Can someone give me some information about the difference between the Radeon 8500 - 9000 - 9100 - 9200 chips?
Thanks.
Thanks.
Difference between Radeon 8500 - 9000 - 9100 - 9200
- Thread starter xpeter
- Start date
8500 is the Radeon R200 core. It performs about the same as the 9100. The 9100 is the same chip as the 8500, just with a new name to fit in with all the other 9xxx cards. I *think* it has a slightly lower clock speed than the normal 8500's (250 rather than 275?).
The 8500 also comes in 2 flavours, the 8500 and 8500 LE. This is almost the same as other cards (ie: with Pro designations) except the LE is the lower clocked of the 2 cards, so it is outperformed by the normal 8500. I believe that the 9100 is a rebadged 8500LE, hence lower clock speeds than the 8500.
The 9000 is the new budget chip from ATi that was released along with the rest of the 9xxx series cards, the 9500 and 9700's. It, like the 8500/9100 is a DX8 card, NOT DX9. It's slightly slower than the 8500/9100's.
The 9200 is almost EXACTLY the same as the 9000, but it has AGP 8x support, which gives no advantage currently. It is basically the same as the 9000.
The 9000Pro is faster than the 9000, I believe it is around the same speed as the 8500, slightly slower sometimes, slightly faster at others. (though usually slower)
From Anandtech's preview:
The Radeon 9200 - A Rebadged Radeon 9000
The final product of the day is ATI's Radeon 9200, based on the RV280 core. The Radeon 9200 is nothing more than an AGP 8X version of the Radeon 9000, yet it carries a higher model number; marketing at its best, go figure.
The 8500 also comes in 2 flavours, the 8500 and 8500 LE. This is almost the same as other cards (ie: with Pro designations) except the LE is the lower clocked of the 2 cards, so it is outperformed by the normal 8500. I believe that the 9100 is a rebadged 8500LE, hence lower clock speeds than the 8500.
The 9000 is the new budget chip from ATi that was released along with the rest of the 9xxx series cards, the 9500 and 9700's. It, like the 8500/9100 is a DX8 card, NOT DX9. It's slightly slower than the 8500/9100's.
The 9200 is almost EXACTLY the same as the 9000, but it has AGP 8x support, which gives no advantage currently. It is basically the same as the 9000.
The 9000Pro is faster than the 9000, I believe it is around the same speed as the 8500, slightly slower sometimes, slightly faster at others. (though usually slower)
From Anandtech's preview:
The Radeon 9200 - A Rebadged Radeon 9000
The final product of the day is ATI's Radeon 9200, based on the RV280 core. The Radeon 9200 is nothing more than an AGP 8X version of the Radeon 9000, yet it carries a higher model number; marketing at its best, go figure.
Lonyo, aircooled many thanks for the explanation!
I am looking for a card from GIGABYTE from the Radeon 9200 range because they have only fanless cooling, only one big heatsink.
I have one more question. If R9200 is about the same as R9000 is it than slower than the R9100 based on the R8500 success?
I am looking for a card from GIGABYTE from the Radeon 9200 range because they have only fanless cooling, only one big heatsink.
I have one more question. If R9200 is about the same as R9000 is it than slower than the R9100 based on the R8500 success?
The 9600 non-pro cards are also supposedly only heatsink cooled, so if it's noise that you're looking to eliminate, that might be an idea (not sure of its cost). You could also get a Zalman cooler for the 8500 cards if you want the extra edge over the 9000/9200.
The 9500Pro is probably one of the best price/performance cards, but it's not silent and it is a bit more than the 9000's.
I'd say the best budget card is probably the 8500 retail if you can find it (check core and memory clocks are 275/275 or thereabouts). You could add a Zalman silent cooler if you wished.
On the topic of Zalman, you can get a Zalman heatsink for pretty much any card out there, so don't let noise worry you too much if you feel safe replacing the heatsink and fan of a graphics card, because even the 9700Pro can be silently cooled.
As I said though, if noicse is the issue, then your options will probably be a 9600 or 9000. If you have a big budget though, there are retail 9700Pro's with silent coolers.
The 9500Pro is probably one of the best price/performance cards, but it's not silent and it is a bit more than the 9000's.
I'd say the best budget card is probably the 8500 retail if you can find it (check core and memory clocks are 275/275 or thereabouts). You could add a Zalman silent cooler if you wished.
On the topic of Zalman, you can get a Zalman heatsink for pretty much any card out there, so don't let noise worry you too much if you feel safe replacing the heatsink and fan of a graphics card, because even the 9700Pro can be silently cooled.
As I said though, if noicse is the issue, then your options will probably be a 9600 or 9000. If you have a big budget though, there are retail 9700Pro's with silent coolers.
aircooled
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2000
- 15,965
- 1
- 0
Yeah, you can't use the "number system" on the older radeons, the 8500 was king, and the 9000 series started slower, even the 9100 (which is an 8500) is not as good as the original 8500.
If you cannot afford a 9500 or higher, I highly recommend the 8500/LE, but I would buy a "built by ATI", or a Sapphire. Check out Newegg.com and see what they have under those categories. You should be able to pick up a Sapphire 8500LE 128 for about $80, and will be as good as any card untill you get to the 9500/higher class.
Don't worry about the numbers 9000 under 9500, the 8500 is the best card before the 9500.
Actually I'm not a real gamer I play only very few games and I don't have time for it so I am
not looking for the fastest card oout there, but rather for a quality and silent card because
I now have pretty silent PC. Budget is not a thing I am searching for the card, I have now
my old ATI Radeon 64 DDR VIVO that cost in the year 2001 about $ 300
There's one more thing that the card must have. I am looking for the support of the resolution
2048 x 1536 @ 85 Hz and if I remember the Radeon 9700 supports this only at 60 or 75 Hz.
I am gonna plug a SONY F520 21" CRT and a SONY X72 LCD to it mainly for work and occasionaly
for some games like Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Need For Speed etc.
Have a look at the GigaByte R9200 card at
http://tw.giga-byte.com/VGA/FileList/ProductImage/photo__r92128d_20_big.jpg
I have really good experiences with GigaByte products so far and many times they have
better design than the Built By ATI products.
http://tw.giga-byte.com/VGA/FileList/ProductImage/photo__r92128d_20_big.jpg
I have really good experiences with GigaByte products so far and many times they have
better design than the Built By ATI products.
aircooled
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2000
- 15,965
- 1
- 0
Originally posted by: xpeter
Actually I'm not a real gamer I play only very few games and I don't have time for it so I am
not looking for the fastest card oout there, but rather for a quality and silent card because
I now have pretty silent PC. Budget is not a thing I am searching for the card, I have now
my old ATI Radeon 64 DDR VIVO that cost in the year 2001 about $ 300
There's one more thing that the card must have. I am looking for the support of the resolution
2048 x 1536 @ 85 Hz and if I remember the Radeon 9700 supports this only at 60 or 75 Hz.
I am gonna plug a SONY F520 21" CRT and a SONY X72 LCD to it mainly for work and occasionally
for some games like Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Need For Speed etc.
I went from 64mb vivo, to 8500LE and the difference is amazing! never had a gigabyte ATI card, but have first hand experience with 'built by ATI' and Sapphire, both are great quality products!
Your need for 2048 x 1536 @ 85 Hz does indeed limit you. My Radeon 8500LE 64MB (built by ATI) supports that refresh rate at that resolution, but my Radeon 9500Pro (again, built by ATI) only supports 60Hz at that resolution. I don't know about the 9600, but I doubt it would be superior to the 9500Pro.
As for speed differences between the cards, it depends on how you would use it. In a game like UT2003, the difference between the cards without any "eye-candy" (AA and AF) would be noticeable but not that great on your system (I'd estimate you'd get about 45-50 FPS in botmatch benchmark for your system with the 8500LE, and about 55-60FPS with the 9500Pro, based on my experience). The reason for this is that you are somewhat processor-limited there .... in other games, you would see the difference far greater.
The main difference with the 9500/9600 family is that you can crank up the AA and AF without much of a performance hit, relatively speaking, and these make games look much better. On the 8500/9x00 series of cards, you could still use AF without too much of a hit, but forget about any kind of AA. The implementation of AA is way too slow on the R200 core. And the AF doesn't look as nice either as compared to the later R300 cores (9500 and up). Also, if you ever upgrade your processor you will be hamstringed somewhat by the slower R200 core ... the newer R300s will scale up quite nicely with any future upgrades. So in that sense, if you are any sort of gamer, the 9600 (R300 core) will far surpass the 9200 (R200 core).
As for clock speeds of the 8500/9x00 series, the original 8500 ran at 275/275 (core/mem). The 8500LE ran (originally) at 250/250. Current built-by ATI versions (at least the 64MB) run at 230/230. As for the more common 9100 label, I've seen clocks range from 250/250 to 200/167! So, you have to watch out. Also, the 128MB versions are generally clocked slower on the memory (to offset the higher costs). For example, the Sapphire 9100 runs at 250/230 for 64MB version and 250/200 for the 128MB version.
The 9000/9200 series also runs at variable clock speeds (actually a bit higher on the Pros, but that's to compensate for the reduced pipelines, I believe). They come in Pro and non-Pro versions (don't even consider the non-Pro - it's just too slow). The net effect is that the 8500/9100 is still faster than the 9000/9200 Pros (although not by that much).
Your call ... it depends what matters to you the most, I guess. I find the 8500 runs well enough for current games on my son's system, but I wouldn't trade my 9500Pro on my system for anything. Of course, I don't run at the resolution you want.
As for speed differences between the cards, it depends on how you would use it. In a game like UT2003, the difference between the cards without any "eye-candy" (AA and AF) would be noticeable but not that great on your system (I'd estimate you'd get about 45-50 FPS in botmatch benchmark for your system with the 8500LE, and about 55-60FPS with the 9500Pro, based on my experience). The reason for this is that you are somewhat processor-limited there .... in other games, you would see the difference far greater.
The main difference with the 9500/9600 family is that you can crank up the AA and AF without much of a performance hit, relatively speaking, and these make games look much better. On the 8500/9x00 series of cards, you could still use AF without too much of a hit, but forget about any kind of AA. The implementation of AA is way too slow on the R200 core. And the AF doesn't look as nice either as compared to the later R300 cores (9500 and up). Also, if you ever upgrade your processor you will be hamstringed somewhat by the slower R200 core ... the newer R300s will scale up quite nicely with any future upgrades. So in that sense, if you are any sort of gamer, the 9600 (R300 core) will far surpass the 9200 (R200 core).
As for clock speeds of the 8500/9x00 series, the original 8500 ran at 275/275 (core/mem). The 8500LE ran (originally) at 250/250. Current built-by ATI versions (at least the 64MB) run at 230/230. As for the more common 9100 label, I've seen clocks range from 250/250 to 200/167! So, you have to watch out. Also, the 128MB versions are generally clocked slower on the memory (to offset the higher costs). For example, the Sapphire 9100 runs at 250/230 for 64MB version and 250/200 for the 128MB version.
The 9000/9200 series also runs at variable clock speeds (actually a bit higher on the Pros, but that's to compensate for the reduced pipelines, I believe). They come in Pro and non-Pro versions (don't even consider the non-Pro - it's just too slow). The net effect is that the 8500/9100 is still faster than the 9000/9200 Pros (although not by that much).
Your call ... it depends what matters to you the most, I guess. I find the 8500 runs well enough for current games on my son's system, but I wouldn't trade my 9500Pro on my system for anything
. Of course, I don't run at the resolution you want.If i were you, go for the 9000 pro, it is capable of running those settings you specified, and it has image quality unmatched by the 8500/9100 series. get a 9000 or 9200 pro, they are fast enough for heavy gaming, while they can do what you need, and the price for the 9000 pro is quite good. IN fact, I prefer my 9000 pro over my 8500 because of the image quality, both cards are on par with each other(9000 pro is 275/500 and 8500 is 275/550) both perform about the smae in most things, but i can easily tell the difference between them in text and overall quality.
Don't go by ATI's listed max res/refresh rates. They are mostly wrong. For example, they list the 9700 of not being able to go that high- but I know it can. If a card has a 400MHz RAMDAC there is no reason why it can't do 2048 x 1536 @ 85.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter