Is the ATI 9200 one of the better PCI cards

[Titanion]

I told a friend with a crappy 1.2 GHz e-machine with onboard video and no AGP slot to get an ATI 9200 128 MB PCI card last week... should I amend my advice, or is that about as good as it gets for PCI these days? I saw the 9200 for around $75 last week... that is about his range at the moment anyway... and it would be hard to put more than that into a PCI card, at least for me... but it will be a while before he will get a better motherboard... I also told him that the 9200 would be twice as good as any GF2 or GF4 MX PCI cards out there in the $50.00 range... is my advice sound?

<font color=red><b>To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n.</b></font color=red>
John Milton, <i>Paradise Lost</i>, II 262-263

 

[GeneticWeapon]

No!....it's the Radeon 9100 PCI card. Much better then teh slow asss 9200...seriously.

<b>I help because you suck</b>

 

[Titanion]

Sh1t, I hope he didn't order one... I will tell him to order a 9100... Thanks...

But here we go, is the 9100 better than the 8500... I was reading everwhere on this forum in months past that the 9000 was just a reworked 8500... is the 9100 something better?

<font color=red><b>To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n.</b></font color=red>
John Milton, <i>Paradise Lost</i>, II 262-263

 

[Crashman]

It's confusing: First there was the 8500, this was the FASTEST to use that core!

Then came the underclocked 8500LE. The 9100 is a rebadged 8500LE, it uses the same parts.

Then the 9000 and 9200 are hacked up, cut down 8500LE's!

so the fastest was the 8500
next was the 8500LE/9100 (same card).


The 9200's and 9000's are slower.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[jmecor]

i can't believe a PCI card to be much slower than a 9200 AGP card.

<b><font color=purple>
The real troubles in your life are apt to be things that never crossed your worried mind.
</font color=purple></b>
---
<A HREF="http://www.mapua.edu.ph/" target="_new">
MIT
</A>

 

[jmecor]

The 9200's and 9000's are slower.

i think the 9000 are faster than the 9100 and 9200's.

<b><font color=purple>
The real troubles in your life are apt to be things that never crossed your worried mind.
</font color=purple></b>
---
<A HREF="http://www.mapua.edu.ph/" target="_new">
MIT
</A>

 

[Crashman]

I can't see how, isn't it a cut down version of the 8500 chip? The 9100 uses a full 8500 chip.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[ufo_warviper]

I definately give my vote for the 9100. It's just like a Radeon 8500LE. I had an AGP Radeon 8500LE. It's a really nice card for the price.

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!

 

[cleeve]

You're not quite right, jmecor:

Radeon 8500/9100:
4 pipelines, 2 texture units each pipeline

Radeon 9000/9200:
4 pipelines, 1 texture unit per pipeline

9000s and 9200s offer the same performance at the same clockspeed. So a 9000 PRO will beat a 9200 non-pro, but that's only because of the clockspeed difference.

------------------
Radeon 9500 (modded to PRO w/8 pixel pipelines)
AMD AthlonXP 2000+
3dMark03: 3529