If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Radeon 9200 SE: any good?
I have just seen a Sapphire Radeon 9200 SE with 128 MB RAM for a fairly low
price. I guess this card has an ATI chipset, just like the old 3Dfx Voodoo cards who had a 3Dfx chipset but were made by a 3rd party manufacturer, right? Also, the main thing I'd like to know is if this Radeon 9200 SE 128 MB RAM would be any better than my current GeForce 2 MX 400 64 MB RAM. Would there be a noticeable difference or would it only be slightly better? Thanks for any input! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
**** NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
DONT DO ITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT. Get a 9600 pro Atleast. On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:24:20 -0400, "Ampersand" wrote: I have just seen a Sapphire Radeon 9200 SE with 128 MB RAM for a fairly low price. I guess this card has an ATI chipset, just like the old 3Dfx Voodoo cards who had a 3Dfx chipset but were made by a 3rd party manufacturer, right? Also, the main thing I'd like to know is if this Radeon 9200 SE 128 MB RAM would be any better than my current GeForce 2 MX 400 64 MB RAM. Would there be a noticeable difference or would it only be slightly better? Thanks for any input! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:24:20 -0400, "Ampersand"
wrote: I have just seen a Sapphire Radeon 9200 SE with 128 MB RAM for a fairly low price. I guess this card has an ATI chipset, just like the old 3Dfx Voodoo cards who had a 3Dfx chipset but were made by a 3rd party manufacturer, right? Also, the main thing I'd like to know is if this Radeon 9200 SE 128 MB RAM would be any better than my current GeForce 2 MX 400 64 MB RAM. Would there be a noticeable difference or would it only be slightly better? Thanks for any input! The 2D is "probably" crisper with the ATI instead of the GF2MX, and it would be faster, but not a lot, not enough to suddenly start playing semi-modern games well. Main issue is what you hope to gain, since they're both low-end cards it's likely you need something midrange or better to see significant enough performance benefit to make it worthwhile for gaming. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Ampersand wrote:
I have just seen a Sapphire Radeon 9200 SE with 128 MB RAM for a fairly low price. I guess this card has an ATI chipset, just like the old 3Dfx Voodoo cards who had a 3Dfx chipset but were made by a 3rd party manufacturer, right? Also, the main thing I'd like to know is if this Radeon 9200 SE 128 MB RAM would be any better than my current GeForce 2 MX 400 64 MB RAM. Would there be a noticeable difference or would it only be slightly better? Thanks for any input! For general use, either the 9200SE or the Geforce2MX 400 are sufficient. For gaming the 9200SE falls short. A 9600Pro, not SE would be a good choice for a mid-range gaming card. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"kony" wrote in message ... On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:24:20 -0400, "Ampersand" wrote: I have just seen a Sapphire Radeon 9200 SE with 128 MB RAM for a fairly low price. I guess this card has an ATI chipset, just like the old 3Dfx Voodoo cards who had a 3Dfx chipset but were made by a 3rd party manufacturer, right? Also, the main thing I'd like to know is if this Radeon 9200 SE 128 MB RAM would be any better than my current GeForce 2 MX 400 64 MB RAM. Would there be a noticeable difference or would it only be slightly better? Thanks for any input! The 2D is "probably" crisper with the ATI instead of the GF2MX, and it would be faster, but not a lot, not enough to suddenly start playing semi-modern games well. Main issue is what you hope to gain, since they're both low-end cards it's likely you need something midrange or better to see significant enough performance benefit to make it worthwhile for gaming. In this case, I also had the opportunity to pay a bit more to get a Radeon 9550 SE, a Radeon 9600 256 MB, a GeForce MX 4000 (MX 440), or a GeForce FX 5200. Is there a huge difference between any of these 4 cards? Will either of them make a huge difference with my current GeForce 2 MX 400 64 Mb? Thanks a lot! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 13:12:07 -0400, "Ampersand"
wrote: "kony" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:24:20 -0400, "Ampersand" wrote: I have just seen a Sapphire Radeon 9200 SE with 128 MB RAM for a fairly low price. I guess this card has an ATI chipset, just like the old 3Dfx Voodoo cards who had a 3Dfx chipset but were made by a 3rd party manufacturer, right? Also, the main thing I'd like to know is if this Radeon 9200 SE 128 MB RAM would be any better than my current GeForce 2 MX 400 64 MB RAM. Would there be a noticeable difference or would it only be slightly better? Thanks for any input! The 2D is "probably" crisper with the ATI instead of the GF2MX, and it would be faster, but not a lot, not enough to suddenly start playing semi-modern games well. Main issue is what you hope to gain, since they're both low-end cards it's likely you need something midrange or better to see significant enough performance benefit to make it worthwhile for gaming. In this case, I also had the opportunity to pay a bit more to get a Radeon 9550 SE, a Radeon 9600 256 MB, a GeForce MX 4000 (MX 440), or a GeForce FX 5200. Is there a huge difference between any of these 4 cards? Will either of them make a huge difference with my current GeForce 2 MX 400 64 Mb? Thanks a lot! Drop the GeForce4MX (440). While performance is ok, the part isn't even a DirectX8 part. It doesn't support ANY shaders, so it will be dog slow in any games which use shaders (nearly all of the more recent games). For all intents, you can consider it a faster version of what you have now. The GeForceFX 5200 is complicated. While it is a DX9 part, it comes in 3 versions. A 64bit memory version, a 128bit memory version and an Ultra version (128bit memory, faster core/memory clock speed). The differences with each version are very different. Definitely avoid the 64bit memory version of the card. That version will be approximately the same speed as what you have now, but with shader support. Rather pointless, given that while you get shader support, the core performance wouldn't be good enough for any of the games that might use it. The 5200 128bit version of the card is better, performance is comparable to a GeForce3Ti200, so it's not that great either, but certainly faster than a GeForce2MX400. The Ultra version is better, but pricing is a bit weird for that one. It's a bit overpriced for what it can do, and it's priced at about $10-20 Cdn less than the GeForce5600 -- which is considerably higher performance. Radeon 9550SE/9600. Their numbering scheme here is really screwed up. First, let's look at the 9600, which is their full priced/full featured version of this card. I don't think you're thinking of the 9600, as it's a full $100 Cdn higher than the any of the other cards listed, so it's significantly more expensive. You're probably thinking of the 9600SE, which is in the same price range. Anyways, the 9600, 9600SE, 9550, and 955SE are all the same chipset, more or less. All DX9 compliant. The differences? The 9600 is the original version of this. You can look all of this up on ATI's site (I had to to read it a few times to figure this out). This is the original and is our point of comparison. The 9550 is the same as the 9600, but with a slower clocked GPU (75Mhz slower) That's the one I opted for (I upgraded from a 5200. Before that, I had a GF2MX400 like you). The 9600SE is a version using 64bit memory. The GPU is clocked the same as the regular 9600. The 9550SE is a version using 64bit memory and a slower clocked GPU. In terms of performance within the family? 9600 9550 9600SE 9550SE See what I mean when I say the numbering is screwed up? Anyways, Disqualify the 5200 and MX for the reasons stated above, but if you can afford a Radeon 9600(no suffix) or a 5200Ultra, you're already in the next price range up, and can find better cards for not much more. Of course, then we're also getting into "slippery slope" territory. --------------------------------------------- MCheu |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 13:12:07 -0400, "Ampersand"
wrote: The 2D is "probably" crisper with the ATI instead of the GF2MX, and it would be faster, but not a lot, not enough to suddenly start playing semi-modern games well. Main issue is what you hope to gain, since they're both low-end cards it's likely you need something midrange or better to see significant enough performance benefit to make it worthwhile for gaming. In this case, I also had the opportunity to pay a bit more to get a Radeon 9550 SE, a Radeon 9600 256 MB, a GeForce MX 4000 (MX 440), or a GeForce FX 5200. Is there a huge difference between any of these 4 cards? Will either of them make a huge difference with my current GeForce 2 MX 400 64 Mb? Thanks a lot! The question is, "huge difference" at what? Doom3, for example, will not run very well from any of the above cards, nor will most forthcoming 3D titles unless they're just a rehash of yesteryear's gaming engines. Of the cards you list, the Radeon 9600 is better. There is a handy guide he http://www.rojakpot.com/default.aspx...var1=88&var2=0 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"MCheu" wrote in message ... On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 13:12:07 -0400, "Ampersand" wrote: "kony" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:24:20 -0400, "Ampersand" wrote: I have just seen a Sapphire Radeon 9200 SE with 128 MB RAM for a fairly low price. I guess this card has an ATI chipset, just like the old 3Dfx Voodoo cards who had a 3Dfx chipset but were made by a 3rd party manufacturer, right? Also, the main thing I'd like to know is if this Radeon 9200 SE 128 MB RAM would be any better than my current GeForce 2 MX 400 64 MB RAM. Would there be a noticeable difference or would it only be slightly better? Thanks for any input! The 2D is "probably" crisper with the ATI instead of the GF2MX, and it would be faster, but not a lot, not enough to suddenly start playing semi-modern games well. Main issue is what you hope to gain, since they're both low-end cards it's likely you need something midrange or better to see significant enough performance benefit to make it worthwhile for gaming. In this case, I also had the opportunity to pay a bit more to get a Radeon 9550 SE, a Radeon 9600 256 MB, a GeForce MX 4000 (MX 440), or a GeForce FX 5200. Is there a huge difference between any of these 4 cards? Will either of them make a huge difference with my current GeForce 2 MX 400 64 Mb? Thanks a lot! Drop the GeForce4MX (440). While performance is ok, the part isn't even a DirectX8 part. It doesn't support ANY shaders, so it will be dog slow in any games which use shaders (nearly all of the more recent games). For all intents, you can consider it a faster version of what you have now. The GeForceFX 5200 is complicated. While it is a DX9 part, it comes in 3 versions. A 64bit memory version, a 128bit memory version and an Ultra version (128bit memory, faster core/memory clock speed). The differences with each version are very different. Definitely avoid the 64bit memory version of the card. That version will be approximately the same speed as what you have now, but with shader support. Rather pointless, given that while you get shader support, the core performance wouldn't be good enough for any of the games that might use it. The 5200 128bit version of the card is better, performance is comparable to a GeForce3Ti200, so it's not that great either, but certainly faster than a GeForce2MX400. The Ultra version is better, but pricing is a bit weird for that one. It's a bit overpriced for what it can do, and it's priced at about $10-20 Cdn less than the GeForce5600 -- which is considerably higher performance. Radeon 9550SE/9600. Their numbering scheme here is really screwed up. First, let's look at the 9600, which is their full priced/full featured version of this card. I don't think you're thinking of the 9600, as it's a full $100 Cdn higher than the any of the other cards listed, so it's significantly more expensive. You're probably thinking of the 9600SE, which is in the same price range. Anyways, the 9600, 9600SE, 9550, and 955SE are all the same chipset, more or less. All DX9 compliant. The differences? The 9600 is the original version of this. You can look all of this up on ATI's site (I had to to read it a few times to figure this out). This is the original and is our point of comparison. The 9550 is the same as the 9600, but with a slower clocked GPU (75Mhz slower) That's the one I opted for (I upgraded from a 5200. Before that, I had a GF2MX400 like you). The 9600SE is a version using 64bit memory. The GPU is clocked the same as the regular 9600. The 9550SE is a version using 64bit memory and a slower clocked GPU. In terms of performance within the family? 9600 9550 9600SE 9550SE See what I mean when I say the numbering is screwed up? Anyways, Disqualify the 5200 and MX for the reasons stated above, but if you can afford a Radeon 9600(no suffix) or a 5200Ultra, you're already in the next price range up, and can find better cards for not much more. Of course, then we're also getting into "slippery slope" territory. --------------------------------------------- MCheu Thank you for your advice! I just took another look at the prices for these cards and they go like this (not mentioning the MX440, which wasn't my first choice anyway) (all prices in $Cdn): FX5200: 90$, Radeon 9550 SE: 105$, Radeon 9600 (no suffix, I think) with 256 MB: 130$. Given these prices, the most attractive would be the Radeon 9600. Would it be worth the price? Thanks! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 09:58:51 -0400, "Ampersand"
wrote: Thank you for your advice! I just took another look at the prices for these cards and they go like this (not mentioning the MX440, which wasn't my first choice anyway) (all prices in $Cdn): FX5200: 90$, Radeon 9550 SE: 105$, Radeon 9600 (no suffix, I think) with 256 MB: 130$. Given these prices, the most attractive would be the Radeon 9600. Would it be worth the price? Thanks! I can't say for sure. It will definitely be a big difference coming from a GF2MX400. I own a 9550 (no suffix) which as I mentioned previously is the same as a 9600 but with the GPU at a slower clock speed, so performance is slightly lower (but not by much, based on benchmarks) http://www.tweaknews.net/reviews/9550/index6.php That's a 9550 review, so the highlit orange entries are for that card. There is a representative 9600 card in there, which should approximate what you're considering. At the time, the price difference was much greater. Since then, it seems not many people sell the 9550 (no suffix) anymore, and the price gap has narrowed to $5. Is it worth it? That depends on what you expect. I've played DOOM3, Farcry, DeuxEX2, and Halo on this card. All of these, I guess you could consider cutting edge. I get framerates in the 20-30fps range, but I run at 800x600 resolution with no AA. All other options enabled. I can run at 1024x768, but performance is uneven, with the games reasonably smooth most of the time, but slowing to a crawl when multiple enemies appear (sorry, no benchmark numbers, this is subjective). I'd expect you'd get similar results with the 9600, probably a bit better, but not by much. --------------------------------------------- MCheu |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
When Good Discs Go Bad | Ablang | General | 0 | June 27th 04 03:47 AM |
can anyone confirm? computer resets when loading winx, not softw, one bad address when testing good ram on this machine | General | 0 | June 22nd 04 04:44 PM | |
Good video card and monitor to go with-GeForce vs. Radeon | MarkW | General | 5 | January 3rd 04 06:17 PM |
Radeon 9600 128MB for CND$175 = good deal? | Mitchua | General | 7 | September 6th 03 07:19 PM |
Looking for a videocard/CPU/misc. parts, any suggestions? | Cyde Weys | General | 9 | July 12th 03 12:14 AM |