Radeon Comparison? 8500LE vs 9000 PRO (Both 128MB)

[dokkktor]

Has anyone found a good article comparing the two?
All I have found are:
8500 vs 9000 Pro
8500 vs 8500LE
9000 vs 9000 Pro
64MB vs 128MB
.........etc
None have compared the 9000 Pro (128MB) vs 8500 LE (128MB)

I like the idea that the 9000 Pro has the newer technology, but that doesn't necessarily mean much when you consider the Geforce 3's with the Geforce 4 MX's.

The reports say that the 8500 (Non LE) is supposedly faster (?) but the 9000 Pro has had better scores on some of the reviews.
Which one is better for games?


I am a Gamer and I have had nothing but problems with my Geforce 2 Ti and its supposed conflict with AMD CPU's. (Get a lot of Blue Screens) I have been looking into it but haven't really found a suitable solution and I need the upgrade anyway.


My local Staples has both of them for the same price (Clearing out the 8500LE's) and I was seriously considering getting one of them.

Any help would be appreciated.

P.S.
The Geforce 2 Ti will be for sale soon if anyone is interested!

 

[Keysplayr]

GeForce 2 Ti is a good card, but you just have a bad platform. AMD Platforms and video cards have a kind of bad track record going way back. I don't know if its the chipset that your AMD Mobo is using or what. I will tell you this, go intel next time. Not because they are faster or anything like that, but because they are rock solid stable with ANY AGP video card. Just make sure you have either the Intel chipset or the SIS chipset (not the SIS 648, it has bugs). You will have tons less headaches. I have tried a few dozen different video cards of all makes, 3dfx, Nvidia, ATI, Matrox of all shapes and sizes. Not one single conflict or problem because I invested in a stable Intel platform. Now, if you are a die hard AMD fan, I fully understand and won't blame you for wanting to take the hard road. It's just that, well, you could be spending your time gaming instead of pulling out your hair.

Hope this makes some sense to ya. Good Luck with your choices.

Keys

 

[dokkktor]

Pentium 4 will be the way I go next. But the prices are still a tad bit too high for me to justify. The switch will entail new MOBO, DDR Ram and CPU. Too much of a jump for now. I still like AMD for getting comparible speeds out of their CPU's at less then half the cost.

Video card first - Platform change next.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: dokkktor
Has anyone found a good article comparing the two?
All I have found are:
8500 vs 9000 Pro
8500 vs 8500LE
9000 vs 9000 Pro
64MB vs 128MB
.........etc
None have compared the 9000 Pro (128MB) vs 8500 LE (128MB)

I like the idea that the 9000 Pro has the newer technology, but that doesn't necessarily mean much when you consider the Geforce 3's with the Geforce 4 MX's.

The reports say that the 8500 (Non LE) is supposedly faster (?) but the 9000 Pro has had better scores on some of the reviews.
Which one is better for games?


I am a Gamer and I have had nothing but problems with my Geforce 2 Ti and its supposed conflict with AMD CPU's. (Get a lot of Blue Screens) I have been looking into it but haven't really found a suitable solution and I need the upgrade anyway.


My local Staples has both of them for the same price (Clearing out the 8500LE's) and I was seriously considering getting one of them.

Any help would be appreciated.

P.S.
The Geforce 2 Ti will be for sale soon if anyone is interested!

For games (and everything) here is the order: 8500 is fastest, then 8500LE, then 9000 Pro, then 9000. The 9000 series and the 8500 use the exact same Direct X 8.1 engine. All the 9000 has is a slightly faster memory management algorithm, and a siginficantly slower core. The net result is that the 9000/Pro are still fast cards, but not as fast as the 8500 series.

Oh yeah and an 8500LE 128MB smokes the 9000 Pro, especially since the built-by ATI 8500LE 128MB's have a lot of overclocking headroom (I took mine from 250/250 to 315/315 with no problems!).
Hopefully this clears thing up for you.

 

[dokkktor]

Thank you kindly!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Brian48]

Just be advised. The newer 8500LE's (even the retail ones) are coming in at much slower clock settings. I haven't seen one for sale at the old 250/250 specs in a while. These are also pathetic overclockers so you might wind up getting the 9000 Pro by default, which is what ATI is trying to steer you towards anyway.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Yeah the 8500 series was laways very changable, 230/166 is about the lowest I heard of which is awful esp compared to a card sold under the same model name clocked at the usual 250/250 ... 230/230 is as low as you should go but still easily faster than a Rad9000PRO. The Rad9000 (non-PRO) is much slower, you're talking Rad7500, GF2TI territoy but of course with DX8. The Rad9x00 vary VERY little by manu and this is the 9000PRO's main strength, if you don't want to do research and don't mind ending up with a slightly slower card the 9000PRO is a fine choice. The Rad8500LE is only 10% slower than a Rad8500 when both are clocked where they should be but another thing to note is that the 8500 series unlike the 9000 series actually gains some perf by having 128MB over 64MB even if the extra RAM isn't truly utilised, this makes a Rad8500LE_128MB preferable to a Rad8500_64MB. BMS of Rad9000 vs Rad8500 & Rad8500LE ...

Tech Report

AnAndTech

Firing Squad