Should I wait for ATI 9500

[runnhagen]

I´v been thinking of buying a ATI-card both to get a performance increase from my current GF2 and to be able to get better 2D and DVD-playback performance.

The card Iv been looking at the most is a Hercules 3D Prophet FDX8500LE 64MB but since I play a lot of FPS games I would like to have a bit more 3D-performance. Should I wait for the 9500-card that probably will cost twice as much?

I am also wondering if u think buying the 128Mb version of the 8500Le woud do much for its performance?

 

[TheWart]

I would wait....but that can be said at anytime of the year. It is really up to how badly you need the card. As for the 128mb version, I highly doubt whether it will impact the performance that greatly.

 

[AnAndAustin]

runnhagen, what CPU you are running makes a fair diff, but generally the Rad8500/LE are great performers for the money, Rad9500 should be awesome and better than GF4TI4200 but then it will more likely be $200 than $150, neither nVidia nor ATI will want to give people DX9 hw at a cheap price as they want the enthusiasts to pay $350-400 for that priviledge. If you buy a card now I would rec Rad8500/LE 128MB or else GF4TI4200 128MB, don't get 64MB the price diff isn't worth it and 64MB cards already take a nasty hit in some games let alone games due out soon.

 

[runnhagen]

I have a Athlon 1333Mhz CPU with 512MB SDRAM so my GF2 should be the biggest bottleneck in my system, right?

Unfortunaly I live in Sweden and here the pricedifferance between 64MB($130@bulk) and 128MB is about $50 ... thats why Im thinking about the 64MB version.

Overhere the 9500 will probably cost about $300 when its released and the 9700 is priced at about $550+ ...

 

[AnAndAustin]

Yes you won't gain much more perf at all than a Duron 900 equipped with a GF2.

1.3ghz will get the most out of Rad8500/LE and GF3 cards, you won't gain a huge amount with 4200 unless you're considering a CPU upgrade in the near future. 4200 works well with 'slower' CPUs but it isn't until you go beyond 1.4ghz that the diffs really become apparent.

It sounds as though the extra 64MB will cost you too much, but just to give you an idea of the perf hit in some current games and certainly games due out WHEN 64MB is breached a GF4TI4200-64MB at 300/600 perfs on par with a GF4TI4200-128MB at 250/444. You may find a GF3TI200 128MB or Rad9000pro 128MB better long term than Rad8500 64MB, what are those priced like in Sweden?

If image quality is a priority then you really do want a Radeon or GF4 card, GF3's are still better than GF2 but still not up to Radeon/GF4/Matrox standards. If you want good IQ on a GF3 then Leadtek and Gainward are known to be the best manus, I'd rec the latter. GF3 and GF4TI don't have hw DVD playback, but anything with a CPU faster than 600mhz that is really a none issue.

It is uncertain when Rad9500 is released, it may be after NV18, NV28 and NV30 are released around Dec and then you'll prob end up waiting for the budget NV30. I doubt these cards will be below US$200 and that's if they are released before 2003, I don't think nVidia or ATI will want to give users a 'budget' DX9 card while people are willing to pay $350+ for them. I'd say since you've got a decent CPU and are stuck with a GF2 either get any type of 128MB GF3, Rad9000pro or Rad8500 with 4200 being a good idea if you plan to get a CPU upgrade in the coming months.

 

[Athlon4all]

To be honest, I wouldn't bother waiting, because you may end up being disappointed. I've heard that it will have only 4 Pixel Pipes, thats not that important, but I have also heard things saying that it will feature only a 128-bit memory bus and that could seriously hamper its performance. You may be better off with just a 8500/9000

 

[runnhagen]

Thanks for the input guys!!

Im probably gonna go for the 8500LE, the 128MB card if I can get a hold of one at a decent price.

 

[AnAndAustin]

Cool! Just to reiterate, you may find a GF3TI200 128MB or Rad9000pro 128MB better long term than Rad8500/8500LE 64MB, what are those priced like in Sweden inc the 128MB version of the 8500 cards, are they true ATI and what are the clocks set at? Anyway, whatever you decide those Radeon cards are very sweet, esp for the prices although do keep an eye on the costs, in the UK for ages a Rad7500 was priced at GF3 levels and the same for the Rad8500 at GF4TI levels. Things are a little better, take a look (www.dabs.com):

non-ATI RadVE 64MB £32
non-ATI Rad7500 64MB £49
non-ATI Rad9000pro 64MB £83
non-ATI Rad8500LE 64MB £129
non-ATI Rad8500LE 128MB £135
non-ATI Rad8500 64MB £148
ATI Rad8500 64MB £202

GF2MX400 64MB £38
GF2TI 64MB £52
GF4MX440 64MB £56
GF3TI200 64MB £75
GF4MX460 64MB £93
GF3TI200 128MB £105
GF4TI4200 64MB £113
GF4TI4200 128MB £133
GF4TI4400 128MB £190
GF4TI4600 128MB £214

Xabre400 64MB £67
Parhelia 128MB £295

 

[PliotronX]

If you don't need DVI (for digital LCDs), check out the 128Meg "built by ATI" 8500LE at Newegg for $115. Avoid Hercules 8500 cards, I've heard of problems with them and they haven't been OCing well. It's best to get a BBA card.

This 128Meg 8500 should last you well into next year and by then there will be many DX9 cards for the budget minded.

 

[runnhagen]

AnAndAustin: I really need to have good DVD-playback and tv-out on the card so a Nvidiacard isnt a real option to me. The 128MB 9000Pro is just a few bucks cheaper then the 128MB 8500LE so if Im gonna buy a 128MB card its probably gonna by a 8500LE.

prices from komplett.se
Hercules 9000Pro 128MB: $160
Hercules 8500 128MB: $300
Hercules 8500LE 128MB: $180
Hercules 8500LE 64MB: $130

PliotronX: Almost every ATI-card sold in Sweden is a Hercules card so if I try to buy a different brand I´ll have to pay more for it to. Ordering outside the EU(preferably sweden) isnt an option either since I would have to pay Swedish VAT @25% + customs fees.

 

[AnAndAustin]

runnhagen based on those prices the Rad8500LE 128MB is a steal and IMHO certainly the best one to go for. GF4MX cards are the only recent nVidia cards which sport hw DVD playback but it still isn't quite as good as the Radeon's implimentation, plus the Radeon cards are faster anyway!

ATI are certainly the wisest choice for a Radeon card, but you have to weigh up the reduced cost of going non-ATI. For any type of Rad8500/8500LE card you're talking 10% speed loss at worst and simply poorer o/c'ing BUT still VERY nice speed. Another thing to bear in mind when not buying a true ATI Radeon is image/build quality and dual RAMDACs for true dual display which some manus seem to compromise on. However I don't think the image quality or build quality are all that significant at all with Hercules and you don't seem to mind dual display functionality so Hercules are GREAT cards esp if they're mroe than 10% cheaper the true ATI. Not trying to knock Radeons, they are GREAT, just trying to help you to forsee any potential probs of not going for a true ATI.

 

[Rand]

I'd agree it's not worth wiaiting for the R9500. It looks to be quite a bit cut down from the R9700, though it should still be a very nice competitor against the GF4 Ti4600, as well as offering full DX8 compliancy.
We've got little idea as to when it will actually be released though. As it stands you may well be waiting for November0December before it's available.

GF4MX cards are the only recent nVidia cards which sport hw DVD playback

While the GF4 MX is certainly nVidia's most advanced hardware DVD acceleration including full IDCT support is hardware, that does not mean no other nVidia card has any form of hardware DVD assistance. nVidia has implemented basic levels of hardware DVD assistance ever since the original GeForce.

That said, if excellent DVD playback capabilities and TV-Out are of prime importance then ATi would certainly be a far preferable option over anything nVidia has available.

but you have to weigh up the reduced cost of going non-ATI. For any type of Rad8500/8500LE card you're talking 10% speed loss at worst and simply poorer o/c'ing BUT still VERY nice speed.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your statement, but you seem to be implying third party ANY OEM Radeon 8500 or Radeon8500LE is slower then ATi's own boards.
This is quite incorrect, as Soyo sells OEM and Retail Radeon 8500's at 290/290 which is the fastest of any R8500 board including ATi's own. GigaByte and Hercules sell Retail 'Pro' models of their R8500's that are clocked at 275/275 identically with ATi's own R8500.

Third party R8500's can vary quite a lot in speed, some are as low as 230/230 or 250/250 whereas others are clocked as high as 290/290 which would be faster then ATi's boards.
Then of course there is Crucial's joke of an R8500 which is clocked at 250/166.

The Hercules 3D Prophet FDX8500LE 64MB specifically is clocked at 250/250.

Personally I've no problem with Hercules Radeon boards, in my experience they seem to be of relatively high quality of manufacture and Hercules RMA practices and tech support are reasonably good. Image quality seems comparable with ATi's own models, which is certainly a considerable improvement over the rather average 2D quality their nVidia boards offered and the relatively mediocre 2D of their Kyro boards.
Overclocking has been a bit iffy in my experience with Hercules Radeon boards though.
Overclocking does seem a touch iffy on Hercules Radeon boards

 

[AnAndAustin]

Hey Rand.

QUOTE Rand: "I'd agree it's not worth wiaiting for the R9500. It looks to be quite a bit cut down from the R9700, though it should still be a very nice competitor against the GF4 Ti4600, as well as offering full DX8 compliancy."

I know you mean DX9 rather than DX8, don't you? I agree with the rest of your Rad9500 summary though.

QUOTE Austin: "GF4MX cards are the only recent nVidia cards which sport hw DVD playback"

Yeah I meant full DVD hw playback like what is found in Radeon cards although I believe the Radeon cards are still slightly better as the use 10bit RGB info while nVidia use 8bit, but I seem to rem someone saying you'd have to compare them side by side to see the diff anyway.

QUOTE Rand: "if excellent DVD playback capabilities and TV-Out are of prime importance then ATi would certainly be a far preferable option over anything nVidia has available."

Well I think DVD playback with modern CPUs is almost irrelevant but there are still advanatages to it so this is something GF4MX AND Radeon cards do well. As for TVout, nVidia implimentations although still functional and cheap plainly suck and I am very disappointed this wasn't addressed in GF4 cards as nVidia have certainly cleaned up their act with image quality, hw DVD playback (GF4MX) and dual display to try to gain back some areas which Radeons have hammered nVidia on in the past (nVidia getting scared or just being sensible). The most annoying thing is that the TV chips used on GF4 and many other GF cards have overscan ability which nVidia simply can't seem bothered to tweak!

QUOTE Rand: "Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your statement, but you seem to be implying third party ANY OEM Radeon 8500 or Radeon8500LE is slower then ATi's own boards."

No sorry. I probably didn't make it clear that clocks/speed, o/c'ability, image/build quality and features are places where some non-ATI Radeon manus skimp and not in all of those areas either. If you want dual display, true ATI speeds or expect top notch image quality you may be disappointed unless you check thoroughty first or are willing to risk it for the saving. As for the oem/retail many people were also caught out here not realising that this often effects Radeon cards, not HUGELY but it often still results in disappointment. As far as clocks/speed, o/c'ability, image/build quality and features these are NOT generally BIG differences to the true ATI cards but I am simply trying to help people to realise you aren't simply getting the same for less money as many people think. As you say the poorest Radeon image quality is still much better than GF2 and GF3 cards, but I know the GF4 vs Rad is somewhere we disagree and that is fine but IMHO GF4 cards and esp GF4TI are now as good as ATI and standard Matrox cards and for the vast majority of users we're talking imperceptibe diffs anyway.

 

[Chu]

>> I really need to have good DVD-playback and tv-out on the card so a Nvidiacard isnt a real option to me

From expirence, if you have the CPU power to burn, software DVD decoding is *MUCH* better then any non dedicated solutions (and most dedicated solutions are on par). TV-Out quality on some (well, ok, almost none, but some!) nVidia cards is excellent -- do some looking around if you think a GeForceX would be the best option from a gaming perspective.

-Chu