"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. =/