Radeon 9000 Pro or 9100??

[KGB1]

I'm looking to upgrade my Celery 1.3 (has a 8 MB vanta.. for now )

I looked at 9000Pro's with 128 Memory.. has Pin holes near GPU so I can add my own Crystal Orb later on.. cool

Saw 9100 (Re-badged Radeon 8500 LE right?) with 128 MB ram.. has HSF also.. but its Epoxied On.. so I can't add a good cooler unless its a Zalman Epoxied on it.. So I'm asking.. the price between the two is minimul $10 at most in some place..

Whats the clock rate for 9000pro and 9100?

Whch is a better overlclocker later on... and pretty much under $100. Are there any other websites I can find it?

 

[Reliant]

The 9100 will be faster is that is what you want to know.

 

[pr0di9y]

I got both of the cards , as for the Radeon 9000 Pro the clk speed is 275/250 and for the Radeon 9100 is running at 250/250 both wih 128MB DDR both are from PowerColor. Im currently using the Radeon 9100 on my main system overclock to 275/275 and works wonder. What i would suggest you is try to get the Gigabyte Radeon 9500 Pro 64MB DDR card cause it is running at 275/275 if im not mistaken, but if you plan to get the 9100 it sould no be any problem base on performance.

Cheers.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: KGB
I'm looking to upgrade my Celery 1.3 (has a 8 MB vanta.. for now )

I looked at 9000Pro's with 128 Memory.. has Pin holes near GPU so I can add my own Crystal Orb later on.. cool

Saw 9100 (Re-badged Radeon 8500 LE right?) with 128 MB ram.. has HSF also.. but its Epoxied On.. so I can't add a good cooler unless its a Zalman Epoxied on it.. So I'm asking.. the price between the two is minimul $10 at most in some place..

Whats the clock rate for 9000pro and 9100?

Whch is a better overlclocker later on... and pretty much under $100. Are there any other websites I can find it?

My vote goes with the Radeon 9100, for the best prices on ATI video cards the best place to look is Dealtime which is here:-

Click here for great prices on ATI video cards!

 

[Goi]

Some Radeon 9100s run slower than others. The Sapphire Atlantis 9100 128MB runs at 250/200 while the 64MB version runs at 250/230. Both have been benched to be slower than a Radeon 9000 Pro.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: Goi
Some Radeon 9100s run slower than others. The Sapphire Atlantis 9100 128MB runs at 250/200 while the 64MB version runs at 250/230. Both have been benched to be slower than a Radeon 9000 Pro.

Well, the Sapphire 9100 64 MB runs a bit faster than the Sapphire 9000 Pro in QIII on my machine. I don't remember the specifics though.

Unfortunately, the 9100 is too slow to run UT2003's outdoor maps smoothly on my Celeron 1.4. I'm wondering if a 9500 or 9500 pro will compensate for my slow CPU. See here.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: Goi
Some Radeon 9100s run slower than others. The Sapphire Atlantis 9100 128MB runs at 250/200 while the 64MB version runs at 250/230. Both have been benched to be slower than a Radeon 9000 Pro.

Well, the Sapphire 9100 64 MB runs a bit faster than the Sapphire 9000 Pro in QIII on my machine. I don't remember the specifics though.

Unfortunately, the 9100 is too slow to run UT2003's outdoor maps smoothly on my Celeron 1.4. I'm wondering if a 9500 or 9500 pro will compensate for my slow CPU. See here.

He'll need to turn down some of the eye candy but I've had UT2003 running well at 800x600 even with a lowly GF4 MX440 and a Duron 1.1ghz. I think anything more powerful than a Radeon 9100 will be wasted with his cpu.

 

[giocopiano]

Don't wanna crash the party but my vague impression that they never fully sorted out the drivers with the 8500 (now 9100). Don't know quite what it was, but 128mb versions always did disproportionately better than 64mb cards too re stutters and framerates.
I just thought that the redesigned, newer 9000 would suffer less and it seems more in line with newer ATi architecture.
I was just thinking the 64mb 9000 is really cheap, might behave better than an 8500, and 128mb might be overkill for a lower range card like that anyway, that's all.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: giocopiano
Don't wanna crash the party but my vague impression that they never fully sorted out the drivers with the 8500 (now 9100). Don't know quite what it was, but 128mb versions always did disproportionately better than 64mb cards too re stutters and framerates.
I just thought that the redesigned, newer 9000 would suffer less and it seems more in line with newer ATi architecture.
I was just thinking the 64mb 9000 is really cheap, might behave better than an 8500, and 128mb might be overkill for a lower range card like that anyway, that's all.

I agree, I havn't used a Radeon 9100 myself but the 9000 Pro I used worked flawlessly.