WTF! RV250 slower than R200! [mad]

[phsstpok]

Check out <A HREF="http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MzI4" target="_new">this review of the Radeon 9000 PRO</A> at <A HREF="http://www.hardocp.com" target="_new">www.hardocp.com</A>. It's loosing in most benchmarks to an even slower clocked ATI Radeon 8500 AIW. Notice the specifications. The Radeon 9000 has the same specs a Retail 8500 (basic not AIW) except the RV250 only has one texture unit per pipeline where the R200 has two. This is the 9000 PRO! I assume the 9000 willl be <b>even slower</b>!

Now I realize the 9000 is low-end compared to the 9700 but will the 9000 phase out the better performing 8500s?

I'm really disappointed!

<b>EDIT</b>
I just discovered that the 8500 AIW has clocks of 275/275 so I was wrong about the AIW being slower. Sorry, my mistake. (question: Did the specs change on the AIW since its introduction?)

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by phsstpok on 07/20/02 10:45 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[chuck232]

It won't. What I'm guessing will happen is R9000 will compete with MX440, R9000 PRO will go against MX460. For now, the R8500/LE will fill the gap between R9000 PRO and R9700, til R9500 comes out, in Q4. That'll probably be the card that takes over that segment of the market.

Falling down stairs saves time

 

[phsstpok]

I'm not claiming to be a marketing expert but I don't understand the naming structure. I mean 8500=fast, 9000=slower, 9700=fastest. I just don't get it.

As far as I am concerned, priced at $109 and $119, the 9000 and 9000 pro aren't positioned correctly, pricewise, to compete against an MX440 which only costs about $55 USD. The MX460 nearly priced itself out of existence. I mean $119+, get serious!

For now, the R8500/LE will fill the gap between R9000 PRO and R9700, til R9500 comes out, in Q4

I think ATI needs to give some serious thought about competing with the TI4200, today, not in Q4.

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>

 

[Crashman]

Heheh, like the GeForce2 Utra initially beat the GeForce 3, until DX 8 became more common. Worse: The RadeonLE was slower than the Radeon, the MX200 was slower than the MX (or even the standard TNT2). The TNT2 M64 was slower than the TNT, the GeForce 4 4200 was slower than the GeForce 3 Ti500 by a long shot, and the GeForce2 MX was slower than the GeForce DDR. It's almost like these companies set it up so that dealers can take advantage of unsuspecting customers.

<font color=blue>At least half of all problems are caused by an insufficient power supply!</font color=blue>

 

[phsstpok]

Heheh, like the GeForce2 Utra initially beat the GeForce 3, until DX 8 became more common. Worse: The RadeonLE was slower than the Radeon, the MX200 was slower than the MX (or even the standard TNT2). The TNT2 M64 was slower than the TNT, the GeForce 4 4200 was slower than the GeForce 3 Ti500 by a long shot, and the GeForce2 MX was slower than the GeForce DDR. It's almost like these companies set it up so that dealers can take advantage of unsuspecting customers.

I suppose what you say is possible but at least most of those products were all released after their higher performance counterparts and were marketed as low-cost, mainstream products. M64 after TNT2, Geforce2 MX after Geforce2 GTS, Radeon LE (never a retail product) after Radeon, Geforce4 Ti4200 after Ti4600 (or was the Ti4400 first).

I agree with your assessment of the MX200 (pure crap). MX-400 was a minor improvement over the basic MX but still inferior to Geforce2 GTS. As products that fit into your claims I'd say the ATI 7000 and 7200 (crap and crapier or vice versa), renamed from Radeon SDR and Radeon VE, should be included. We forgot to mention the Geforce4 MX which should have been the Geforce2.5 MX only having 128-bit, fast (dual channel?) DDR memory going for it.

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>

 

[eden]

The Ti4200 does not get beaten by the Ti500, where do you get off with that?
Clock speed wise, maybe, but not performance-wise!

--
Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G!

 

[cakecake]

I think the R9000 and R9000Pro are the answer to the non-publicized failure of the IGP.

I think we can all readily admit that people want the "fastest", whether it means it performs better or not. In my opinion, the greatest selling point of this is that it supports directx8.1, alleviating the failing point of integrated graphics that only supported directx7.

The final thing this card was aiming to do very specifically was to compete directly with the Geforce4 MX series. That's exactly the reason why they added Pixel and Vertex shaders.

There are no qualms with price either. ATi wins the price war against nvidia. And price, it can be said is the most important conception of the value segment, just like speed is arguably the best selling point for the enthusiast.

 

[chuck232]

I mean 8500=fast, 9000=slower, 9700=fastest. I just don't get it.

Well, I think ATi's trying to keep each generatio away from each other. 7000, then 8000, then 9000. The R9500 may be a great buy when they come around.

Falling down stairs saves time

 

[Crashman]

Ah, you caught me getting my model numbers mixed up. It's the Ti200 that got beat by the orignal GeForce 3.

<font color=blue>At least half of all problems are caused by an insufficient power supply!</font color=blue>

 

[phsstpok]

I think the R9000 and R9000Pro are the answer to the non-publicized failure of the IGP.

I think we can all readily admit that people want the "fastest", whether it means it performs better or not. In my opinion, the greatest selling point of this is that it supports directx8.1, alleviating the failing point of integrated graphics that only supported directx7.

How do you figure that two desktop cards are an answer an integrated graphics processor failure? Also I disagree that the ATI Radeon Mobility is a failure. It is superior to Geforce Go.

The final thing this card was aiming to do very specifically was to compete directly with the Geforce4 MX series. That's exactly the reason why they added Pixel and Vertex shaders.

There are no qualms with price either. ATi wins the price war against nvidia. And price, it can be said is the most important conception of the value segment, just like speed is arguably the best selling point for the enthusiast.

I can't argue features, the 9000's are superior, but I think I can argue pricing. 1) A Geforce4 MX440 can be had for less than $60 USD so strictly on pricing the 9000 at $109 does not compete. 2) Radeon 8500LE's are already available for less than the selling point of the 9000, in fact well less than $100. Considering that 8500's are clocked similarly to the 8500 AIW, (which does outperform the 9000 PRO), one would expect the 8500LE's to perform similarly as well. It seems to me that ATI has overlapping product lines, the 8500LE and the 9000 series.

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>

 

[phsstpok]

Do you really see the 9000 as a NEW generation? Just as the Geforce4 MX's were inappropriately named, the 9000's should be named the 8000 VE. (What did VE stand for anyway? Virtually Emasculated?)

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>

 

[chuck232]

VE=Value Edition?

Well, it's a new product line. Wouldn't it be even more confusing if you added a new 8xxx series along with the R9700?? I dunno, it's all in the marketing.

Falling down stairs saves time

 

[phsstpok]

Well, as I indicated, maketing confuses the h*ll out of me.

Honestly though, didn't you expect better performance from the RV250?

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>

 

[eden]

Perhaps. It does have a higher core model number than the R200, not even Nvidia would use higher core model numbers and give lower performance (NV25 is NOT slower than NV20!)

As for pricing, I think you are taking the absolute minimum of prices on a product. I don't think you should do that. Please provide at least 5 local shops selling GF4 MX440s at 60$ US, as well as so many on the R8500 LE. In Canada, I'd have a hard time finding MX440s below 100$ CDN, roughly 65$ US. And Radeons 8500LE are not close to being US prices to Canadian. I searched Canada Computers, as AMD_Man has touted a lot on their prices, and indeed they are nice, and looking at the LEs, they are at minimum 159$, about 100$ US, and this is for a non-ATi powered R8500LE (surprisingly, OEMs sell Ati cards for less than their own home brand, as if ATI's prices were not low already!!! Fouund a 7500 at 50$ US, w00t!), so no, you should be a bit more fair and give pricing that averages on the entire stores in a region where someone resides, rather than the one store in America with such price!

EDIT: I forgot to say that the 9000 PRO does win some benches quite nicely, and that these drivers are not refined, nor are they even Catalysts, so wait a bit and maybe it'll outrun the R8500 in most benches except multitexturing! At least now it won't be cruel to buy a low cost card, since you get DX8. My friend bought a friggin MX420 for his bro, A GAMER. How cruel can he be to want to save money and pay for such cheapness, with no DirectX 8 support which is nowadays mainstream!!!

--
Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 07/19/02 02:26 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[cakecake]

What I meant was the integrated graphics in motherboards, like Intel's.

Pricing I'm not completely sure of. If you found it at a cheaper price then I'd say the GF4 MX still has a leg up.

I think at this point the GF4 MX still has good speed, the nvidia brand name and detonator driver set, and a good price.

 

[Black_Cat]

It's almost like these companies set it up so that dealers can take advantage of unsuspecting customers.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I see no other reason for these oddball numbering systems.

To start press any key. Where's the "any" key? --Homer Simpson.

 

[phsstpok]

What I meant was the integrated graphics in motherboards, like Intel's.

Ahhh, I forgot about those. Still don't see the comparison between onboard video and video cards, though.

I still think Radeon 9000 is a redundant product bringing nothing new to offer over the 8500LE.

People will buy the Geforce4 MX cards because they are cheap, period.



<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>

 

[Crashman]

Meat Joe Average Gamer, JAG for short. Jag got an old system from his Big Poppa (BP), with a TNT2 video card. Later, Jag started making his own money, and started doing upgrades. First he got a GeForce DDR, used. While that seemed OK, the latest games only gave him 20FPS at 1024x768. Rather than reduce his resolution further, he bought a new card, the GeForce2 MX200. Quite surprized was he that his framerates droped. In fact, they were lower than with his TNT2! But at least the dealer gave him a $20 trade in on his old card.

So Jag goes out and buys a GeForce3. Now this is nice! But then newer games are released, and at 1600x1200 they only play at around 20FPS. Incouraged by the performance of the GeForce 3 purchase, he goes out and gets a GeForce 3 Ti200. Poor joe, didn't see it comming, his framrates dropped. How could this be, the card was NEW! At least the dealer gave him a $20 trade in on his GF3.

Well, fairly discouraged and low on cash, Joe goes out and gets the latest card from his dealer, the GeForce 4. Joe watches Tech TV, and the guys on Screen Savers said the GeForce4 was faster than the Radeon 8500! Joe's CERTAIN he got a great deal, because his friends similar system ROXORZ with the 8500. And after the $20 trade in, the card only cost him $100. Too bad it was an MX420! Joe goes back to the dealer and buys back his old GF3 for only $80, after the $20 trade in! All in all, dealer rakes in over $600 off the back of Joe. Joe's thinking maybe he should have gotten a Dell.

<font color=blue>At least half of all problems are caused by an insufficient power supply!</font color=blue>

 

[phsstpok]

Sorry, I blundered. I just did a quick search at Pricewatch for "MX440". I didn't realize the search returned several MX420 cards. The best MX440 price I see is $71 USD.

Since I do all my buying online I think that quoting online prices is valid. Afterall, we don't yet know if the the 9000 prices are streetprices or MSRP's. If I'm wrong then you can make me eat my words later.

I still think there is no need for the 9000 as long as the Radeon 8500LE exists.

At my favorite vendor, Newegg.com, MX440s start at $82. I'd rather buy an 8500LE for a little more money (and I did). From some my other posts you would have learned that this particular "8500LE OEM" turned out to be an Ati-built 8500 OEM (not LE) but that's just luck (although Newegg is still selling them).

I forgot to say that the 9000 PRO does win some benches quite nicely, and that these drivers are not refined, nor are they even Catalysts, so wait a bit and maybe it'll outrun the R8500 in most benches except multitexturing!

Catalysts didn't do anything for me. However, you are right one this, a proper comparison needs to be with the same drivers (if possible) and a video card with the same amount of memory. The AIW had 128MB to the 9000's 64MB. This is not fair either. (I'll look at the other reviews which I haven't done yet).

I'm still dissapointed.

To me the RV250 is already history. My next video card upgrade probably won't be until Doom III is released. (I was going to give the 8500OEM to my nephew if the RV250 turned out to be decent or the Ti4200 dropped in price). I wish I could buy the best but I'll probably will always look for a good value in video cards.

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>

 

[cakecake]

Edit: There ARE 64MB versions, so this question is up in the air again. Who has the lower price?<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by cakecake on 07/20/02 06:01 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[phsstpok]

Yeah, there are 64MB variants.

We definitely know that memory is becoming a major factor. It would be nice to see a revised comparison of the 8500, 8500LE, 9000 with various memory configurations. Although, it still won't be fair until all cards can use the same drivers.

I was concerned about the JK2 test in the Hardocp review. The AIW was about 40-50% better than the 9000 Pro (1600x1200 and 1200x1024). I don't think memory differences alone can account for the discrepancy.

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>

 

[phsstpok]

Arrf! It's getting worse!

Now I see a whole slew of 9000 cards being released with 200 mhz memory (400 DDR).

Let's see. 200 mhz memory + 1 TMU per pipeline = ????

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>

 

[oymd]

lol....!!!!!!lol..
well put amigo...well put...

Havent i read read this post by you somewhere earlier back in time?????{scratches head}

 

[Crashman]

Something similar perhaps!

<font color=blue>At least half of all problems are caused by an insufficient power supply!</font color=blue>

 

[Jake75]

Poor Joe...*LOL*

<font color=red>Japanese Telecom</font color=red>