9200 256MB Vs 9600 128MB

  • Thread starter Thread starter j77
  • Start date Start date
J

j77

I am getting a new computer,

P4 2.8GHz (1MB cache) 800FSB HyperThreading
2 X 256 ÌB DDR 400MHZ Dual Channel Mode (~800Mhz)
MAXTOR 80GB / 7200rpm + SATA 8MB CACHE
Mobo GB 8S655FX SIS 655FX 3xFirewire (1394) 8xUSB 2.0, AGP 8x
Onboard LAN 10/100Mbit, 1 IrDA connector
2 ch SATA RAID Controller (150MB/sec/channel), 4 ch UATA 133
Onboard Sound 6.1, SPDIF Out / SPDIF In
4x DRAM Sockets - 3GB Max, 5x PCI v2.3
Prescott Processor Ready, HyperThreading, HyperStreaming,
EasyTune 4.

and my problem was with the graphics card. I need a best value for
money solution. Not really interested in having the absolute best
GCard there is out there. My only need is for DVI since it will be
connecting to a TFT....

The person selling me the computer is a best friend of years and whose
expertise on computers I have never questioned up to now.

He suggests I get an 9200/256 instead of a 9600/128.
the price difference is around 30euros (the 9600 being more expensive)

What troubled me is the fact that 9200 is DX8.1 and the 9600 is DX9.
My questions are.

1) how important is for the card to hardware support DX9? will it be
able to do the same job with software? (aka : what does it mean DX9
compatible)

2) is better to go for the larger memory with an older GPU considering
the computer is rather powerful or go for half the card memory and the
extra 30e.?

3) does anyone know of any online comparisons between 9200/256 and
9600/128 or even 9200/256 and 9200/128?

Thank you all in advance.
I would appreciate a quick reply.

I am getting the computer tomorrow but my friend has no problem to
exchange the card for whichever I want even after purchase.(told you
we are friends for 15yrs now)
so if I am to exchange, I would like to give it back to him asap.

John.
 
modern games are much more dependent on graphics card power than CPU plus
the 9600 is generally reckoned to be the best bang per buck at the moment -
definitely get the 9600. the 256mb of RAM isnt necessary at the moment - 128
will do fine and dont get a SE version of any card as they have slower
memory.
in performance terms they go 9600SE > 9600 > 9600pro or the latest version
is 9600XT.
 
Get the 9600! The DX9 capable circuitry that it contains will allow you to
play the newest games that are coming out. And it's clocked notably faster
than the 9200!
 
modern games are much more dependent on graphics card power than CPU plus
the 9600 is generally reckoned to be the best bang per buck at the moment -
definitely get the 9600. the 256mb of RAM isnt necessary at the moment - 128
will do fine and dont get a SE version of any card as they have slower
memory.
in performance terms they go 9600SE > 9600 > 9600pro or the latest version
is 9600XT.
Click to expand...

The SE came out a bit after the XT versions - or about the same
time... Its not older or newer... just 9600Pro/XT rejects. (SOP).

But the Performance lander is correct.... heheh... try doing one for
Nvidia!


Lets see:

9200se > 9200 > 9600se (Sub Standard)
9200Pro > 9600 > 9600Pro > 9800se > 9600XT > 9800 > 9800Pro > 9800XT


Nvidia:

(Sub standard)
mx4000* > 520064bit > 5200 > 5500xt 64bit > 5600xt 64bit > 5500 > 5600
5200Ultra > 5600 > 5500Ultra
Click to expand...

(Usable)
5600Ultra > 5700 > 5700Ultra

(Good)
5900xt > 5900 > 5950 > 5900 Ultra > 5950 Ultra

* The MX4000 is a DX8 added varient of the Nv18 used in the mx440 (A
GF2 class card which is DX7) but this $55~70 card is HALF the speed of
the mx440! Basicly its a DX8 GF2-mx400 performance card... useless...
And this is a NEW product (but not ONE word about it on nvidia.com)

** 5500 series was made "to fill the void" of fx 5200 & fx5600 series
(The 5200 Ultra is 5fps slower than the 5600) A stupid JOKE of a
product when the 5600s and 5200 cost almost the same price under $130!
 
I am getting a new computer,

P4 2.8GHz (1MB cache) 800FSB HyperThreading
2 X 256 ÌB DDR 400MHZ Dual Channel Mode (~800Mhz)
MAXTOR 80GB / 7200rpm + SATA 8MB CACHE
Mobo GB 8S655FX SIS 655FX 3xFirewire (1394) 8xUSB 2.0, AGP 8x
Onboard LAN 10/100Mbit, 1 IrDA connector
2 ch SATA RAID Controller (150MB/sec/channel), 4 ch UATA 133
Onboard Sound 6.1, SPDIF Out / SPDIF In
4x DRAM Sockets - 3GB Max, 5x PCI v2.3
Prescott Processor Ready, HyperThreading, HyperStreaming,
EasyTune 4.

and my problem was with the graphics card. I need a best value for
money solution. Not really interested in having the absolute best
GCard there is out there. My only need is for DVI since it will be
connecting to a TFT....
Click to expand...

Not all LCDs have DVI ports.

9200 is not in the same class as the 9600 ( SE version not included)

9600s are cheap... even in the USA - the 9800PRO is HALF the price the
price it was about 6 months ago ($400usd down to $215!) 3 months ago,
the 9600Pro was a $200 card.
The person selling me the computer is a best friend of years and whose
expertise on computers I have never questioned up to now.

He suggests I get an 9200/256 instead of a 9600/128.
the price difference is around 30euros (the 9600 being more expensive)
Click to expand...

If price is an issue, save a few more EUROs for the 128mb version,
256mb doesn't help the TOP LINE card, sure aint helping a bottom line.
What troubled me is the fact that 9200 is DX8.1 and the 9600 is DX9.
My questions are.
True...

1) how important is for the card to hardware support DX9? will it be
able to do the same job with software? (aka : what does it mean DX9
compatible)
Click to expand...

New games - POWER is important the ability as a decent combo...

The 9600se and Nvidia 5200s are a JOKE as DX9 cards... typically half
the speed of a 2yr old $75USD Ti4200.
2) is better to go for the larger memory with an older GPU considering
the computer is rather powerful or go for half the card memory and the
extra 30e.?
Click to expand...

yes... if its a 9600Pro.
3) does anyone know of any online comparisons between 9200/256 and
9600/128 or even 9200/256 and 9200/128?
Click to expand...

Ignore the memory issue.

Look at this chart and reviews:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-03.html#unreal_tournament_2003
 
Spend the extra on an ATI 9600, 9600 PRO or 9600 XT
not an 9600SE (it is cheaper because of its slow castrated memory)

I think the 256 is just a selling gimmick
 
ok most ppl here suggest i get the 9600 instead, not the 9200 and not
9600SE

one more question i see two products on the pricelist I have.
(it a bit cryptographic so it might make more sense to someone who
knows these things)

i see two models one at

106e : CGA-E968TVD CP R9600 128MDD VO+DVI AGP
Chipset:RADEON9600LE

136e: CGA-968TVD CP R9600P 128MDD VO+DVI AGP R
Chipset:RADEON9600

what could possibly be the difference? the 2nd one is a pro?
what does 9600LE chipset mean?
 
Get the 9600! The DX9 capable circuitry that it contains will allow you to
play the newest games that are coming out. And it's clocked notably faster
than the 9200!
Click to expand...


if someone has a 8.1 card does that mean he/she can still play the dx9
games but because there is no hardware process, it will all be done
through software(drivers?)

or does it mean they will not work at all?
 
Not all LCDs have DVI ports.
the one i'm getting it does.
9600s are cheap... even in the USA - the 9800PRO is HALF the price the
price it was about 6 months ago ($400usd down to $215!) 3 months ago,
the 9600Pro was a $200 card.
Click to expand...

I dont want to fall in that marketing game. I mean, 2.5 yrs ago I
spent 500$ on a graphics card (GF2 GTS PRO) and now... well it is
obsolete, nor did I really use it to its fullest back then.

I am now of the opinion that if you are to get a graphics card get a
mid-to-low not mid-to-high one and use the pricetag difference to
change in 1-2 years to that period's mid-to-low and provided that you
actually feel you need it at the time.

Look at this chart and reviews:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-03.html#unreal_tournament_2003
Click to expand...

yes i had seen that one.
what made me wonder was why the 128MB 9200 was always a little slower
than the 64mb 9200. weird huh?
 
I'll assume its like the 8500 - that was released at clock speeds of 275/275
but was a bit expensive for some ppls pocket so they released the 8500LE
which was 250/250 using slower memory. Contact the retailer for specific
info on the LE card because SE cards often use a slower memory bit rate than
the full versions i.e 64bit rather than 128 and that makes a lot of
differance - more than using just slower memory. If you can afford it go for
the full version - the card will last you longer.
 
I dont want to fall in that marketing game.

I'm pretty much like that too. I tend to buy old and buy late - but buy
good. At any point in time, there are one or two cards that are high quality
and reasonably priced. The 9600 Pro is that card today. Don't know it's
initial price but it's currently retailing in the UK for £95 (inclusive)
(that's US$1,350,000 at the current rate of exchange ;-)

It's not going to fall in price much further (maybe another £20) and will
run games well into the foreseeable future. It also features good 2D support
so Windows really performs (see the improvement in scrolling in most apps -
especially Acrobat).

Bobby
 
Subject: CONFUSION AND FRUSTRATION!

it seems that even though up to now everyone can offer advice on which
card to get (here, english forums, greek newsgroups and forums)

no one has answered me the following answer:
1) how important is for the card to hardware support DX9? will it be
able to do the same job with software? (aka : what does it mean DX9
compatible)
Click to expand...

do i need dx9 support ? why? will the pc's cpu compensate?
no such reviews online either. all you see is this card is the best...
or the other one is best of the best.
really now... What percentage of ppl reading the tests and reviews
will actually go buy the top of the top 500$/e GFX card?

i even tried to figure out how exactly tyhe damn graphics card works,
so maybe if i have some understanding perhpas I can understand what is
important and what isnt. (couldnt find any information)

everyone tells me, why do you need the 256, only 2-3 games at this
moment make use of those extra mbs. we all know that "now" in
computers means nothing in 6months, the whole landscape could have
changed.

I am BOTHERED also by the tactic of the GPU manufacturers and GFXcards
manufacturers to flood the market with gazillions different models in
order to confuse the consumer.

just as I was ready to follow your advice and get the 9600, not the XT
since it hasnt arrived here yet and not the SE (unanimous agreement -
it sucks) I check the company's catalog and says....

chipset : 9600LE
jesus christ . WTH is that now?
i look on ati.com > nothing
the manufacturer(club3d) doesnt have the card with the specific code
on the website.
google search some online shops have it (some actually say that with
the specific manufacturers code it is a 256MB not a 128)
another one said it is a 9600 pro with 128

so if this 9600LE is a piece of crap and I have to go for the real pro
then I am to spend another 70e over the price of the 9200/256 in which
case this whole thing wasnt even worth thinking to begin with.

why cant it be simple ?
9200 crapola or I dunno Small
9200 mediola Medium
9200 valuola Large
9200 hiquality X-Large
so that we all know what to get according to our needs and wallet?

I've waste countless hours online researching over and over again
wasted hours could have spent studying for my exams...
and the result zero zilch null nothing nada tipota rien.

*sigh*

John.


PS sorry for my outburst
 
Some games require the latest version of DX software to play (DX9.0 being
the latest)
So in other words the cards hardware can be DX 8.1.
but the game needs the improved software drivers of DX 9 to run.
DX 9.0 software can contain improvements for Direct X 8.1
Microsoft may not want to release driver improvements in small improvements
(8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, etc)
So just puts everything in one big release.

Where as other cutting edge (really new) games need the DX9 hardware as well
as DX9 software to run.

Graphic (GPU) chip companies can write drivers for features not supported in
their hardware.
But take a huge performance hit for it.
 
Performance goes something like this: (in increasing order).

7x00, 7500, 9200se, 9000, 9100-8500le, 8500, 9200, 9600SE, 9500-9600,
9500pro-9600pro, 9600xt-9800se, 9700, 9700pro, 9800pro-9800xt.

Meaning 9200 is total crap! 9200 is a somewhat ok card. 9600 (not se) is
most bang for buck (like 9500, but rather old). 9700 pro is king of the hill
concidering price. 9800se is somewhat faster than 9600.
 
the 9100 is actually faster than the 8500 and 9200.those number ratings
don't mean anything from ati.there is a website(don't know the address)that
shows how they all stack up performance wise.the 9200 is slower than the
8500 and 9100.
 
j77 said:
Subject: CONFUSION AND FRUSTRATION! *snip snip snip*

I've waste countless hours online researching over and over again
wasted hours could have spent studying for my exams...
and the result zero zilch null nothing nada tipota rien.

*sigh*

John.


PS sorry for my outburst
Click to expand...

Back at the nvidia camp: "so now we have the 5500 chipset, mmm... lets
see the 64-bits version is slower as anything but the 64-bits FX5200,
that I Understand. The Non Ultra 5500 is somewhere close tot he FX5200
Ultra and, if I am right... the FX 5500 Ultra is king of the hill, the
hill of trash to be precise. Halfway the performance of the 5600 Non
Ultra."

Guru: Yes, that is right... do you now understand how this list is
build up?

Student: Do you master guru understand it

Guru: Hardly my student, it takes years of training...
 
9100 and 8500Le are same and one card, only different marketing and
timeline. Both are based off R200 core (as is 8500), but clocked slower than
8500. 8500 is 275/275, while most 9100-8500le are 250/250, same as 9000.
9000 are somewhat faster than 9100 in some games due to faster shaders.
 
Back
Top