• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How does ATI 9100Pro 128MB compare?

P

pieman7

Member
I just bought a Visiontek Xtasy Radeon 9100 Pro 128MB DDR AGP 4X yesterday because it was cheap, and was wondering what low-end graphics cards are comparable to it. I've seen very little out there as far as reviews and tests for the ATI 9100 Pro chipset in general. Is it camparable to a GForce2MX400? GForce4-MX400? How about a plain 9200?

Thanks.
 
The 9100 is faster than all 3 cards you mentioned. Even though the ATI 9200 is a higher numbering, the 9100 is actually
faster than it. It's a very nice low-end gaming card.
 
A Radeon 9100 is the same card as an 8500LE if I remember right. I'm not familiar with a 9100 Pro however, I wasn't aware there was such a thing.
 
Looks like it's clocked at 250/250(500) so it should equal an 8500LE, except that one from Sapphire at 275/290(580).
 
The 9100/8500LE is an excellent, budget card. I'd rank it below a ti4200, but above a GeForce3. It's certainly better than any card in the ATI 9000 and 9200 series.
 
Originally posted by: daveybrat
The 9100 is faster than all 3 cards you mentioned. Even though the ATI 9200 is a higher numbering, the 9100 is actually
faster than it. It's a very nice low-end gaming card.
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth. 🙂
 
The Jetway nVida Geforce FX5200 is a excellent low end graphics card for MS Flight Simulator in my case -as it supports DirectX 9 and has DVI/TV Out:
Jetway FX series graphics cards


You can get similar cards but from other companies.

It was purchased for AUD$99 and it's AGP 8x and has 128MB of memory (I bought the NV34-AD-128B which has 64-bit memory).

Compared to the 9000/9100/9200 , the FX5200 sports the NVIDIA CineFX? Engine
DirectX® 9.0 with Vertex Shader 2.0+ and Pixel Shader 2.0+ optimizations and support , whilst the 9000/9100/9200 only would have Pixel Shader and Vertex Shader 1.0 support.

I'd rank this one above a Geforce 440MX or my current integrated DX7 class Intel Extreme Graphics


Features of the graphics card I chose:
Highlight
Driver & Support
256-bit GeForce4 FX5200 (250MHz clock)
AGP 8X/4X Compatibility (AGP 3.0 Compliant)
64/128/256MB 128-bit DDR Memory (200MHz clock - 400MHz effective) (my Jetway FX5200 has 64-bit DDR Memory)
6.4GB per second Memory Bandwidth
DVI-I Connector for Analog/Digital Display
PC 99 DB-15 analog connectorIntegrated NVIDIA TV Encoder for TV Out
63 Million vertices per second (Est.)
1.0 Billion texels per second (Est.)

NVIDIA Unified Driver Architecture (UDA)
(Windows 98/ME/NT 4.0/2000/XP)
Linux Compatible
Direct Draw ? Direct3DDirectVideo ? DirectX
Full OpenGL 1.4 ICD for All Supported Operating Systems
Driver Download....

Main Features More Features
NVIDIA CineFX? Engine
DirectX® 9.0 with Vertex Shader 2.0+ and Pixel
Shader 2.0+ optimizations and support
OpenGL® 1.4 optimizations and support
Blistering-fast antialiasing performance
4 pixels per clock rendering engine
128-bit, studio-precision color
Support for 128/64-bit floating point and 32-bit
integer rendering modes
Support for up to 16 textures per pass
Support for sRGB texture format for gamma
textures
DirectX and S3TC® texture compression
Multi-Buffering (Double, Triple, Quad modes)


NVIDIA nView? multi-display technology
NVIDIA Video Mixing Renderer (VMR)
Integrated Dual 350MHz RAMDACs
NVIDIA Digital Vibrance Control? (DVC) 3.0
64-phase Video Scaler
Video Acceleration (DirectShow, MPEG-1,
MPEG-2, Indeo, MS Bob and Weave)
True color 64x64 hardware cursor with alpha
Optimized for 32, 24, 16, 15 and 8-bpp modes
Integrated Full Hardware MPEG-2 Decoder
Architected
 
5200s supports DX9 in name only, and 9100s also have DVI/VGA/S-vid. The one plus for a 5200 vs. a 9100 is dual CRT support and probably better multimon features. Otherwise, a 9100 is a better gaming card (a 9100 is ~10% slower than an 8500).

Edit: Goodness, $99 for a 5200 is a complete rip-off. You could have bought a much faster GF4Ti 4200 for ~$20 less, or a much much faster 9600 Pro for ~$25 more.

Edit the Second: And it only sports 64-bit memory! Arrrrgh! I note it's AUD, not USD, so that reduces my previous alarm somewhat. I suppose prices are different in Australia, too, in that cards in general probably aren't as cheap as here. Still, a 64-bit 5200 seems to be a weak card for gaming, unless you're happy with low details at low resolutions. I'm also not sure how a 64-bit 5200 is outperforming your 128-bit GF4MX440, judging by those THG benchmarks I linked (which shows a 128-bit 5200).
 
The Jetway FX5200 that I have also has DVI/VGA/S-video support. And the price I quoted is in Australian Dollars including goods and services tax (GST)-the 9600 locally is nearly $200 and the FX5200 is future-proff as it supports many DX9 features.
 
Sorry, the 5200's DX9 "support" is only future proof in that it will allow you to accelerate Longhorn's 3D GUI. The 5200 is too slow at DX9 to use DX9 effects in games. I don't mean to denigrate your purchase, I'm just saying that a 5200 is pretty much bottom of the barrel in terms of 3D gaming, and a 9100 is step or two above it, thus a better buy at the same price. A 9600 with 128-bit memory is actually the slowest of what I would consider to be usable DX9 cards. Though it may well perform twice as fast as a 64-bit 5200, it's probably not the best price/performance choice for budget gaming. Surely you can find a new or used GF4Ti 4200 for closer to AUD$100 than AUD$200, or is the online trading/buying market not as established down unda? 🙂
 
I was reading the DigitLife review-and the FX5200 actually scored 2 or 3rd in most of their benchmarks. I usually play MS Flight Simulator-which won't run using DX8.1, but needs DX9 to run, so buying the FX5200 was a good choice for me personally.
 
Okay but a 64bit 5200 is the bottom of the barrel.

FS2004 only requires a DX7 card.

It does require DX9 libraries, but not DX9 hardware.

Many older cards will wipe the floor with your 64bit 5200 in FS2004.
 
FS2004 requirements:

Windows PC
2000/XP ? 128 MB Ram
98/Me ? 64 MB Ram
Processor:450 MHz minimum
Available hard drive space:1.8 GB
DirectX 9 or later (included with Microsoft Flight Simulator: A Century of Flight)
Video card: 8 MB/3D with DirectX 7.0 or later drivers
Other: mouse, joystick/yoke, sound card, speakers/headphones
Online/multiplayer: 56.6 kbps modem or LAN

You just needed the DX9 files, not a DX9 card.
I am afraid marketing has struck again.
 
Originally posted by: aafuss
I was reading the DigitLife review-and the FX5200 actually scored 2 or 3rd in most of their benchmarks. I usually play MS Flight Simulator-which won't run using DX8.1, but needs DX9 to run, so buying the FX5200 was a good choice for me personally.
Click to expand...

2nd or 3rd out of how many, and compared to what cards? I suppose I could go as far as to say a 5200 is a decent card, but it's not a wise move for games, and the 64-bit version is doubly unwise (because it will be doubly slow in memory bandwidth-limited situations, because it has [wait for it] half the memory bandwidth).

DirectX is actually an umbrella term for all of Window's gaming libraries/interfaces, including joystick and audio support. To be precise, we're really talking about Direct3D. Furthermore, there's a difference between a card being DirectX 9 compliant and compatible. Compliant means the video card must be able to render DX9 effects, meaning it must have DX9 "hardware." Compatible simply means the drivers have to work with DX9. Every new version of DirectX builds on the previous one, so DX9 includes DX8, DX8 includes DX7, and so on. So requiring a DX9 compatible doesn't necessarily mean you need DX9 hardware. The DX8-compliant 9100 is DX9 compatible, as is the even older DX7-compliant GF4MX.

BTW, Flight Sim mainly stresses the CPU, so I'm not sure I'd consider it a great video card test (unless you were cranking the resolution to something like 1600x1200, though even that situation may be CPU-limited if your CPU is slow enough).
 
Here's the conclusions from the Digitlife review:
'

  • <LI>Quake3 Arena

    1. <LI>GeForce4 Ti 4200
      <LI>GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
      <LI>RADEON 9600SE

    <LI>Serious Sam: The Second Encounter

    1. <LI>GeForce4 Ti 4200
      <LI>GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
      <LI>GeForce FX 5600XT 128bit

    <LI>Return to Castle Wolfenstein (Multiplayer)

    1. <LI>GeForce4 Ti 4200
      <LI>GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
      <LI>GeForce FX 5600XT 128bit

    <LI>Unreal Tournament 2003

    1. <LI>GeForce4 Ti 4200
      <LI>GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
      <LI>GeForce FX 5600XT 128bit

    <LI>Unreal II: The Awakening

    1. <LI>GeForce4 Ti 4200
      <LI>GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
      <LI>GeForce FX 5600XT 128bit

    <LI>RightMark 3D

    1. <LI>GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
      <LI>GeForce4 Ti 4200
      <LI>GeForce FX 5600XT 128bit

    <LI>HALO: Combat Evolved

    1. <LI>GeForce4 Ti 4200
      <LI>GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
      <LI>GeForce FX 5600XT 128bit

    <LI>Splinter Cell

    1. <LI>GeForce4 Ti 4200
      <LI>GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
      <LI>GeForce FX 5600XT 128bit
The GeForce4 Ti 4200 is a leader here, with the GeForce FX 5200 Ultra following it. If the former disappears from the market and the production of the latter is stopped, the top position will be occupied by GeForce FX 5600XT 128bit (provided that it costs not higher than US$100).
In all other respects (multimonitor support etc.) the cards look equal. The GeForce4 Ti 4200 shows the best summary scores.
<H4>US$70-90:</H4>


  • <LI>Quake3 Arena

    1. <LI>RADEON 9100 128MB
      <LI>RADEON 9000 PRO
      <LI>RADEON 9200 128bit

    <LI>Serious Sam: The Second Encounter

    1. <LI>RADEON 9100 128MB / RADEON 9000 PRO
      <LI>RADEON 9200 128bit
      <LI>GeForce3 Ti 200

    <LI>Return to Castle Wolfenstein (Multiplayer)

    1. <LI>RADEON 9000 PRO
      <LI>RADEON 9200 128bit
      <LI>RADEON 9200 128bit

    <LI>Unreal Tournament 2003

    1. <LI>RADEON 9100 128MB
      <LI>RADEON 9000 PRO
      <LI>GeForce3 Ti 200

    <LI>Unreal II: The Awakening

    1. <LI>RADEON 9100 128MB
      <LI>RADEON 9000 PRO
      <LI>RADEON 9200 128bit

    <LI>RightMark 3D

    1. <LI>GeForce FX 5600XT 64bit
      <LI>RADEON 9100 128MB
      <LI>RADEON 9000 PRO / GeForce3 Ti 200

    <LI>HALO: Combat Evolved

    1. <LI>RADEON 9100 128MB
      <LI>RADEON 9000 PRO / GeForce3 Ti 200
      <LI>RADEON 9200 128bit / GeForce FX 5600XT 64bit

    <LI>Splinter Cell

    1. <LI>RADEON 9100 128MB
      <LI>RADEON 9000 PRO / GeForce3 Ti 200
      <LI>RADEON 9200 128bit / GeForce FX 5600XT 64bit
The RADEON 9100 128MB and RADEON 9000 PRO turn out to be the leaders. But these cards as well as the GeForce3 are not produced anymore, and when they disappear from the stocks, RADEON 9200 128bit will become the leader. Although the GeForce FX 5600XT 64bit supports DX9, it's still an outsider (shaders v2.0 are too slow in the FX, and there are few games that support them).
As to the other traits, it's only the RADEON 9000/9200 (not the 9100) and GeForce FX 5600XT that support multimonitor configurations. In general, the RADEON 9200 128bit has the best score here.
<H4>US$50-65:</H4>


  • <LI>Quake3 Arena

    1. <LI>GeForce4 MX440-8x
      <LI>GeForce FX 5200 128bit
      <LI>RADEON 8500LE 64MB

    <LI>Serious Sam: The Second Encounter

    1. <LI>RADEON 8500LE 64MB
      <LI>GeForce4 MX440-8x / GeForce FX 5200 128bit
      <LI>RADEON 9200 64bit

    <LI>Return to Castle Wolfenstein (Multiplayer)

    1. <LI>RADEON 8500LE 64MB
      <LI>GeForce4 MX440-8x
      <LI>GeForce FX 5200 128bit

    <LI>Unreal Tournament 2003

    1. <LI>RADEON 8500LE 64MB
      <LI>GeForce4 MX440-8x / GeForce FX 5200 128bit
      <LI>RADEON 9200 64bit / GeForce FX 5200 64bit

    <LI>Unreal II: The Awakening

    1. <LI>RADEON 8500LE 64MB
      <LI>GeForce4 MX440-8x / GeForce FX 5200 128bit
      <LI>RADEON 9200 64bit / GeForce FX 5200 64bit

    <LI>RightMark 3D

    1. <LI>GeForce FX 5200 128bit
      <LI>GeForce FX 5200 64bit
      <LI>RADEON 9200 64bit

    <LI>HALO: Combat Evolved

    1. <LI>RADEON 8500LE 64MB / GeForce FX 5200 128bit
      <LI>GeForce FX 5200 64bit
      <LI>RADEON 9200 64bit

    <LI>Splinter Cell

    1. <LI>GeForce FX 5200 128bit
      <LI>RADEON 8500LE 64MB
      <LI>GeForce FX 5200 64bit
The best runners are RADEON 8500LE 64MB (RADEON 9100) and GeForce FX 5200 128bit. But the former is not produced anymore and might soon disappear from the retail market. That is why the FX 5200 128bit can be considered a leader. Besides, if you compare its price with that of FX 5600XT 64bit (an upper sector outsider), the GeForce FX 5200 128bit will look more beneficial than 5600XT 64bit.
Taking into account the multimonitor (all the latest RADEON 8500/9100 do not have the second RAMDAC) and DX9 support, the GeForce FX 5200 128bit comes out a leader.
<H4>US$30-45:</H4>


  • <LI>Quake3 Arena

    1. <LI>GeForce2 Pro 64MB
      <LI>GeForce4 MX440
      <LI>RADEON 7500LE

    <LI>Serious Sam: The Second Encounter

    1. <LI>RADEON 7500LE / GeForce4 MX 440 / GeForce2 Pro
      <LI>RADEON 9200SE
      <LI>GeForce4 MX440SE

    <LI>Return to Castle Wolfenstein (Multiplayer)

    1. <LI>RADEON 7500LE / GeForce4 MX 440 / GeForce2 Pro
      <LI>RADEON 9200SE
      <LI>GeForce4 MX440SE

    <LI>Unreal Tournament 2003

    1. <LI>RADEON 7500LE / GeForce4 MX 440
      <LI>GeForce2 Pro
      <LI>RADEON 9200SE

    <LI>Unreal II: The Awakening

    1. <LI>GeForce4 MX 440
      <LI>RADEON 7500LE
      <LI>GeForce2 Pro / RADEON 9200SE

    <LI>RightMark 3D

    1. <LI>RADEON 9200SE
      <LI>-
      <LI>-

    <LI>HALO: Combat Evolved

    1. <LI>RADEON 9200SE
      <LI>-
      <LI>-

    <LI>Splinter Cell

    1. <LI>RADEON 9200SE
      <LI>-
      <LI>-
As we can see, the oldies sold for pretty low prices today keep the lead in the competition. The RADEON 9200SE wins only because it supports multimonitor configurations and DX81.
<H4>Sub US$30:</H4>


  • <LI>Quake3 Arena

    1. <LI>RADEON 7200 64MB
      <LI>GeForce2 MX400
      <LI>GeForce2 MX200

    <LI>Serious Sam: The Second Encounter

    1. <LI>RADEON 7200 64MB
      <LI>GeForce2 MX400
      <LI>GeForce2 MX200

    <LI>Return to Castle Wolfenstein (Multiplayer)

    1. <LI>RADEON 7200 64MB
      <LI>GeForce2 MX400
      <LI>GeForce2 MX200

    <LI>Unreal Tournament 2003

    1. <LI>RADEON 7200 64MB
      <LI>GeForce2 MX400
      <LI>GeForce2 MX200

    <LI>Unreal II: The Awakening

    1. <LI>RADEON 7200 64MB
      <LI>GeForce2 MX400
      <LI>GeForce2 MX200

    <LI>RightMark 3D

    1. <LI>-
      <LI>-
      <LI>-

    <LI>HALO: Combat Evolved

    1. <LI>-
      <LI>-
      <LI>-

    <LI>Splinter Cell

    1. <LI>-
      <LI>-
      <LI>-
It was clear even at the end of 2000 that the RADEON 64MB DDR (renamed from RADEON 7200) was more powerful than the GeForce2 MX. Today we proved this once again. All these cards are already taken out of production; you can find only the stock remains. '
Also note that if the performance doesn't allow playback even at 800x600, you should sacrifice quality by reducing the detail level and switching off effects. It should also be considered at cards evaluation. '



So, according to them the FX5200 I bought was a good choice-as it came first in some tests, other tests either second or third.

 
From my understanding, the FX5200 Ultra is a decent card, but costs roughly $120 and up. For that price, you could buy something much better like a Radeon 9600 Pro. People who puchased the 9100 a couple of days got it for $35 + shipping, a much better deal IMHO.
 
Um, okay, a link would have been preferable to just quoting basically the whole article. 🙂 I vaguely recall that article, but remind me again why the various groupings--different price ranges?
 
Originally posted by: Pretty Cool
From my understanding, the FX5200 Ultra is a decent card, but costs roughly $120 and up. For that price, you could buy something much better like a Radeon 9600 Pro. People who puchased the 9100 a couple of days got it for $35 + shipping, a much better deal IMHO.
Click to expand...
Yep. It depends on the price of the deal (fps per $).

If he got the $35.00 hot deal from Shentech on the Radeon 9100 PRO 128MB AGP, then he would be hard pressed to find anything currently selling for up to $60 that will compete with that card. A search of Newegg's video card offerings between $50.00 and $60.00 yields nothing that would equal or beat the Radeon 9100 PRO. A lot of crippled 64bit FX5200 and 9200SE, or DX7 MX440's (which do rock in OpenGL due to nVidia's unmatched OpenGL optimizations).

But if he paid significantly more than $35 for it, there may be better cards for the money spent. Assuming he snagged the Shentech deal, there are simply no better cards currently selling for that price, excepting another 'hot deal' I don't know about.
 
I am in Australia-so the Shentech/New Egg specials mentioned would be useless to me - as not the companies may not be able to ship outside the United States.

At Harvey Norman's computer section (a lot like CompUSA) the FX5200's I found were about:
AUD$199-350.

At ITMegamart (they sell computer components) the Jetway FX5200 128 (NV34AD128BY) with TV out and DVI that I bought was AUD$99-on special down from about AUD$120.
 
An FX5200 Ultra is considerably faster than your FX5200 with 64bit memory.

Not only are your clock speeds slower, but you have half the memory bandwidth.
 
Core-mem 250-200(400) for the 5200 versus 325-325(650) for the 5200ultra plus the ultra has 128bit ram which makes a huge difference.

Note how the 128bit fx5200's demolish the abit 64bit fx5200. These aren't even ultras, just 5200's with 128bit memory.

Text
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top