Radeon 9000 PRO better than Radeon 8500???

[bullion416]

Is the ATI Radeon Atlantis PRO (either 64 or 128mb) better than the Radeon 8500 (64 or 128mb) card? I noticed that the clock speeds on the 9000 are faster plus it says it has a higher memory bandwidth. What do you think?

 

[tenoc]

No.

In fact, they have now re-branded the 8500 as the 9100 to show it's rightful place in the line-up.

Check here.

 

[NEVERwinter]

well from what I've seen, 9000pro only faster in 1 or 2 benchmarks, from total score 8500 still on the top of it.

 

[dguy6789]

the 9000 pro, not quite as fast in multi-texturing, is quite a bit faster in games that have a huge polygon count. DOOM 3 will run pretty well on a 9000 pro.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Doom III will suck on the 9000PRO, it will most likely suck more on the 8500 ... that's one game you'll be wanting a Rad9500PRO or better for. The Rad9000PRO is SLOWER than a Rad8500LE which in turn is slower than a Rad8500. However the biggest problem with the Rad8500 series is that clocks were allowed to be dictated by the manus, you could get 275/275 or as little as 230/166! However a Rad8500LE @ 230/230 is still generally better than a Rad9000PRO, that's how much perf the cheap outs lost, the Rad9000 series is little more than a cut dow, cheaper to make Rad8500. FYI Rad8500 should be 275/275 & 8500 should be 250/250 but expect things to differ. Another point is RAM, 128MB gives the 8500 series a nice little boost regardless of whether that extra RAM is needed or not, the 9000PRO gains nothing unless a game/app reqs more than 64MB. I'd defintiely suggest you get a Rad8500, 8500LE or 9100 with 128MB as they tend to be excellent value for money!

 

[BoberFett]

Doom III will suck on a 9000Pro? Granted, that's not near the fastest card available. But to say it'll suck?

Do you really think ID is actually planning on releasing a game that will "suck" on a card that's far more powerful than most people have?

 

[AnAndAustin]

Judging from the release of Doom 1 & 2 and the Quakes YES! I think ID have a lot of shares in the PC hw industry and always demand better kit than 90% of people own.

Anyway do remember the Rad9000PRO is significantly slower than a GF3 or Rad8500, and they're pretty old cards now. Many people have made an upgrade or plan to partly in readiness for games like UT and DoomIII and these are GF4TI - Rad9500+. Of course the game will run, but I'd suspect you'd be lucky to run decently with all detail settings on medium at a res of 800x600x32 without any 'eye candy'. Rad9000PRO with DX8 aside (probably a little slow for it to be truly useful anyway) isn't much faster at all than GF4MX, GF2TI and Rad7500 ...

Take a look

 

[ironique]

The 9000 Pro is actually a stripped down version of the 8500 so I think the 8500 will generally outperform the 9000 Pro. But I suggest you do away with both of them and get yourself a 9500 or 9700 based card. It's more future-proof, DX9 and all. Plus, did you know, on ATI's own site, the 8500 is classified as a Legacy card! So out with the old, and in with the new!

 

[bullion416]

Thanks for all the advice. However, I think I am going to wait until this summer to buy a new card (when I actually have money to spend). For now I will stick with my ATI Radeon 64mb DDR VIVO. It still runs most games fine in 1024 x 768 without a problem.

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: AnAndAustin
Doom III will suck on the 9000PRO, it will most likely suck more on the 8500 ... that's one game you'll be wanting a Rad9500PRO or better for. The Rad9000PRO is SLOWER than a Rad8500LE which in turn is slower than a Rad8500. However the biggest problem with the Rad8500 series is that clocks were allowed to be dictated by the manus, you could get 275/275 or as little as 230/166! However a Rad8500LE @ 230/230 is still generally better than a Rad9000PRO, that's how much perf the cheap outs lost, the Rad9000 series is little more than a cut dow, cheaper to make Rad8500. FYI Rad8500 should be 275/275 & 8500 should be 250/250 but expect things to differ. Another point is RAM, 128MB gives the 8500 series a nice little boost regardless of whether that extra RAM is needed or not, the 9000PRO gains nothing unless a game/app reqs more than 64MB. I'd defintiely suggest you get a Rad8500, 8500LE or 9100 with 128MB as they tend to be excellent value for money!

you dont have to worry about the manufacturer clock speed. most overclock very easily my 128mb 8500 le runs at 300/300 no problem (BGA memory)

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Doom III will suck on a 9000Pro? Granted, that's not near the fastest card available. But to say it'll suck?

Do you really think ID is actually planning on releasing a game that will "suck" on a card that's far more powerful than most people have?

yes.

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: bullion416
Thanks for all the advice. However, I think I am going to wait until this summer to buy a new card (when I actually have money to spend). For now I will stick with my ATI Radeon 64mb DDR VIVO. It still runs most games fine in 1024 x 768 without a problem.

Thats a good idea. About 6 months ago I upgraded to an 8500 128mb from the 64mb vivo you have. That card was unaccetable for games like ut2k3. I will h old onto this card for about another year, in which time it will run everything I need it too just fine. Then I will pick up a 9700 pro which will be at the 150$ or lower price point by then.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Johnbear007 the problem with having lower default clock speeds is that they tend to cheap out on the RAM which will almost always significantly kill o/c'ing attempt. Looking at these speeds you tend to get 1 step further up by o/c'ing in the RAM (230, 250, 275, 300), cores tend to o/c about the same so it is the RAM speed and type which are most important.

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: AnAndAustin
Johnbear007 the problem with having lower default clock speeds is that they tend to cheap out on the RAM which will almost always significantly kill o/c'ing attempt. Looking at these speeds you tend to get 1 step further up by o/c'ing in the RAM (230, 250, 275, 300), cores tend to o/c about the same so it is the RAM speed and type which are most important.

the 128 MB LE that is Built by ATI comes with BGA memory. At least the one I have does and its like 3.3ns It hits 300 without breaking a sweat.

 

[JohnnyT]

Where does a ti4200 64MB fit into this? OEM is $110 and I am debating between that and a 128MB 8500LE....

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: JohnnyT
Where does a ti4200 64MB fit into this? OEM is $110 and I am debating between that and a 128MB 8500LE....

Hmmm I would not buy a ti 4200, especially 64 mb. If you want to get cheap video card I would buy an 8500 LE and flash the bios to regular

if you want to spend a little more, get a 9500 pro

personally, I would just save up for another month, and buy a 9500 pro, if I were buying a card right now.

 

[AnAndAustin]

These are the primary price points.

A. CHEAP (as cheap as you should go) - Rad9000PRO, Rad8500LE, Rad8500 and Rad9100

B. CHEAPER MID-RANGE - GF4TI4200 in either std or enhanced 8 layer + BGA forms

C. PRICIER MID-RANGE - Rad9500PRO

D. HIGH END - Rad9700 and 9700PRO (GF-FX perhaps)

If you are on a strict budget the 'cheap' Rads offer excellent 'bang per buck' and unless you have a fast CPU diffs aren't huge with the faster cards. GF4TI4200 are also great 'bang per buck' and pull away from the 'cheap' Rads as CPU speed increases (P4 2.0ghz & XP2000+ are sweet speeds). Rad9500PRO is a great purchase for the longer term BUT you really do want a fast CPU to go with it (P4 2.4ghz or XP2400+ minimum really), it is faster than GF4TI4200 and with FULL AA & AF significantly faster than a GF4TI4600/4800 and you also get the 'future-proof' of DX9 too.

The Rad8500 - 9100 tend to vary a lot by manu, esp the all important clock speeds, GF4TI4200 are MUCH less variable (just like Rad9500PRO) and here's the key types:

1. GF4TI4200_128MB (std AGP4x) - clocked at 250/444 and likely o/c of 300/550.
2. GF4TI4200_64MB (std AGP4x) - clocked at 250/500 and likely o/c of 300/600.
3. GF4TI4200-8X_128MB (AGP8x) - clocked at 250/500 and likely o/c of 300/600.
4. GF4TI4200-8X_64MB (AGP8x) - identical perf to the std AGP4x 4200_64MB, same clocks and likely o/c.
5. GF4TI4200 using 8 layer 4400/4600 design and also BGA RAM - clocked around 270/550 and likely o/c of 300/650 - 330/700.

For reference GF4TI4400/4800SE are 275/550 (o/c 330/620) and GF4TI4600/4800 are 300/650 (o/c 330/700), a 4200 withthe same amount of RAM at the same clocks yields identical perf. RAM size also plays a part, a lower clocked 128MB card is better than a slightly higher clocked 64MB and the 64MB will REALLY suffer once something needs mroe than 64MB. All 4200 options are good, 1, 2 & 4 are very evenly matched, option 3 means you don't have to compromise. Option 5 are very good and better than most TI4400/4800SE but of course the '4200' branding will hurt you when you sell the card on. Forget the higher rated GF4TI as they aren't worth the extra cash, Rad9500PRO is definitely the way to go if you do want more. The only brands to steer clear of for 4200 are Evga, AOpen and Gainward (esp non-GS cards).

 

[CheapTOFU]

The only brands to steer clear of for 4200 are Evga, AOpen and Gainward (esp non-GS cards).

I don't know why you say that Evga, AOpen and Gainward (esp non-GS cards) suck...
I thought all geforce4 ti4200 cards are the same except the mem speed.
and if you say so, what do you recommend?

 

[AnAndAustin]

Any brand other than those 3. Those 3 brands are known to skimp on some of their 4200 cards, using cheaper slower clocked RAM which can often hurt stability but always hurt both perf and o/c'ability. For example, Evga GF4TI4200_64MB uses 4.0ns and 250/440 clocks which severly hits perf on a 64MB version and will really hold back the o/c. Gainward skimp on their non-GS cards to make the GS seem Golden when they're practicly run of the mill, even so certain simple manu'ing defects has tarnished Gainward's name. IIRC the AOpen 4200_128MB suffered because it uses 4.5ns RAM which is really maxed out even at the default 444mhz, VERY bad news for o/c'ing and also stability too! If these 3 manus (who have all done fine cards in the past BTW) skimp on these particular models it doesn't bode well for their other incarnations esp GF4TI. Practicly ALL other manu's seem to be VERY consistent with each other, so it really does come down to price, sw, leads, TVout/VIVO, colour, pretty cooling solution / box etc.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Johnbear007

Originally posted by: JohnnyT
Where does a ti4200 64MB fit into this? OEM is $110 and I am debating between that and a 128MB 8500LE....

Hmmm I would not buy a ti 4200, especially 64 mb. If you want to get cheap video card I would buy an 8500 LE and flash the bios to regular

if you want to spend a little more, get a 9500 pro

personally, I would just save up for another month, and buy a 9500 pro, if I were buying a card right now.

The 128MB Built By ATI 8500LE is the exception. I also had one, and it ran 310/310 no problem (also BGA 3.3ns memory). That card was a great one, but many third party cards have cheaper memory, ie 3.8 or even 4ns DDR and most is not BGA. Often they are clocked at 210-250 memory, and top out not too much higher than their stock speed since they use cheaper parts.

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: Johnbear007

Originally posted by: JohnnyT
Where does a ti4200 64MB fit into this? OEM is $110 and I am debating between that and a 128MB 8500LE....

Hmmm I would not buy a ti 4200, especially 64 mb. If you want to get cheap video card I would buy an 8500 LE and flash the bios to regular

if you want to spend a little more, get a 9500 pro

personally, I would just save up for another month, and buy a 9500 pro, if I were buying a card right now.

The 128MB Built By ATI 8500LE is the exception. I also had one, and it ran 310/310 no problem (also BGA 3.3ns memory). That card was a great one, but many third party cards have cheaper memory, ie 3.8 or even 4ns DDR and most is not BGA. Often they are clocked at 210-250 memory, and top out not too much higher than their stock speed since they use cheaper parts.

thats really too bad. Now I'm really glad I got a built by ATI. I will always buy built by ATI whenever I get an ATI card from now on. I really do love this card. It will easily last me another year I think (I dont run past 1280x1024 and mostly 1024x768) Worried a little about Star Wars Galaxies, but we will see. They havent released requirements yet

 

[AnAndAustin]

For the 9000 series then the 9500 series and up having a true ATI card matters much less as these all have HUGELY consistent. Outside of the US & Canada ATI no longer intend to sell any of their own brand Radeons ... if that what it takes to give ATI realistic international pricing then that's cool!