9000vs9100vs9200 (non pro)

Ssseth

Distinguished
Jul 17, 2002
125
0
18,680
The models I am looking at are all 128MB non pro versions. I was leaning towards the 9100 but honestly I am not sure.

- <A HREF="http://www.sapphiretech.com/vga/9000.asp" target="_new">Sapphire Atlantis Radeon 9000 128MB</A>
- <A HREF="http://www.sapphiretech.com/vga/9100.asp" target="_new">Sapphire Atlantis Radeon 9100 128MB</A>
- <A HREF="http://www.sapphiretech.com/vga/9200.asp" target="_new">Sapphire Atlantis Radeon 9200 128MB</A>

Any suggestions? (umong these cards only please, have to deal with a local retalier and of course they don't have a Ti4200)
 

Ris3n_Da3mon

Distinguished
Sep 1, 2003
186
0
18,680
I'm pretty sure that the 9000 and the 9200 are just stripped down versions of the 8500, whereas the 9100 IS the 8500. So the 9100 would be the one to get.

01001001 00100000 01001100 01001111 01010110 01000101 00100000 01110011 01110000 01100101 01100001 01110010 01101101 01101001 01101110 01110100 00100001
 

cleeve

Illustrious
Go 9100.

Only one of those with two texture units per pipe.

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9500 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>2600+</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,055</b></font color=red>
 

Ssseth

Distinguished
Jul 17, 2002
125
0
18,680
So you are sure that the 9100 is better?

Does anyone have a link to any benchmarks so I can look for myself (I couldn't find any).

Thanks for the replies thus far.
 

TheRod

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2002
2,031
0
19,780
I have a Radeon 8500LE 128 Megs. I get 10000 points in 3DMark 2001 with overclocking.

I can't remember my score in 3DMark03. But I must to you that this card will not shine in new 3d games. I barely get the minimum playable FPS in HALO. I can play it at 800x600 with medium details.

If you buy this card, don't expect good performance in new games or in near future games like HL2 or DooM 3. I'm honest with you, these cards perform well in DX7/8.0/8.1 games. But we can't expect much for future games.

So, if you plan to play a lot, get at least a Radeon 9600 PRO.

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
 

cleeve

Illustrious
(FYI, a 9100 is actually a rebadged Radeon8500LE.

Yes, I am sure it's better.)

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9500 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>2600+</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,055</b></font color=red>
 

TheRod

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2002
2,031
0
19,780
ummm sure about this...

Check this chart...
<A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.html" target="_new">http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.html</A>

There is different specs for Radeon 8500 and 9200. They don't use the same CORE and the Radeon 9200 is a 4x1 card instead of a 4x2. The memory speed is not the same too, Radeon 8500 have faster ram.

And the 8500 clearly outperform the 9000/9100/9200 cards.

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
 

cleeve

Illustrious
Nono, you don't understand.

A Radeon 9100 *IS* a Radeon 8500. It's simply rebadged.

The Radeon 9000/9200 are basically the same. The 9200 is clocked a little faster, and has 8x AGP. But they both have 4 pipes with 1 TMU each.

The 9100 exists because Ati had extra 8500 chips around, and wanted people to know that it was more powerful than the 9000's when they sold 'em.
The 9100's are the exact same cards as the 8500LE, but with a different BIOS.

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9500 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>2600+</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,055</b></font color=red>
 

TheRod

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2002
2,031
0
19,780
OK!

If I don't understand, explain me why 8500 outperforms 9000/9100/9200 in all the benchmark of the Vga chart III. And why in the THG specs chart we see 4x1 for 9X00 cards and 4x2 for 8500 cards???

Because if they are the same, they should perfrom the SAME. I suspect that 9X00 cards, at least, use slower RAM (as is indicated in the THG specs chart in the Vga chart III).

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
 

cleeve

Illustrious
Dude... the 9100 is NOT ON the VGA charts, nor is it on the spec sheets. It's not included because IT IS AN 8500!!!!

9000's and 9200's are there, but the 9100 is not!

It doesn't NEED a separate entry! It is a frickin Radeon 8500!

Throw me a frickin bone!

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9500 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>2600+</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,055</b></font color=red>
 

TheRod

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2002
2,031
0
19,780
Oups... Excuse me! You are absolutly right for the 9100 card!
I think you hated me for a couple of minutes! :smile:

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
 

cleeve

Illustrious
Heheh... certainly no hate, just a little frustration. :smile:

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9500 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>2600+</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,055</b></font color=red>
 

pauldh

Illustrious
Yes, the 9100 is a renamed Radeon 8500 le and should be clocked 250/250 also. It is the fastest card of the three you mentioned, without Question.

The 9000 is also not in the VGA charts III. It is a 9000 Pro... big difference.

Another review, has a radeon 8500, 9100(8500le), 9200, 9000 Pro. No 9000 non-pro still.

<A HREF="http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/over2003/index.html" target="_new">http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/over2003/index.html</A>

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt