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]

On 9 Oct 2003 07:26:43 -0700
(LRW) wrote:

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?

Clock speed is far from the whole story. The FX5200 is entry level,
like the Geforce4 MX--the competing ATI board would be the Radeon 9000
or thereabouts. The 9600 is midrange--various design features and
optimizations give it a good deal more real-world performance than the
5200 (well, doesn't really need much in the way of features and
optimizations to beat a 5200--the 5200s are pretty doggy, especially
the ones with 64-bit memory). The Ti4200 will perform about like the
9600, maybe even a bit faster, _provided_ you don't want to use the new
capabilities provided by DirectX 9--the 4200 will run most DirectX 9
games just fine but if you turn on all the new graphic features then
you'll see your system grind to a halt as it tries to do in software
what the Geforce FX boards and the Radeon 9500 and up do in hardware.

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


--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"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.