Radeon 9600SE or 9200 regular

Avus

Distinguished
Nov 2, 2001
356
1
18,780
my friend look for a CHEAP videocard. I saw the price of 9200 (non pro or SE) 128mb DH ($93Cdn) is very close to the price of a 9600SE 128mb ($117Cdn). So which one is a better card? My friend is a causal gamer. Again, he is in budget, so a regular 9600 or 9600Pro is out of the question.

thanks in advance for reply
 

cleeve

Illustrious
9600SE is well worth the extra buckage over the 9200.

ALSO consider the Geforce4 Ti 4200. You can find it for about $145 in canada, and it's markedly better than the 9600SE:

<A HREF="http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=3931340&vpn=GF4TI4200-8X" target="_new">http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=3931340&vpn=GF4TI4200-8X</A>

------------------
Radeon 9500 (hardmodded to PRO, o/c to 322/322)
AMD AthlonXP 2400+ (o/c to 2600+ with 143 fsb)
3dMark03: 4055
 

sargeduck

Distinguished
Aug 27, 2002
407
0
18,780
Although I agree about the 4200 being better than the 9600SE, keep in mind that the 9600SE is the FIRST low-end dx9 card out. As Daveperman said in a thread a couple of months ago, the fx 5200 isn't actually capable of doing dx9, it is only capable of doing dx9 stills, or something like that. If your friend wants dx9 and better visual quality, 9600SE would be better. If your freind doesn't care about dx9 or AA/AF, then the 4200 would be a wise move. Me, personally, I'd go with the 9600SE

Error: Keyboard not attached. Press F1 to continue
 

cleeve

Illustrious
The 9600SE will have better shaders than the Ti4200, but the Ti4200 will do *much* better with AA than the 9600SE because of the 9600SE's horrible bandwidth.

So all the 9600SE has over the Ti4200 is the shaders, and I don't think it has the bandwidth to make itself viable.

Remember, the 4200 can keep up with the 9600 PRO in many cases.
The 9600SE is too gibbled to best the 4200 in anything meaningful. Maybe pure DX9 titles will change that, but it won't be by much...

Remember, the 9600SE is comperable to the raw power of a Radeon 8500LE. Not so good.

------------------
Radeon 9500 (hardmodded to PRO, o/c to 322/322)
AMD AthlonXP 2400+ (o/c to 2600+ with 143 fsb)
3dMark03: 4055
 
<A HREF="http://www.hardavenue.com/reviews/his9600se1.shtml" target="_new">Good Review @ HardAvenue</A> of how the R9600SE both SUX and Doesn't Suck so Hard at the same time.

Unfortunately they didn't test it against more cards (a GF4ti would've been a great idea IMO).

I'd say that while the GF4ti is a great choice, if it's significantly more expensive than the R9600SE, perhaps the R9600SE isn't all that bad, but definitely worth morea bit than the R9200.

I think it's a toss-up for the only reason that the R9600SE while being a lesser card than the GF4ti in DX8/7 titles, it'll probably play OK at around 70% of the GF4ti with a noticeable, but not sure how significant gulf between the two. Neither card does AA/AF significantly well IMO, especially not on newer titles. The R9600SE will offer some aditional DX9 features, but not impressive performance there either. I can see paying $24 more for the R9600SE over an R9200. But if you can't find a GF4ti for less than $150, then you are talking about $33 more for the advanatages of the GF4ti which may prove to not provide as great return in newer titles. The HALo and Aquamark results are interesting, while the UT2K3 benchies show an obvious shortfall, but 71FPS vs 109 FPS at 1024x768 isn't as significant a gulf as the 28/48 gulf at 16x12 (wonder what the 12x10 situation is).

It seems rather obvious that the major area that the SE will really hurt is at high res. So if you have a nice new monitor and what to get the most out of it, then a GF4 may be your best option. If you're using a 15" or small 17" then the R9600SE may be ok because very high res. (something that stresses memory) won't matter as much.

Usually I'd put the SE in the reject column, but a significant price gulf is somewhat of a consideration.

Anywhoo, that's just my two frames worth as always.


<A HREF="http://www.hardavenue.com/reviews/his9600se1.shtml" target="_new">http://www.hardavenue.com/reviews/his9600se1.shtml</A>




- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <b>RED GREEN</b> GA to SK :evil:

<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/" target="_new">-NEW PIC IN THGC ALBUM-</A>
 

cleeve

Illustrious
The Hardavenue's review pits the 9600SE against a 5600, so for comparison purposes here is a review that shows the 5600 against the Ti4200:

<A HREF="http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/msi_geforce_fx5600-vtdr128_review/default.asp" target="_new">http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/msi_geforce_fx5600-vtdr128_review/default.asp</A>

The Ti4200 stands up very well against the 5600, beating it most of the time by a noticable margin.

In my opinion the 4200 would be worth the premium over the 9600SE if only for overclocking ability... the 9600SE won't overclock worth a damn, and even if it did the memory would still be reduced in effectiveness by the measly 64 bit memory bus.
Your average Ti4200 can overclock to at least 4400 specs and in alot of cases, Ti4600 specs.

I was surprised to see how poorly the Ti4200 stands up with AA enabled. Ape hit the nail on the head with this one, I was overestimating the GF4's AA capability... guess the old days of the GF4 Ti being the AA king left an impression on me.

------------------
Radeon 9500 (hardmodded to PRO, o/c to 322/322)
AMD AthlonXP 2400+ (o/c to 2600+ with 143 fsb)
3dMark03: 4055
 
Yeah, the thing is I still recommend the GF4ti, but the funny thing is we are reaching a weird area. I still think the GF4ti is the cheapo leader. But as the R9600SE comes down in price, it makes it attractive if the GF4ti doesn't come down in price alongside. I've seen them all over the city still fetching $200+ which is just ridiculous. And even $150 just stretches my recommendation to the point where it will mainly depend on games that will be played on it and resolution.

Also it's funny that we always say, pay a little more.... play just a little more. I wanted to make sure that the concept that low cost can still be had. In either scenario though the R9200 would be so much inferior to justify either premium.

And you are absolutley correct on the memory and overclocking. 64bit and TSOP combine to make it a 'might as well leave it at stock' endevour IMO.

I still like the GF4ti, and yah if he's comfortable with Overclocking it could lead to good performance gains. I usually don't advocate overclocking in this segment though, and forgot to mention the GF4ti's prowess in that respect. Generally for most other cards in the low-end market no one should rely on an overclock to gain performance. The GF4ti is the exception that proves the rule. :wink:

Also 9600 is bigger than 4200 so it must be better, right? Maybe we should recommend the MX4000 for the first time. :evil:


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <b>RED GREEN</b> GA to SK :evil:

<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/" target="_new">-NEW PIC IN THGC ALBUM-</A>
 

sargeduck

Distinguished
Aug 27, 2002
407
0
18,780
LOL. I can see it now.
"Worlds first card clocked at 2Ghz, with 1024 MB of ram and the worlds most advanced shaders"

What Nvidia wouldn't tell you is that it only has a 16 bit bus. Pay $300 more and get it upgraded to a 32 bus.

Error: Keyboard not attached. Press F1 to continue