Difference between Radeon8500 and 9100

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
C

clicknext

Banned
Mar 27, 2002
3,884
0
0
I recently flashed my Radeon8500 to a 9100 following the instructions from this site:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?lp=de_en&url=http://www.3dcenter.de/artikel/2003/02-11_a.php

I know the two cards are supposed to be identical, but after I did this, I get about 3-5 more FPS in Morrowind. Before, when I stood in a certain spot and looked in a certain direction, it was 14 FPS. Now at that same spot it's 20. That's a pretty big jump. Is there a difference in the bios or something? By the way, it's not a clock speed difference because I modified the bios to run at the original speed of my card, which is 275/250.
 
A

AnAndAustin

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2002
2,112
0
0
;) There isn't meant to be any true diff between 8500 and 9100 ... the 9100 just uses lower clocks (250/230ish instead of 275/275ish). Perhaps ATI are playing games like they did with the RadeonLE (and VE IIRC) and are likely to with the Rad9600 & 9800 series (to make them look better compared to the 9500 & 9700 series through sw tweaks applicable to ALL their DX9 cards). I suppose time will tell ...
 
A

Audiofight

Platinum Member
May 24, 2000
2,891
0
71
The 9100 is a re-numbered 8500.

ATI's whole numbering scheme was to make the buyer think that the higher the number, the higher the performance. That worked great until the Radeon 9000 came out. The 8500 beat the 9000's ass in benchmarks. So, re-number the 8500 to the 9100 and you have the whole scheme back in order.

True, some clock differences will make certain brand/models slower than others.....but what model Radeon hasn't been doing this? Sapphire is notorious for releasing one model at a decent clock speed and than a different model with sh!t ram and it is underclocked from what most of the competition is running.
 
A

AnAndAustin

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2002
2,112
0
0
:cool: The Radeon 9500 and up are hugely consistent across all the manus. The Rad9000PRO's are also VERY consistent too. The Rad8500 were always hideous to work out actual clock speeds and they ranged from about 230/166 to 275/275 and often sold under the same name. The same variance is seen in the 9100 series but these are MUCH mroe like a Rad8500LE-LE ... using the most common clock speeds you find there's a 10% perf diff between Rad8500 (fastest), Rad8500LE (next fastest) and Rad9100 (slowest). Of course these are all virtually identical so only the clock speed differentiates the perf unlike the Rad9000 series which use castrated technology where the Rad9000 is WAY slower (like Rad7500 but with DX8) and the Rad9000PRO is still slower EVEN at 275/275 than a Rad8500/9100 @ 250/230.
 
C

clicknext

Banned
Mar 27, 2002
3,884
0
0
Must not be too aggressive timing, though, because my sapphire 128mb Radeon8500LE with very crappy ram (ran at 250/200 out of the box) overclocked to 275/250 and using the 9100 bios doesn't have any problems. It didn't work at all with the retail 8500LE bios because the timings were too aggresive, even when at 250/250.
 
C

clicknext

Banned
Mar 27, 2002
3,884
0
0
Originally posted by: Chadder007
Does this work for the retail 128 meg 8500 (NON LE) version?
Click to expand...

I would assume it does, because it worked on both my Sapphire Radeon8500LE 128MB and my ATI Radeon8500 64MB. Just use the right included in the pack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom