Radeon 9000 PCI

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
T

trikster2

Banned
Oct 28, 2000
1,907
0
0
Well every few months I decide to uprade the integrated on-board video on my cheap and quiet dell.

When I brought the thing I intended to use a Voodoo5 PCI but 3DFx went out of business before my Voodoo2 outlived it's usefulness (I have low standards).

Then it seemed like the MX400 or the Radeon 32Mb SDR PCI or the AIW Radeon PCI were destined to be my video card.

Then I said the heck with it and built a 1Ghz Duron and got a GeForce3 Ti200

Then I got a KVM and found myself playing two online games at once (and the integrated video sucks wind esp compared to the GeForce3)

So I'm back looking for a PCI card.

I thought PCI cards would die with the MX400 and Radeon but Nvidia and Radeon keep on supporting the PCI bus.

After looking at information on the Radeon 7000 PCI and the Geforce4 MX420 I had almost decided on the Radeon 7000 PCI

Then I found the low-profile, passively cooled, Radeon 7500 PCI with dual video output.

All set to order and then the Radeon 9000 came out and there is rumored to be a PCI version.

Is the Power Color/Radeon 9000 the last "great" PCI card? Can it best the Vodoo5?

I have no idea as I can't find any PCI reviews or any place that sells the card.

Gosh I'm long winded tonight.

Finaly the question:

?????????????????????????????????????????????????

Where/When can I buy the PowerColor/ATI 9000 PCI in the U.S.A

Thanks!

?????????????????????????????????????????????????

And for those of you that say: Don't bother to upgrade just build a new AGP capable computer:

Explain to my wife why I need a third computer!

 
P

Peter

Elite Member
Oct 15, 1999
9,640
1
0
Well relax folks, it's been a mere two weeks since this product has been presented. It'll be a while until it makes it into the shops. Asking PowerColor themselves can't hurt either ...
 
A

AnAndAustin

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2002
2,112
0
0
;) Well don't forget how old Voodoo5 is now, it struggles against a GF2MX which is a much better card in most respects, hw T&L, drivers, etc but does lose out on image quality and AA.

:D Right, GF2MX and Rad7000 are pretty closely matched, as are GF4MX420 and Rad7500 but a Rad9000/9000pro is much better. GF4MX420 is better than all of the cards listed in terms of AA and also sports good image quality, hw DVD playback, TVout and dual display too. However Radeon cards have better TVout and as well as having hw DVD playback and most support dual display too.

:) So forget GF2MX and Rad7000. Rad7500 and GF4MX420 are very close so buy whatever's cheaper. If you can wait to see if Rad9000 makes it to PCI, it should as it has low power req, low heat emissions (no HSF req) and is faster than the other cards AND has full DX8 hw functions to boot.

:eek: If your CPU is below 500mhz then don't bother waiting for Rad9000, get a Rad7500 or GF4MX420. HTH!
 
T

trikster2

Banned
Oct 28, 2000
1,907
0
0
Here is TCWO's reply


Yes, as soon as it's available to us. Thanks for your interest.


-----Original Message-----
From: *****************
Sent: Aug 22, 2002 1:26:41 AM
Subject: PowerColor RV25P-B3

Hi

Do you plan on carying the PowerColor ATI Radeon 9000 PCI upgrade edition
(Model RV25P-B3)?
 
R

Rand

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
11,071
1
81
Originally posted by: klah
voodoo5?? That has about the same performance as the GF2MX: Anand's voodoo5 review
Click to expand...

I'd put it roughly between the GF DDR and the GF2 GTS, both of which are faster then the GF2 MX except in low resolutions wherein the MX pulls ahead of the GF DDR and V5.

It's a mute point though, because the V5 doesnt taking even remotely near the performance hit the GF does by going to PCI. The V5 is at it's heart little more then a PCI board in an AGP slot, it effectively treats it has a slightly faster PCI slot and does not utilize any of AGP's advanced features.
Both nVidia and ATi's latest boards rely heavily upon AGP's advanced feature set and take a rather significant performance hit by going to PCI.

That's a large part of the reason PCI V5's tend to be so heavily sought after. PCI V5's are in very low availability, and sell for pretty excessive prices compared to AGP variants and even other clearly superior AGP boards.


Right, GF2MX and Rad7000 are pretty closely matched, as are GF4MX420 and Rad7500 but a Rad9000/9000pro is much better. GF4MX420 is better than all of the cards listed in terms of AA and also sports good image quality, hw DVD playback, TVout and dual display too. However Radeon cards have better TVout and as well as having hw DVD playback and most support dual display too.
Click to expand...

I'd put the R7000/VE roughly between the GF2 MX200 and MX400, with the R7200 falling in marginally faster then the MX400. The GF4 MX420 is very rarely at all comparable to an R7500... most frequently it tends to perform comparably to the old GF2 GTS-V. Perhaps you meant the GF4 MX440, and not the MX420?

I wouldnt necessarily say the MX420 has superior FSAA to all of the above listed boards.
In terms of texture mem usage, and performance it certainly posesses a better FSAA implementation. However any of the boards would be a preferable choice in terms of FSAA compatibility as none of the others suffer the inability to antialiase alpha textures as does the GF4. The GF4 MX's MSAA also tends to be somewhat more blurry then ATi's "Quality" SmoothVision implemenation, and comparable at removing jaggies.

I don't think one can make such a sweeping comment as to say the GF4 MX's FSAA is superior without mentioning the context within which you giew it as superior. It's more 'usable' due to it's excellent performing implementation, but that does not make it superior across the board.
 
A

AnAndAustin

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2002
2,112
0
0
I'd put it (Voodoo5) roughly between the GF DDR and the GF2 GTS, both of which are faster then the GF2 MX

:eek: Well even your link shows that Voodoo5 struggles against GF2MX, sure as res increases it takes a lead but it's hardly faster, esp when you consider poor drivers and lack of hw T&L on the V5, of course V5's AA is much better though. From the links I've seen V5 perfs worse than GF2MX when coupled with a faster CPU.

"I'd put the R7000/VE roughly between the GF2 MX200 and MX400"

:D So pretty much GF2MX territory then ;).

The GF4 MX420 is very rarely at all comparable to an R7500... most frequently it tends to perform comparably to the old GF2 GTS-V. Perhaps you meant the GF4 MX440, and not the MX420?
 
A

AnAndAustin

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2002
2,112
0
0
:) Well I expected GF4MX420 to give comparable perf to GF2MX400, but it doesn't, it is pretty much even with GF2GTS but with better AA. Rad7500 pretty much kept pace with GF2TI in most things, but GF4MX440 is faster than GF2TI, esp in AA, so therefore MX440 is a good 10% faster than Rad7500.

" wouldnt necessarily say the MX420 has superior FSAA to all of the above listed boards."

;) Well in breif it I am 100% correct, it doesn't pay to get too deep. The perf hit taken by all of the other cards is pretty major, and they don't have GF2GTS perf to begin with either. Sure Radeon's ultra slow SuperSampling AA is a tad sharper, but it's SOOOO slow even on Rad8500 cards. I agree it is a little more complex, but I think my summary was more than accurate.
 
A

Athlon4all

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2001
5,416
0
76
most frequently it tends to perform comparably to the old GF2 GTS-V. Perhaps you meant the GF4 MX440, and not the MX420?
Click to expand...
Rand, I know you've made statements like that before, but I am curious to see some actual benchmarks between the MX420 and GF2 MX400. Know anywhere thats reviewed them?

Anyways, I would bet that the R7500/P9000 PCI would defeat everything else for the sole reason they use DDR memory where as every other card mentioned here uses SDRAM.

Oh, and I would pit the R7000 below slightly even the MX200 because for one, it has practically no more bandy than the MX200 does (200MB/s or so more prolly), and while it does have HyperZ, it has No hardware T&L while unlike the V5, suffers somewhat by being a PCI rather than AGP.
 
A

AnAndAustin

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2002
2,112
0
0
;) Don't forget there is a lot more to a gfx card's perf than pure clock speed, and the use of DDR RAM doesn't necessarily equal better perf when the chipsets differ. Look at how the GF4TI4200 at 250/444 nearly always beats both the ATI retail Rad8500 (275/550) and GF3TI500 (240/500). Or how GF2TI (250/400) perf about as well as the Rad7500 (290/460). And GF4MX420 (250/166) keeps pace with GF2GTS (200/333) and that's SDR vs DDR! Rad9000 (250/400) or Rad900pro (275/550) in PCI form would destroy every other PCI card currently on the market, but it's got a lot more to do with the technology, GPU and implimentation than purely DDR RAM.
 
R

Rand

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
11,071
1
81
Originally posted by: Athlon4all
most frequently it tends to perform comparably to the old GF2 GTS-V. Perhaps you meant the GF4 MX440, and not the MX420?
Click to expand...
Rand, I know you've made statements like that before, but I am curious to see some actual benchmarks between the MX420 and GF2 MX400. Know anywhere thats reviewed them?

Anyways, I would bet that the R7500/P9000 PCI would defeat everything else for the sole reason they use DDR memory where as every other card mentioned here uses SDRAM.

Oh, and I would pit the R7000 below slightly even the MX200 because for one, it has practically no more bandy than the MX200 does (200MB/s or so more prolly), and while it does have HyperZ, it has No hardware T&L while unlike the V5, suffers somewhat by being a PCI rather than AGP.
Click to expand...

Actually the latest drivers for the Radeon 7000 enable full DX7 compliant T&L support, and apparently it's boosted performance quite a lot.

Regarding the GF4 MX420, I'll see if I can dig up a few reviews of the board for you.

I'm thinking the Radeon 9000 Pro in PCI should hit around V5 PCI performance levels, which given that it has full driver support and a much more recent feature set should make it a clearly superior board.
I've not seen any PCI R9000 benchmarks yet though, so it's hard to say.
Certainly the GF4 MX420/Radeon 7500 in PCI were still quite a ways below the V5.

Of course any AGP R9000 would easily outperform the V5, as would an AGP R7500 or most any other budget card available right now.
 
A

AnAndAustin

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2002
2,112
0
0
:) Just to point out that from what I've read and seen most of these cards will only be hit about 5-10% by going from AGP to PCI, it is more of a prob however when a PCI card's RAM is breached. So basicly AGP benchmarks will give a very accurate depiction of these cards perf in PCI form.

;) Lets see what is around on Voodoo5 perf:

AnAndTech Voodoo4 review (inc V5, GF2MX, GF2GTS & Radeon SDR/DDR)

AnAndTech Voodoo5 review (inc GF1, GF2MX, GF2GTS, TNT2, V3, V4 & Rage)

TomsHW Radeon reviews (inc GF2MX, GF2GTS, GF1 & V5)

Tech Report Voodoo5 review (inc GF2GTS, GF1, TNT2)
 
A

AnAndAustin

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2002
2,112
0
0
:) Voodoo5 vs the rest using 3Dmark2001 and an Athlon 1.4ghz we see this(card: total, games1-2 FPS low detail):

Voodoo5: 2500, 40, 40, 57
GF2MX: 3700, 64, 60, 62
GF2TI: 5200, 100, 89, 95
GF4MX420: 4100, 71, 63, 67
GF4MX440: 5500, 98, 87, 94
RadVE/7000: 2350 ,41, 37, 44
Rad7500: 5200, 86, 94, 89
 
A

AnAndAustin

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2002
2,112
0
0
R

Rand

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
11,071
1
81
Originally posted by: AnAndAustin
:) Just to point out that from what I've read and seen most of these cards will only be hit about 5-10% by going from AGP to PCI, it is more of a prob however when a PCI card's RAM is breached. So basicly AGP benchmarks will give a very accurate depiction of these cards perf in PCI form.
Click to expand...

I tend to disagree completely, I'd say your looking at a good 30% performance drop from going to PCI over an AGP Radeon/GeForce. My own personal experience with nVidia/ATi's modern PCI cards has indicated this, and it's certainly held up from the benchmarks I've seen onlie of PCI variants.

Example: I'd put the PCI GF2 MX400 as performing very closely, and even minutely below the AGP GF2 MX200, and there is little doubt the MX200 is a clearly inferior board.
Until nVidia/ATi stop relying so heavily on many of AGPs advanced features I don't expect this to change.

As for 3DMark results... well I'll stick to the real world thanks. :p
I don't put much faith in 3DM2001 at all, especially not when comparing boards of differing feature sets.
 
A

AnAndAustin

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2002
2,112
0
0
;) Rand, I'm very sure GF2MX, GF4MX and the Radeons lose only about 10% of perf when going from AGP to PCI, although as I pointed out this diff will be far more significant if the RAM limit is breached as this is one thing AGP copes FAR better with, and of course AGP has a dedicated bus running at about 266mhz (AGP4x) as opposed to PCI's bus at 33mhz which is shared with soundcards, modems, NICs etc. However bleak as it seems though these lower spec cards seem to lose little speed. Anyway, I think I've done my fair share of hunting around for reviews so I think it's about time someone else explored AGP vs PCI and the ACTUAL real world hit it brings.
 
A

AnAndAustin

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2002
2,112
0
0
VOODOO5 SUMMARY:

Link1 AnAnd (Oct 2000): CPU 1.1ghz: Q3A V5 at 70FPS 20% faster than GF2MX, GF2GTS 45% faster than V5. MDK2 V5 at 68FPS but GF2MX is 1% faster and GTS is 66% faster than V5. UT V5 66FPS 25% faster than GF2MX, GTS is 27% faster than V5.

Link2 AnAnd (July 2000): CPU 750mhz: Q3A V5 66FPS 50% faster thna GF2MX, GTS is 22% faster than V5. In 16bit V5 80FPS 4% faster than GF2MX, GTS is 31% faster than V5. Q3A with a 550mhz CPU shows the same diffs. Q3A with higher textures; V5 59FPS 38% faster than GF2MX, GTS 32% faster than V5. In 16bit V5 66FPS 13% SLOWER than GF2MX, GTS is 50% faster than V5. UT V5 53FPS 16% faster than GF2MX and 5% FASTER than GTS. 16bit perf is about the same. UT with a 550mhz CPU shows all 3 cards are almost identical. V5 o/c; 10% higher clocks give 7% faster perf Q3A but 0.6% in UT. AA on V5; 2xAA takes a 50% hit and 4xAA takes a 70% hit ... OUCH!
 
A

AnAndAustin

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2002
2,112
0
0
Link3 TomsHW (July 2000): CPU 1ghz: Q3A the V5 is between the GF2MX and the GTS. Q3A NV13 the GF2MX and GTS are 33% faster than V5. Expendable V5 is inbetween the GF2MX and GTS again. Evolva shows V5 inbetween GF2MX and GTS again but closer to GTS perf. Dagoth Moor and Evolva Bump Mapped can't be run by V5 (due to T&L?). MDK2 shows V5 slower than GF2MX and GTS is double the speed of V5!

Link4 TechRpt (Q3 2000): CPU 800mhz: Q3A GTS is 24% faster than V5. 3Dmark2000 GTS scores 62% more, probably due to the T&L on GF2 cards.

NOTE: These use the current drivers at the time, 3dfx soon went under while nVidia drivers improved along with support modern OS, Win2000 perf shows V4 loses 25-33% speed going to Win2000. V5 lacked T&L found on all GeForce cards as 3dfx wanted to make Glide dominant against OpenGL and DX, needless to say they failed. A check of 3Dmark2001 with modern day drivers shows GF2MX scores 50% more, GF4MX420 scores 66% more and the GF2TI scores double the score of Voodoo5.
 
rbV5

rbV5

Lifer
Dec 10, 2000
12,632
0
0
AnAndAustin, The guy is looking for a recommendation for a PCI card, not some endless babble on PCI vs AGP. Your last several replies aren't even on topic....way to hijack his thread. Geez, I'm just a little suprised you didn't give him some advice on somehow cramming a GF4 4200 in there somehow, and give some exaggerated "proof" on how it would "scale" with his rig :confused:
rolleye.gif


Seems like once you jump in anymore..I lose all interest in the thread...........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom