Not fair for the RADEON

G

Guest

Guest
I was noticing the most recent tests run on Graphics cards, and noticed the REAL Radeon 8500 128mb wasn't in the list! Only the LE model! I mean, come on! even the Radeon 8500 64mb did better!(than the 8500LE 128) I wonder how it would have gone if they had the FULL capability of the 8500 128 out there? Probably would have outdone the GeFARCE cards hands down.
Sorry... Just HAD to vent!

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by hellennus on 05/05/02 08:14 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 

chuck232

Distinguished
Mar 25, 2002
3,430
0
20,780
What's with you? You've already posted some bad recommendations. You do know that they do have the same clock speed. There would only be a little difference, and that would only be in the more graphically intensive games. Unless you overclock the R8500, then you'll never get anywhere near a Ti4600. And that's it the Ti4600 isn't oced. That just wouldn't be a fair comparison. Please take your thoughts elsewhere. I really pity the people you help at BestBuy.

My firewall tastes like burning. :eek:
 
G

Guest

Guest
ONCE AGAIN NO ONE BOTHERS reading the rest of my comment... DID NO ONE NOTICE that the 8500 64 did better than the 8500LE 128 in 4 out of 5 tests? there is something SERIOUSLY WRONG w/ the 8500LE. All I'm saying is that it wasn't a fair fight.
 

chuck232

Distinguished
Mar 25, 2002
3,430
0
20,780
All I'm saying is that that is predictable since the R8500LE is rated to ruun at 250/250 core/mem and the R8500 is rated at 275/275. The R8500LE beats the R8500 in three out of six tests in <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1608&p=1" target="_new">this</A> review. The three are some of the newest games. Looks like the extra 64MB of RAM will help I'll give you that, but it definitely won't be able to the beat the Ti4400 or the Ti4600. And they are quite expensive ~$230, which is almost the cost of a Ti4400.

My firewall tastes like burning. :eek:
 
G

Guest

Guest
I wouldn't have a problem except for the fact that the 64 STILL outperforms the 128LE MOST of the time... the FEW instances it exceeds the 64, it is only by a margin. My point is: the 64 SHOULD NOT whip the 128LE like a redheaded stepchild. I CANNOT accept that there would not be a noticeable difference in speed between the LE & the "full" version. Not when the 64 performs as well as it does. The LE ACTS like a 64mb card. But, I'm tired of arguing the point already...
 

bront

Distinguished
Oct 16, 2001
2,122
0
19,780
The retail version is 10% (25/25x2) faster than the LE version, so a difference in performance of 6-8% is quite reasonable. The 128 helps with a bandwidth issue only. So, you're not compairing apples to apples.

I want to be your Opteron... Why don't you call my name - Peter Gabriel?