| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Radeon 9600, FX5200, or Ti4200
Well, my old card finally gave up the ghost (I was long overdue for a
new card anyway being a Radeon 7500,) but I can really only spend less than $150 for a new card. Looking at a couple reviews, I've seen good things about the ATI Radeon 9600. A little more than $150, but supposedly excellent for the price. But, I've had GeForce chip cards before, and have been very impressed. Plus I can find the FX5200 and Ti4200 both for $115 or less. AND here's what I found techspec-wise: Radeon 9600Pro: $160 / Core/Memory clock 400MHz / 300MHz / Memory Interface 128 bit FX5200: $68 / Effective Memory Clock: 400MHz / RAMDACs: Dual 350MHz / Graphics Co 256-bit Ti4200: $115 / Effective Memory Clock Rate (MHz): 512 RAMDACs (MHz) (each have 2 RAMDAC): 350 / Graphics Co 256-bit I really want to get the Radeon because anecdotally I hear good things, but from the numbers, the FX5200 seems much better, AND much cheaper (which is really surprising, because isn't the Ti4200 a generation behind the FX5200??) So, what am I missing here? Why does the more expensive card have seemingly less power? And if anyone knows of where I can get any one of these cards for less than those prices, please let me know! Thanks. =) Liam druid -at- celticbear -dot- com |
"LRW" wrote in message om... Well, my old card finally gave up the ghost (I was long overdue for a new card anyway being a Radeon 7500,) but I can really only spend less than $150 for a new card. Looking at a couple reviews, I've seen good things about the ATI Radeon 9600. A little more than $150, but supposedly excellent for the price. But, I've had GeForce chip cards before, and have been very impressed. Plus I can find the FX5200 and Ti4200 both for $115 or less. AND here's what I found techspec-wise: Radeon 9600Pro: $160 / Core/Memory clock 400MHz / 300MHz / Memory Interface 128 bit FX5200: $68 / Effective Memory Clock: 400MHz / RAMDACs: Dual 350MHz / Graphics Co 256-bit Ti4200: $115 / Effective Memory Clock Rate (MHz): 512 RAMDACs (MHz) (each have 2 RAMDAC): 350 / Graphics Co 256-bit I really want to get the Radeon because anecdotally I hear good things, but from the numbers, the FX5200 seems much better, AND much cheaper (which is really surprising, because isn't the Ti4200 a generation behind the FX5200??) So, what am I missing here? Why does the more expensive card have seemingly less power? And if anyone knows of where I can get any one of these cards for less than those prices, please let me know! Thanks. =) In order of performance is just like the price ranking, the Radeon 9600 will be the fastest, with the Ti4200 coming in second and the FX5200 last. The Radeon will have better image quality -- and it's definitely the pick of this litter. |
"tom" wrote in message news:0efhb.6938$f7.395326@localhost... In current and older games, the ti4200 is generally as fast or faster than the radeon 9600 - it's just not dx 9.0 compatible so that's probably an issue. People really seem to like the 9600, and it's a decent card, but it really isn't all that fast. Tom Where did you hear that? Doesn't the 9600 pull ahead once you enable AA and AF? A quick look on Google brought these up: http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2...o/index.x?pg=9 http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2...o/index.x?pg=8 |
In order of performance is just like the price ranking, the Radeon 9600
will be the fastest, with the Ti4200 coming in second and the FX5200 last. The Radeon will have better image quality -- and it's definitely the pick of this litter. In current and older games, the ti4200 is generally as fast or faster than the radeon 9600 - it's just not dx 9.0 compatible so that's probably an issue. People really seem to like the 9600, and it's a decent card, but it really isn't all that fast. Well let's start - the FX5200 is the slowest of the bunch, and pretty much useless for games at anything other than lower resolutions. The Ti4200 is a decent card, and the 9600 is also a good card, but for DX8 functions the Radeon and GF are too close to call in terms of performance - BUT for DX9 eye candy the Radoen has to take the crown - HL2 is the first of many such games. |
"LRW" wrote in message om... Well, my old card finally gave up the ghost (I was long overdue for a new card anyway being a Radeon 7500,) but I can really only spend less than $150 for a new card. Looking at a couple reviews, I've seen good things about the ATI Radeon 9600. A little more than $150, but supposedly excellent for the price. But, I've had GeForce chip cards before, and have been very impressed. Plus I can find the FX5200 and Ti4200 both for $115 or less. Wait for the 9600XT (November). The core is 100MHz faster than the 9600 Pro. ATI says the card will be faster than a 9700 Pro. If true, that would be a very fast card for an MSRP of $199US. Too_Much_Coffee ® --- Got GigaNews? http://www.giganews.com/customer/gn26215 Liam druid -at- celticbear -dot- com |
On 10/9/2003 8:56 AM Paul Turnbull befouled our nation with:
"tom" wrote in message news:0efhb.6938$f7.395326@localhost... In current and older games, the ti4200 is generally as fast or faster than the radeon 9600 - it's just not dx 9.0 compatible so that's probably an issue. People really seem to like the 9600, and it's a decent card, but it really isn't all that fast. Tom Where did you hear that? Doesn't the 9600 pull ahead once you enable AA and AF? A quick look on Google brought these up: http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2...o/index.x?pg=9 http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2...o/index.x?pg=8 Yeah that's a fact. Raw speed, compared even to my old GF3 Ti500, on my new 9600 Pro isn't really that mind blowing, but with that card I would only occasionally enable 2x AA & AF, and I have friends with Ti4200s that pretty much leave those features off. On older games I was getting ridiculously high frame rates if I wanted to set things up that way. Now with the Radeon 9600 Pro, I can run a game like Quake3 with optimal framerates, 160 fps avg., and have 6x AA and 8x AF enabled. -- Can I trade my happiness for some money? Steve [Inglo] |
|
"Skid" wrote in message news:Jzehb.712163$YN5.604396@sccrnsc01...
"LRW" wrote in message om... AND here's what I found techspec-wise: Radeon 9600Pro: $160 / Core/Memory clock 400MHz / 300MHz / Memory Interface 128 bit FX5200: $68 / Effective Memory Clock: 400MHz / RAMDACs: Dual 350MHz / Graphics Co 256-bit Ti4200: $115 / Effective Memory Clock Rate (MHz): 512 RAMDACs (MHz) (each have 2 RAMDAC): 350 / Graphics Co 256-bit In order of performance is just like the price ranking, the Radeon 9600 will be the fastest, with the Ti4200 coming in second and the FX5200 last. The Radeon will have better image quality -- and it's definitely the pick of this litter. So, why's the Radeon, which I trust your and the other replyer's assesment that it's better as well as the higher price tag, better than the two nVidias which have the 256bit core and higher clock speeds? The Radeon having only 128bit and slower speeds, it SEEMS logical that it should be less powerful. But then, it seems the video card insdustry thrives on confusing the consumer. I mean, the FX5200 IS newer than the Ti4200, right? But it's less powerful? CPUs, mobo chipsets, harddrive specs, they're all easy to understand but video cards are a mess! And a new one comes out every week that may or may not be better than its predecessor, and you sure can't tell by its name. =/ |
"LRW" wrote in message
om... SNIP So, why's the Radeon, which I trust your and the other replyer's assesment that it's better as well as the higher price tag, better than the two nVidias which have the 256bit core and higher clock speeds? The Radeon having only 128bit and slower speeds, it SEEMS logical that it should be less powerful. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way - I suggest you search the web for reviews that compare the performance of both cards and make your decision in light of actual performance figures. Try www.anandtech.com for example. JB |
If you go for FX5200, you will find you almost can not play any games
released this year. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:56 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HardwareBanter.com