrade for the last 2 months, and fairly convinced I would go for a 8500le/9100 simply because it would kick the butt of my mx for not a lot of $.

Well, I finally got a job today, but instead of celebrating by running out and picking something up, I've decided to wait and see how prices are affected when the new cards come out in another month or so. It won't kill me to wait, and I can't really afford a 9500pro (yet).

Also, I have been very disappointed with the information i've been hearing about memory speeds on the 9100/8500le parts that are available now. It seems like they are using them as a dumping ground for crappy RAM these days, sad, because as little as 3 months ago, it was more common to find cards at 250/250 that could go higher, now 230/200 seems to be the most common, and some are even worse.

 

[rogue1979]

Be careful, the 9100 memory speeds can really suck, and Sapphire seems to be one of the worse.

 

[sash1]

"$160 for 2 more years on the warrenty, ATI support (might not be a benefit), 64MB more of memory (is it REALLY needed?), retail box (big deal). Does that make the 9500 really worth almost 3x the price?"

d00d, they're two COMPLETELY different cores, those aren't the only differences. The 9500 is extremely technologically superior and a much better card.

As well I would suggest the 9500. It has a much longer longevity--the 128Mb of RAM and its DX9 support will help.

 

[videobruce]

Well, I went out and got the Sapphire 9100 from Newegg for $73 delivered.

If I don't like it I can send it back, take the restocking and return shipping hit and upgrade to a 9500pro.

I was burned (somewhat) with this Asus V7100DC I got 2 years ago because I wanted VIVO which really didn't work as expected. It was $180 and a ripoff ASAIK! Poor frame rates and poor TV out, not to mention almost no support! My old Maxtor G200 did better that that GeForce2 MX400!

There are only 4 games that are played on this box and 2 of them would work with a ISA card (almost). Ther other 2 are another story, but not one of those kiddy 'Dr Destructo' wonders that need a 350fps rate to run.

The old card did 65fps in 1024x768x16 at 85Hz tested through Preformance Test V4. I'll see what the new one will do.

Thanks for all the insite. I really didn't want to spend alot this time because of the bad experiance! I really have trouble seeing spending 2x what I spent on the MB!

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: pavy
just try to play battlefield 1942 with a 32mb vid card

i'm got a 2.4 ghz with 512 mb ram and a 32 mb vid card, and it creaps throgh some lvls. if your comp can't run battlefield good, than you need to upgrade, cause everything comming out in the future will about be the same.

That is misleading my pc runs BF1942 fine at 800*600 maxed out and sometimes skips in 1204*768

Btw...the card's core is clocked at 175 Mhz

 

[railer]

You made a nice choice with your 9100. Anybody who pays $200 for a freaking video card is insane. What you have with your 9100 is a card that will play every game on the market at an acceptalbe framerate, at a decent resolution, for a good price. What more do you want than that? Oh, wait, you can't play every game at 1600x1200 with AF and AA maxed. Big deal and who cares. You can play many games at those settings with the 9100, if you wish. I don't play over 1024x768 w/ my 128 meg Gf4 4400 just because the text on my 17" monitor is too small....


Grab a 9500 pro in 6 months or so when they're $70.

 

[jiffylube1024]

If you're not really into gaming, then there is no need (or point) to get the 9500 Pro; the 9100 at any speed with 64MB of memory will suit you just fine for a long time. If you like to play the latest, most demanding games (Unreal 2, BF 1942, etc) then go for the 9500 Pro. It's as simple as that.

 

[Audiofight]

I ordered the 9100 128MB from AllStarShop for $85 shipped

This is going in my file server / rental LAN box for our LAN parties. If someone brings in a busted-down system (500 MHz, 128 MB, 16-32MB vid card, etc) ..... Not to knock anyone else's system.....but it can't handle gameplay like most of the people's systems.

Personally:

AXP 1800+ @ 1.916 MHz
512 MB PC3200 Corsair TwinX
Asus GF4 Ti4200 128MB AGP 8x @ 300/600
Western Digital 80.0 GB SE

When a bunch of systems with similar specs to these (P4 rigs, other clock speed Athlons, etc), the one 500 MHz system just doesn't seem to cut it.

I disagree with the comment that 32MB cards can still cut it. I used to own an 8MB Riva 128, a Voodoo3 3000 16 MB AGP, and then a GF2 GTS 64MB. I can attest to the increase in vid memory being a huge difference in game playability. If you can afford it, go with a 128 MB vid card. Why save $12 and take half the vid memory?

If you upgrade as much as I do, the 9100 is a great option. If you like to hold onto hardware until it is beyond obsolete (like my parents ol' P2 350 system), then buy the biggest and best out there and live with it for a while.

 

[videobruce]

This card doesn't support 'Wireframe Mode' which has to do with CAD programs which I don't use or ever will. It hurts the benchmark score in Preformance Test V4 which is a real nice small benchmark program from:

http://www.passmark.com/index.html

 

[Flashram]

Originally posted by: pavy
just try to play battlefield 1942 with a 32mb vid card

i'm got a 2.4 ghz with 512 mb ram and a 32 mb vid card, and it creaps throgh some lvls. if your comp can't run battlefield good, than you need to upgrade, cause everything comming out in the future will about be the same.

Battlefield plays fine on my laptop with a Radeon 7500 32 mb, P4 1.8, 512 MB.

 

[gtd2000]

Originally posted by: railer
You made a nice choice with your 9100. Anybody who pays $200 for a freaking video card is insane. What you have with your 9100 is a card that will play every game on the market at an acceptalbe framerate, at a decent resolution, for a good price. What more do you want than that? Oh, wait, you can't play every game at 1600x1200 with AF and AA maxed. Big deal and who cares. You can play many games at those settings with the 9100, if you wish. I don't play over 1024x768 w/ my 128 meg Gf4 4400 just because the text on my 17" monitor is too small....


Grab a 9500 pro in 6 months or so when they're $70.

Well said - and entirely true

Just buy what you need for this pont in time.

Then get the faster card when it halves in price