Which is faster? 8500, 9000, 9100, or 9200?

[Scrooge2]

I am really confused. i remember sometime back ATI changed the 8500 to 9xxx but i'm not sure what. I know they toned down some of its features. ANyone know which one is the fastest version? 9200 maybe?

 

[RussianSensation]

8500 has 2 possible versions:

8500 regular has 4 pipelines with 2 textures per pipeline and runs at 275/275(550) speed
8500 le = 4x2 but runs at 250/250 => equivalent to 9100 card 128-bit
Beware that some 9100 cards come with 64-bit memory as well and are about 2x as slow.
9000 non-pro = has 4 pipelines with 1 texture per pass runs somewhere 250/250 i believe
9000 Pro = 4x1 but runs at 275/275 => this is Radeon 9200.

Basically 8500 regular is the fastest out of all of those cards, but if any one of these cards run a game slow all the other ones will too. The difference might be 10-20% between the cards (except the 64-bit version which is 50+% slower) but none of these cards are fast enough for the current games with good image quality.

In this price range your best bet is GeForce 4 4200 for $80.

 

[Peter]

9000 and 9200 are identical (other than for 8x AGP support in 9200, which does nothing for performance). There are many cards built from those on many performance levels, from SE and low-profile cards with 64-bit memory and slow core clocks up to "Pro" versions with everything maxed out.

The same applies to 8500 and 9100 - same chip (exact same in this case), but with many ways of varying the actual card's performance.

 

[NEVERwinter]

the original 8500 is the fastest one, clocked at 275/275.
Then there's the toned-down 8500, known as 8500LE and/or 9100 which clock is varied.. 250/250, 250/225 up to 200/183 (if I'm not wrong...)

9000 is slower than those because of it's 4x1 pipeline and 9200 is just the AGP8x version of 9000.

 

[VIAN]

8500 baby. 275/275 DX8.0 and some DX8.1

 

[Todd33]

They are all DX8 GPUs right? The cheapest DX9 is the 9600SE? Not that DX9 matters at this level.

 

[VIAN]

8500 is DX8 w/some DX8.1 functionality.

9000 - 9200 is full DX8.1 functionality.

 

[BigEdMuustaffa]

Question: Is reg 8500 a good card to use with an AMD xp2000 (266 fsb) and pc2700 memory? Maybe for non-3D gaming?



Can an 8500 be upgraded via drivers to directx 9 capability? I have a brand new retail 8500 reg still in the unopened box and don't know whether to keep it and buy something more up to date or what.....thanks...

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: BigEdMuustaffa
Question: Is reg 8500 a good card to use with an AMD xp2000 (266 fsb) and pc2700 memory? Maybe for non-3D gaming?



Can an 8500 be upgraded via drivers to directx 9 capability? I have a brand new retail 8500 reg still in the unopened box and don't know whether to keep it and buy something more up to date or what.....thanks...

it cant be upgrade to dx9 but for 2-d gamin, onboard graphics is good enough

 

[zodder]

That's like asking what turd smells better!

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: zodder
That's like asking what turd smells better!

That is very true. If gaming is important to you, you should not consider any of these cards. They will not play HL2, doom 3, Far Cry or any new game in the next 6 months even at 1024x768 at medium detail level without AA/AF. It's obvious, the cards are technically 3 years old.

If you want current DX8 games to play fast these cards will do.

Like I said for DX8 games <$100 Geforce 4 4200 is the best card or 4xxx family equivalent.

Otherwise consider at least Radeon 9600 Pro.

If you do not play games a lot, buy the cheapest card between the 4 in question, EXCEPT any 64-bit memory derivative.

 

[Pete]

VIAN, all those cards are DX8.1 (PS1.4/VS1.x).

BigEd, you can't "upgrade" an 8500 to be able to use DX9 effects. It can be used in a PC with DX9 installed, it'll just use DX8.1 effects, at most. An 8500 isn't an extremely fast card at the moment. As for whether or not to keep it, that depends on how much money you could get for it. A 4200 would be a faster card overall. If you can sell your 8500 for about the price of a 4200, I'd do it. I'd also aim for 128MB on a video card, but whether that much memory is nec'y really depends on whether the games you want to play can make good use of it.

In terms of performance, it's: 8500 128MB (275/275) > 8500LE/9100 (250/250) > 9000Pro (275/275) > 8500LELE/9100 (250/230 or 250/200) > 9000/9200 (250/200).

8500/9100 are both R200, which is 4x2.
9000 is RV250 , which is 4x1.
9200 is RV280, which is just an RV250 with (basically mostly for marketing purposes) support for AGP 8x.

8500/9100s can be noticably faster in certain games optimized for dual textures; otherwise, they're about even with an equivalently-clocked 9000/9200.

 

[blazer78]

Originally posted by: Pete
VIAN, all those cards are DX8.1 (PS1.4/VS1.x).

BigEd, you can't "upgrade" an 8500 to be able to use DX9 effects. It can be used in a PC with DX9 installed, it'll just use DX8.1 effects, at most. An 8500 isn't an extremely fast card at the moment. As for whether or not to keep it, that depends on how much money you could get for it. A 4200 would be a faster card overall. If you can sell your 8500 for about the price of a 4200, I'd do it. I'd also aim for 128MB on a video card, but whether that much memory is nec'y really depends on whether the games you want to play can make good use of it.

In terms of performance, it's: 8500 128MB (275/275) > 8500LE/9100 (250/250) > 9000Pro (275/275) > 8500LELE/9100 (250/230 or 250/200) > 9000/9200 (250/200).

8500/9100 are both R200, which is 4x2.
9000 is RV250 , which is 4x1.
9200 is RV280, which is just an RV250 with (basically mostly for marketing purposes) support for AGP 8x.

8500/9100s can be noticably faster in certain games optimized for dual textures; otherwise, they're about even with an equivalently-clocked 9000/9200.

so ur saying a 9000 cloacked at 275/275, is faster than my 9100 clocked at 250/200 for games that aren't optimized for dual textures? oh man, theres no way i can o/c the memory up to 275.... =(

 

[oustedone]

Just try to find yourself a 9500 Pro. I still have no reason to replace mine after 2 years of running strong and it does DX9! Mine stays right on the heals of the 9700 and smokes th 9600's in any flavor. No wonder ATI stopped making it cause its too powerful for the price. I paid $200.00 and its the best 200 bucks ive ever spent. Just my 2 cents. Aquamark3= 36,177

 

[clicknext]

8500LE 128MB or 9100 128MB IF it's clocked at 250/250.

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by: blazer78

so ur saying a 9000 cloacked at 275/275, is faster than my 9100 clocked at 250/200 for games that aren't optimized for dual textures? oh man, theres no way i can o/c the memory up to 275.... =(

I think so, but it shouldn't be that much faster: probably not more than a few percent. Don't worry about it.

 

[Todd33]

Can anyone comment if the 9200 128bit is faster than a 9200SE 64 bit?

 

[Pete]

Logically, it should be twice as fast in bandwidth-limited situations, as it has twice the bandwidth. So, yes. If you want to game at all, you don't want a video card with a 64-bit memory bus.

 

[Todd33]

Cool, the 9200 is cheaper too (building a low end HTPC).

 

[VIAN]

VIAN, all those cards are DX8.1

Yeah, you're right.

 

[Viper96720]

VGA Charts
9200SE is not good

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: VIAN

VIAN, all those cards are DX8.1

Yeah, you're right.

I was confused at first, too. It's the GeForce 3/4 Tis that are DX8, not DX8.1

 

[BigEdMuustaffa]

Thanks....

 

[Gagabiji]

Originally posted by: VIAN
8500 baby.

 

[modedepe]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Can anyone comment if the 9200 128bit is faster than a 9200SE 64 bit?

Omg, the 9200se is one of the worst cards ever. They found a way to make a bad card (the 9200) even worse.