Radeon 9600se

I`m having performance problems with mijn Radeon, benchresults are not even
as high as a fx 5200.I`m using the latest omega drivers running a p4 2,8,
1024 mb on windows xp pro.Any suggestions??

The card is very slow indeed (as is it seriously handicapped by 64bit band).
What kind of benchmarks are you getting? (3DM03 score shoud be somewhere
around 1600)

"Harold Jonk" wrote in message
...
I`m having performance problems with mijn Radeon, benchresults are not
even
as high as a fx 5200.I`m using the latest omega drivers running a p4 2,8,
1024 mb on windows xp pro.Any suggestions??

"Harold Jonk" wrote in message .. .
I`m having performance problems with mijn Radeon, benchresults are not even
as high as a fx 5200.I`m using the latest omega drivers running a p4 2,8,
1024 mb on windows xp pro.Any suggestions??

The SE indeed has an 64-bits memory bandwidth, much alike the FX5200
64-bits version it's indeed very very slow.

I fear to slow for really enjoying DX9 titles

To bad ati allowed for the 9600SE to exist...

On 21 Jan 2004 05:10:46 -0800, (Dark Avenger)
wrote:

"Harold Jonk" wrote in message .. .
I`m having performance problems with mijn Radeon, benchresults are not even
as high as a fx 5200.I`m using the latest omega drivers running a p4 2,8,
1024 mb on windows xp pro.Any suggestions??

The SE indeed has an 64-bits memory bandwidth, much alike the FX5200
64-bits version it's indeed very very slow.

I fear to slow for really enjoying DX9 titles

To bad ati allowed for the 9600SE to exist...

yep... but its designed to compete against the fx5200... both are
useless DX9 cards.

Its business sense... they'd rather you buy a 9600se than a fx5200 -
even if they suck.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

Darthy wrote in message . ..
On 21 Jan 2004 05:10:46 -0800, (Dark Avenger)
wrote:

"Harold Jonk" wrote in message .. .
I`m having performance problems with mijn Radeon, benchresults are not even
as high as a fx 5200.I`m using the latest omega drivers running a p4 2,8,
1024 mb on windows xp pro.Any suggestions??

The SE indeed has an 64-bits memory bandwidth, much alike the FX5200
64-bits version it's indeed very very slow.

I fear to slow for really enjoying DX9 titles

To bad ati allowed for the 9600SE to exist...

yep... but its designed to compete against the fx5200... both are
useless DX9 cards.

Its business sense... they'd rather you buy a 9600se than a fx5200 -
even if they suck.

Yes... if you have a pc that is not meant for gaming but has to do DVD
and a few other video tricks... the 9600SE will do that fine, and has
better 2d quality and is reasonable fast as the FX5200.

On 22 Jan 2004 09:46:44 -0800, (Dark Avenger)
wrote:

Darthy wrote in message . ..
On 21 Jan 2004 05:10:46 -0800, (Dark Avenger)
wrote:

"Harold Jonk" wrote in message .. .
I`m having performance problems with mijn Radeon, benchresults are not even
as high as a fx 5200.I`m using the latest omega drivers running a p4 2,8,
1024 mb on windows xp pro.Any suggestions??

The SE indeed has an 64-bits memory bandwidth, much alike the FX5200
64-bits version it's indeed very very slow.

I fear to slow for really enjoying DX9 titles

To bad ati allowed for the 9600SE to exist...

yep... but its designed to compete against the fx5200... both are
useless DX9 cards.

Its business sense... they'd rather you buy a 9600se than a fx5200 -
even if they suck.

Yes... if you have a pc that is not meant for gaming but has to do DVD
and a few other video tricks... the 9600SE will do that fine, and has
better 2d quality and is reasonable fast as the FX5200.

Its a useless gaming card, but for a 2-3 year warranty - $100 or so,
includes HL2 coupon - used for a non gaming PC - its an excellent
card... I installed it on someone's computers... its fine for what he
needs it for.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

Darthy wrote in message . ..
On 22 Jan 2004 09:46:44 -0800, (Dark Avenger)
wrote:

Darthy wrote in message . ..
On 21 Jan 2004 05:10:46 -0800, (Dark Avenger)
wrote:

"Harold Jonk" wrote in message .. .
I`m having performance problems with mijn Radeon, benchresults are not even
as high as a fx 5200.I`m using the latest omega drivers running a p4 2,8,
1024 mb on windows xp pro.Any suggestions??

The SE indeed has an 64-bits memory bandwidth, much alike the FX5200
64-bits version it's indeed very very slow.

I fear to slow for really enjoying DX9 titles

To bad ati allowed for the 9600SE to exist...

yep... but its designed to compete against the fx5200... both are
useless DX9 cards.

Its business sense... they'd rather you buy a 9600se than a fx5200 -
even if they suck.

Yes... if you have a pc that is not meant for gaming but has to do DVD
and a few other video tricks... the 9600SE will do that fine, and has
better 2d quality and is reasonable fast as the FX5200.

Its a useless gaming card, but for a 2-3 year warranty - $100 or so,
includes HL2 coupon - used for a non gaming PC - its an excellent
card... I installed it on someone's computers... its fine for what he
needs it for.

You I found out HP still sells the following configuration ( now don't
laugh ), but happily for cheap!

A P4 1600Mhz with 256Kb cache
256Mb PC133 memory
Riva TNT

Crappy in many ways but for the person a good deal, $300 could get her
something slightly better or better configured, but for word and such
a $300 system works fine. Oh that inclusive a 17" monitor.