WARNING ***? Do NOT buy Sapphire 9100 ?s ? they?ve been neutered .. BIGTIME!!!

[Blastman]

I just bought a Sapphire 9100 64MB (OEM) card and did some testing. It is clocked 250/230 with ?4ns DDR memory. The 3Dmark2001 scores are way down from where I expected them to be -- in fact about 20 - 25% lower. This was first noticed in a thread here where ledfortr?s .. 9100 128MB card was under-performing significantly and the problem was never resolved.

I checked a lot of reviews and benchmarks before I bought this card so I have a very good idea where the scores should be. I was thinking maybe Sapphire loped off one of the memory controllers --- and this has been confirmed ?, Sapphire has reduced the memory bus from 128bit to 64bit.

This card is a complete rip-off rip. My tests put this new Sapphire 9100 64MB 250/230 even slower than a 9000 non-pro clocked 250/200.

My system Celeron-T 1.0A@1.33 (256MB), my 3Dmark2001 (10x7x32) default scores with ?

Sapphire 7500 64MB DDR (OEM 270/183) ? ..4303
Sapphire 9100 64MB DDR (OEM 250/230) ? ? 5356

My calculations show the 9100 should be at least 50% faster on this benchmark than my OEM 7500. I should be at scoring at least in the 6500 range at stock speeds easily. A guy in that Rage3D thread is getting .. 6855 ?on a Athlon TB 1.33 (DDR 2100) on a PowerColor 9100 250/195. The Athlon is a little faster than my system because of the DDR ram but it?s a slower clocked card.

At THG mainstream VGA charts Athlon 1.0 (256MB SDRAM) ?

7500 ? ? (290/230) ? 4377
9000 ? ? (250/200) ? 5433
9000pro ? (275/275)? ? 5812
8500LE ? (250/250) ? ? 6356

With my 9100 at stock, on a faster system I?m scoring only ? 5356 ? !!! --- this is less than the 9000 (non-pro) on the slower Athlon.

 

[Pete]

Good catch, thanks for the warning.

That said, I don't think anyone should be buying anything less than a 128MB card ATM if they're main purpose is to play games. If you cant afford a 128MB 9000P or 5200 for ~$100, then you should look into buying a used GF3Ti or 8500 for ~$50-80. Or look out for good deals like the Visiontek 128MB 9100 for $80 after MIR at CompUSA (that expires tomorrow).

 

[Blastman]

This should have been a really good card. Darn Sapphire.

That said, I don't think anyone should be buying anything less than a 128MB card ATM if they're main purpose is to play games

I would pretty well agree with that. I?m just a casual gamer (so far LOL) and I actually think 64MB is enough for a DX8 graphic cards for the vast majority of situations. I?m somewhat CPU limited with my Celeron-T 1.33 and SDRAM anyway so there are a lot of situations where I will have go for frame rates rather than maximum IQ. This maybe means not running textures at the highest levels in some situations and that?s what can usually bog down 64MB a little in the few rare situations I?ve seen. For the same reason I only game at a maximum resolution of 10x7. Since the 64MB cards usually have faster ram they will be normally be faster. 128MB Sapphire 9100?s unfortunately look like they suffer from the same 64bit problem as the 64MB cards and are more expensive to boot. Definitely won?t consider a DX9 card without 128MB.

I needed a card right away because my old card died. I was on my old Celeron 333 for a few days this week ?Ug! If the 9100 performed like it should maybe I could have held on to it for another year or so until I build a faster system (maybe a new Prescott!). I figured the 9100 would be a nice match with my C1.33.

I was thinking of a 9600 128MB non-pro but they aren?t out yet and according to my calculation will really be no faster than a 9100 ( a good 9100) in current games. Although the 9600 should be faster as new shader technology started showing up in games. The 9600 will probably be expensive for their performance when they debut too -- as all new cards are quite pricey when they?re new.

My thinking also is that the 9600 could possibly be ATI?s low end card by the fall of this year. They need a DX9 card in the low end even if just for marketing reasons to compete with the 5200. If the 9600 pro comes down about $100 (CAD)by the fall then my savings will pay for my 9100 anyway.

Just tested an idea. Tried running 3Dmark2001 in 16bit ---- and the performance jump is significant with this card.

3Dmark2001 ?

5356 ? (10x7x32)
5978 ? (10x7x16) ?11.6% faster.

 

[Blastman]

Ye ha. 16bit gaming again. Just like old times.

 

[Pete]

Yeah, with memory bandwidth that low, you're pretty much limited to 10x7x16b or 8x6x32b (like I am with my onboard GF2MX).

 

[Peter D]

/me looks at title

check!

 

[blazer78]

Well, i wouldn't say don't buy the radeon 9100, not all 9100's have 64-bit mem bus my one has 128-bit and it get around 6900 in my duron 1.1 with only 256 mb of ram, its ok to buy it but just be careful.... Sappire also got superior 2d quality compared to nvidia tat is but its not really a bad card and i can run all games @ 1024x768x32 full details no probs lol.

 

[Tab]

Another Reason not to buy a Sapphire Card!

 

[spanky]

dude that sucks. does sapphire advertise their 9100 as having a 128 or 64 bit mem bus? or do they mention nothing of it... which gives them the flexability to skimp where they please?

 

[sandorski]

I thought ATI was standardizing Radeon 9xxx model specs? Saphire should be slapped silly for this crap IMO.

 

[Blastman]

Sappire also got superior 2d quality

Yup, that?s one of the reasons I bought another Sapphire card. The 2D display quality of this card is excellent.

EDIT: The performance of ?older? Sapphire 9100?s I?ve seen in all the test reviews are fine. These 64bit models seem to have just showed up in the retail channel.

 

[Peter]

It might just be because it's an OEM card. These usually get made for large OEM customers (hence the name), and very often are stripped down to meet a certain price point. When there's surplus, they turn up on retail shelves, potentially disappointing uninformed buyers.
Chances are Sapphire's retail 9100 is quite different.

And no, ATi isn't standardizing specs. That'd make offering their chips to 3rd parties rather pointless - how should each of their partners find their market, serve their OEM customers, in an individually fit manner?

 

[kylebisme]

but defenatly return the card.

 

[Blastman]

It?s an OEM model from ncix.com here in Canada.

I looked at several Sapphire 9100 reviews and there was never an indication that OEM models were ever produced on 64bit memory configurations. Sapphire OEM 9100?s are the only 9100?s I?ve seen here in Canada, no retail models. On Sapphiretech?s site they only listed 2 models, one 64MB and one 128MB. I?ve also visited Rage3D forums several times reading the 8500LE/9100 threads and never found indication of a 64bit configuration there either (well, at least until this Friday, the day after I got my card ---someone else just got a 64MB neutered card). I assume the vast majority of Sapphire 9100?s sold in the US are OEM?s too.

but defenatly return the card.

Interesting idea, but what reason could I give ncix.com for returning my card?

 

[waycooly]

Same reason i gave Newegg two days ago when i returned the Sapphire 9100 i bought from them.Its on 64-bit mem bus not 128-bit.I guess i was one of the unlucky ones too.

 

[bluemax]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Another Reason not to buy a Sapphire Card!

You just have to be careful to buy the RIGHT card. nVidia has it too.. you can get GF4MX-440's in either SDR or DDR if you're not careful. 5200's also come in 64-bit and 128-bit versions.

Just be careful which you buy. You can't lump it into "Company X sucks!"

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: bluemax

Originally posted by: Tabb
Another Reason not to buy a Sapphire Card!

You just have to be careful to buy the RIGHT card. nVidia has it too.. you can get GF4MX-440's in either SDR or DDR if you're not careful. 5200's also come in 64-bit and 128-bit versions.

Just be careful which you buy. You can't lump it into "Company X sucks!"

They suck when they market a Card as having a 128-bit config.