How old is this Radeon 9200???

M

Metallica_Band

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
3,437
Hey there...I just got a Radeon 9200...I was wondering just how old of a card this is...I see that it can't terribly old...it mentions Windows XP and DirectX 9...it also mentions Unreal Tourny 2003 and Morrowind...

how would this card compare to my Radeon 9700 Pro??? Would this be able to run games at full rez like my 9700 Pro can??? I DO plan on modding it by putting 8 heatsinks on it and replacing the crappy heatsink with a better HS and a fan...perhaps that will make it a bit better...

BTW...this is a non-pro...I've seen ways to turn the non-pros into pros somehow...Is it risky to do?? What would the pros/cons be? Wouldn't I not have some functions??

THANX
C'YA :cool:

EDIT: Forgot to mention that this card has 128MB of onboard memory...I know there is a 64MB...I think that piece of info might make a difference
 
9200 == AGP 8x 8500 LE == Cut back GF3.

You're confused about the 9500 and the 9200... 9200 does NOT mod, and is a crappy old card.
 
What kind of games would be able to run at full settings??? Let's say that we traveled back in time to the time that the Radeon 9200 was first released and the best there was (or was it a lower version of another card like the 9600 to the 9700/9800?)...knowing what future games there would be and the future cards there would be then when would it be time to start thinking about getting a new card...you'd upgrade to a 9700 if you were staying with ATI wouldn't you?

I'm just trying to get an idea of what games should be installed and played at full settings on the computer with the 9700 Pro PC and the 9200 NP PC...I am about to build another PC with a P4 2.4GHz and 9200 NP and either 256MB or 512MB ram...

I am clogging up progs on my 200GB HDD and it takes forever for Norton to scan all these files on my 3 partitions...I want to know which games I can take off of my primary computer and transfer to my secondary computer which won't be as powerful...it also won't have the internet...I'll transfer drivers using my thumbdrive...
 
radeon 9200 came out recently and was always a crappy card, its just a radeon 9000 with 8X...
total POS, worse than an 8500LE or gf3 ti200.
only stuff it can run in max detail would be quake 3 and halfflife :|
 
Well then what would be a step down from a 9700 Pro??? Without it being a crappy card like you're describing? What would be the best downgrade?? Best cheap downgrade?
 
Originally posted by Metallica_Band
Well then what would be a step down from a 9700 Pro??? Without it being a crappy card like you're describing? What would be the best downgrade?? Best cheap downgrade?
Click to expand...

9600 Pro.

Why?
 
Didn't the 9600 Pro come after the 9700 Pro??? I thought it was supposed to be a crappy card too :confused: :confused: :confused: They're still expensive...like ~$150...how bout a good card, non crappy, ~<$100...reeseller bought and [H] bought...I know that in [H]'s fs/ft you can get some really cheap deals for even less than eBay and other resellers
 
I'm no video card expert, but I don't believe the 9600 is a crappy card. I would gladly trade my video card for a 9600. The 9000s and the 9200s do suck though.
 
Originally posted by Metallica_Band
Didn't the 9600 Pro come after the 9700 Pro??? I thought it was supposed to be a crappy card too :confused: :confused: :confused: They're still expensive...like ~$150...how bout a good card, non crappy, ~<$100...reeseller bought and [H] bought...I know that in [H]'s fs/ft you can get some really cheap deals for even less than eBay and other resellers
Click to expand...

Geforce 4 TI4200.

The 9600 is the slightly lower end version of the current Radeon core.

If you want <$100, you're not gonna get a good DX9 card, period, and Nvidia owned the last generation.
 
OK then...how about if I wanted to consider nVidia as well??? How are the prices doing for the TI Series??? I know that I was trying to consider (when I was first building my primary system [the one I'm on right now]) getting either an nVidia GeForce4 Ti-4800 or an ATI Radeon 9700 Pro...I went with the ATI...but that was like 2 years ago...surley prices have dropped a lot in the TI series right???

If I remember my nVidia reviews correctly I think the Ti-4800 and the Ti-4600 were very good cards...but the Ti-9200 and the mx series sux0r3d...am I right about that???
 
Originally posted by Metallica_Band
Hey there...I just got a Radeon 9200...I was wondering just how old of a card this is...I see that it can't terribly old...it mentions Windows XP and DirectX 9...it also mentions Unreal Tourny 2003 and Morrowind...
Click to expand...

As I have known all along, the Radeon 9200 is not a DX9-generation card; its hardware in only DX8.1-compliant. (Though you can make the 9200 to work with DX9, a game that uses DX9-compliant features will run in software-emulated or "suckers edition" mode.) In fact, the 9200 is just an AGP 8x update of the 9000np, itself a significantly crippled version of the 8500/9100 series.

Originally posted by Metallica_Band
OK then...how about if I wanted to consider nVidia as well??? How are the prices doing for the TI Series??? I know that I was trying to consider (when I was first building my primary system [the one I'm on right now]) getting either an nVidia GeForce4 Ti-4800 or an ATI Radeon 9700 Pro...I went with the ATI...but that was like 2 years ago...surley prices have dropped a lot in the TI series right???

If I remember my nVidia reviews correctly I think the Ti-4800 and the Ti-4600 were very good cards...but the Ti-9200 and the mx series sux0r3d...am I right about that???
Click to expand...

None of the nVidia GF4-series cards are DX9 parts. So, they will all 5ux0r on any games that take significant advantage of DX9. Secondly, the Ti series r0x0r for their generation, but the MX series is just a GF2 MX400 on steroids.
 
OK...you guys are forgetting some things here...I want to move the games that run smoothly on a card don't need a powerful card a as the 9700 Pro ...pretty much ALL DX9 games will be on my 9700 Pro system

Like you wouldn't buy a 9700 Pro to run any of the Doom games (excluding Doom 3 Alpha;))...you wouldn't need a 9700 Pro to run Quake or maybe even Quake 2...you get the point???

The DX9 games can get pretty damn detailed...they won't run smoothly at full settings on the non-crappy cards that are a step down from a 9700 Pro card...

Maybe I should consider Medium to Full settings

How about since I bought the 9700 Pro in 2002 let's ask this: What's the best card of 1999-200...that would be a 4-5 year old card...2-3 years later would come the 9700 Pro I think...maybe that'll get me the answer I need
 
Well, that 4-year-old card won't run even current games at any settings unless you turn most or all detail off and the resolution to the lowest supported setting. Heck, you'd need to turn the resolution and/or detail to low settings even with older games with those old cards.

And, by the way, currently available older-generation cards such as the R9200 will run even slower than the best of the cards available in 2001.
 
Originally posted by E4g1e
Well, that 4-year-old card won't run even current games at any settings unless you turn most or all detail off and the resolution to the lowest supported setting.
Click to expand...

AHHH!!! That's my point...THOSE games would be installed on my 9700 Pro PC and NOT my 9200 (or whatever vid card that is recommended) PC...
 
On my secondary PC (the downgrade to the 9700 Pro) I will have Windows 98...I will MAINLY have it to run games that don't like Windows 2000 and up BUT will run in Win2k and lower...I will have games like Quake, Doom series, Wing Commander 4, and DOS games like Commander Keen, QuickThink, Star Trek TNG "A Final Unity", etc...

See...those games don't NEED a 9700 Pro to run smoothly and at full settings...a card that powerful would be overkill to those games...ya get what I'm trying to do here???
 
OK...there's the GeForce 3 and the Ti-4200...now how would those two cards compare to a Radeon 9200??? Would the 9200 be better or worse??? Now that I have determined the card I am wondering if I should sell this 9200 for a G3 or a Ti-4200
 
The best cards (for the cash) on the market right now are

A. 9600xt
B. 9500pro

both perform almost exactly the same, they can run dx9 games on full/high settings at 100fps (given the system specs). My Barton 2600+ @2ghz runs the d3 leak and hl2 demo at 100 fps.
 
The gf 3 and the gf 4 ti 4200 would rape the 9200 like it's their bitch.

So would a 9100/8500 radeon, any of the mentioned cards would run any game including some dx 9 games in dx8.1 with almost full eye candy on. I have a gf 2 gts and it runs worst than all those cards and I ran 30-60 fps in Halo, so I'd imagine those cards could run it from 50-100 fps depending on the card.

~Adam
 
Originally posted by Metallica_Band
On my secondary PC (the downgrade to the 9700 Pro) I will have Windows 98...I will MAINLY have it to run games that don't like Windows 2000 and up BUT will run in Win2k and lower...I will have games like Quake, Doom series, Wing Commander 4, and DOS games like Commander Keen, QuickThink, Star Trek TNG "A Final Unity", etc...

See...those games don't NEED a 9700 Pro to run smoothly and at full settings...a card that powerful would be overkill to those games...ya get what I'm trying to do here???
Click to expand...
Then why were you even comparing it to your 9700 pro? Obviously any video card made after a game's release(especially those older games) would be able to handle them. Or were you just trying to justify your purchase? Even though the 9200 is(and always was) a pretty worthless card(compared to other cards in the same price range), it is pretty overkill for those games. You could easily get by with an old TNT2 or something.
 
Originally posted by lopoetve
9200 == AGP 8x 8500 LE == Cut back GF3.

You're confused about the 9500 and the 9200... 9200 does NOT mod, and is a crappy old card.
Click to expand...

= wrong

9200 == 9000 8x agp == 9000 == 9000

9000 had its own unique core. the 9000 tends to perform better than the 9200.
 
Originally posted by CleanSlate
The gf 3 and the gf 4 ti 4200 would rape the 9200 like it's their bitch.
Click to expand...
So I should get rid of the 9200 then

Originally posted by CleanSlate
So would a 9100/8500 radeon
Click to expand...
So if the 8500, 9100, 9200, and everything else up to the 9700 Pro were all crap cards then that would mean that the 9700 cards is where ATI reign as king started right??? when those cards were made, the nVidia was king then right???

If that is true then how could there be any competition between nVidia and ATI if ATI suxed so much??? Doesn't seem much like a competition to me unless nVidia suked almost as much as ATI...

Oh well...anyways...so I should forget about the 9200 and maybe shoot myself in the foot for buying it in the first place and go for a GeForce 3 or a Ti-4200??? Hmmm...I thought the 4200 suked...maybe I was wrong...
 
OIC. You're going to use an older operating system (or older version of Windows, to be more specific) to run those older games.

That changes everything, then. None of the ATI Catalyst drivers are certified for anything other than Windows 2000, Windows XP or Windows Me. (You can use the current Cats with Windows 98 or Windows 98 Second Edition, but ATI will not offer technical support if any problems arise.)

On the nVidia side, there are versions of the 5x.xx ForceWare drivers that are meant for Windows 9x/Me, but none of the WHQL-certified versions of those drivers support the complete line of GeForce cards like their Win2K/XP counterparts do support.

Also, you'll be pretty much stuck with older CPUs and older motherboards if you're going to use such "legacy" versions of Windows anyway - most current AGP 8x graphics cards and most of the newer motherboards with an 8x AGP slot won't support any version of Windows besides 2000 or XP.
 
The 8500 certainly did not suck. It was a pretty decent card back in its day. Its derivatives were worthless though because ATI was just trying to milk more money out of people by making cards with higher numbers. As you can see here, the 9000 pro and the 8500 were pretty damn similar as far as specs go, but the 9000 pro performed somewhat worse than the 8500 in most of the benchmarks.

btw, why the hell did you buy a card and then come in here and ask if it was good or not? That seems like the kind of thing one would do when one is looking to purchase a card.
 
Originally posted by E4g1e
None of the ATI Catalyst drivers are certified for anything other than Windows 2000, Windows XP or Windows Me. (You can use the current Cats with Windows 98 or Windows 98 Second Edition, but ATI will not offer technical support if any problems arise.)
Click to expand...
On the 9200 box it says on the bottom: Windows 98/98SE is supported through the Windows ME driver


Originally posted by jpmkm
btw, why the hell did you buy a card and then come in here and ask if it was good or not?
Click to expand...
Cause I was retarded and didn't research before buying...I usually DO research the product I'm buying tho...not sure why I didn't do it this time
 
Originally posted by Sojuuk
= wrong

9200 == 9000 8x agp == 9000 == 9000

9000 had its own unique core. the 9000 tends to perform better than the 9200.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it based on the 8500LE? I know the 9100 was a souped up 8500, but I thought the 9200/9000 were based on that core... RV280, IIRC.
 
If you're looking for a card under $100 get either a GF3, Radeon 8500/9100 or a GF4 Ti. All of the cards I just mentioned will perform much better than the 9200 you have and are all dx8.x cards.

The GF4 ti will be the fastest and the GF3 will be the slowest out out those three with the radeon somewhere in the middle.
 
No no metallica I said the 8500/9100 would rape a 9200, you had my words mixed up.

Personally I'm going for a 4200 because it is better tahn the 9100.

If you have enough cash I'd suggest the same.

If not go with the 9100 and OC it to all hell.

~Adam
 
Originally posted by lopoetve
Wasn't it based on the 8500LE? I know the 9100 was a souped up 8500, but I thought the 9200/9000 were based on that core... RV280, IIRC.
Click to expand...

Kinda mixed up.

8500
8500 LE (lower clocked 8500)

These are both good cards. Not great, but good. Better than a GF3, not as good as a GF4 Ti.

Then, later on (after the 9700 release) came the 9000 Pro. It was a new core that was a full 8500 (basically) with one texture unit removed. The 8500 was a 4x2 design, the 9000 Pro was a 4x1.

Released at the same time was the 9000 non-Pro. Just a 9000 on lower clocks (lower even than the 8500LE was to the 8500, so it wouldn't be fair to call this 'just an 8500LE with one texture unit removed' - it wasn't even that good!)

It was about that time that ATI noticed that girl scout was about eight stories tall and....errr...wait....

It was about that time that ATI realized their fan base was not pleased with the 'remove a TMU and call it a higher number' trick, so they re-released the 8500LE. Only, they didn't call it that. They called it the 9100 instead. The 9100 IS an 8500LE. There was no pro version.

Anyway, later ATI released a 9000 non-pro with AGP 8x. That's right, of all the DX8 cards released to date - 8500, 8500LE/9100, 9000 Pro, 9000 non-pro - they picked the absolute slowest and crappiest to add AGP 8x support to.

And called it the 9200.

Nice, eh?

Anyway, to the original poster, in order of choices, for sub-$100 cards, what you want is:

GeForce4 Ti4400 (refurb, eBay or these forums sometimes finds these in this price range)
GeForce4 Ti4200
Radeon 8500-128mb (good luck finding one!)
Radeon 8500-64mb
Radeon 9100/8500LE
GeForce3 Ti500
Radeon 9000 Pro
GeForce3 Ti200
Radeon 9200/9000
 
OK...I think I'm going to stay in the TI series...

Now I haven't studied nVidia cards in like 2 years when I decided to go ATI...Am I right when I say that not all GeForce4 4200/4400/4800 cards are equal???

Aren't there different versions with different clock speeds or something when you compare the different 4200's from the different manufaturers??? I can't quite remember...if so then some 4400's would be better than other 4400's right??? Which would be the best 3 of each 4200/4400/4800 cards??? I'm sure soemone here remembers so I don't have to dig up old benchmarks from every 4800 card and compare each to see which is better than others...
 
I've just added the italicized text into the following quote:

Originally posted by dderidex
Kinda mixed up.

8500
8500 LE (lower clocked 8500)

These are both good cards. Not great, but good. Better than a GF3, not as good as a GF4 Ti.

Then, later on (after the 9700 release) came the 9000 Pro. It was a new core that was a full 8500 (basically) with one texture unit removed. The 8500 was a 4x2 design, the 9000 Pro was a 4x1.

Released at the same time was the 9000 non-Pro. Just a 9000 on lower clocks (lower even than the 8500LE was to the 8500, so it wouldn't be fair to call this 'just an 8500LE with one texture unit removed' - it wasn't even that good!)

It was about that time that ATI noticed that girl scout was about eight stories tall and....errr...wait....

It was about that time that ATI realized their fan base was not pleased with the 'remove a TMU and call it a higher number' trick, so they re-released the 8500LE. Only, they didn't call it that. They called it the 9100 instead. The 9100 IS an 8500LE. There was no pro version.

Anyway, later ATI released a 9000 non-pro with AGP 8x. That's right, of all the DX8 cards released to date - 8500, 8500LE/9100, 9000 Pro, 9000 non-pro - they picked the absolute slowest and crappiest to add AGP 8x support to.

And called it the 9200.

Nice, eh?

Also, released at the same time as the 9200 is the 9200SE (aka the 9200 Suckers Edition), which is basically a 9200 with only a 64-bit pathway to its DDR memory (the regular 9200 has a 128-bit path to its DDR memory).

Anyway, to the original poster, in order of choices, for sub-$100 cards, what you want is:

GeForce4 Ti4400 (refurb, eBay or these forums sometimes finds these in this price range)
GeForce4 Ti4200
Radeon 8500-128mb (good luck finding one!)
Radeon 8500-64mb
Radeon 9100/8500LE
GeForce3 Ti500
Radeon 9000 Pro
GeForce3 Ti200
Radeon 9200/9000
Radeon 9200SE
Click to expand...
 
Which would be the best 3 of each 4200/4400/4800 cards???
Click to expand...

No, they didn't really vary within a 'type' - if so, by very minor margins.

Generally, stick with MSI, Asus, Abit, or Albatron for quality cards. VisionTek (now BFG) was around at the time, and their cards were also very good.

As to the 'types' - further clarification seems to be needed.

The Ti4600 is the fastest.

Ti4400 is next

Ti4200 is last.

Now, around the time the Radeon 9700 launched, nVidia didn't have anything to answer it with - they instead re-launched their 4Ti series with AGP 8x support. Essentially offering little to any performance boost, but it WAS the marketting buzzword at the time.

The Ti4800 is, technically, a Ti4600 with AGP 8x. Vendors were supposed to call Ti4200s with AGP 8x 'Ti4800SE'. But, many didn't.

In short, a Ti4800 MIGHT just be a Ti4200 with AGP 8x. OR a Ti4600 with AGP 8x. Only difference is in clock speeds, so you can check those to see what you are really getting.

A Ti4800SE is always a Ti4200 with AGP 8x (or, sometimes, a Ti4400 with AGP 8x).

In any case, a 'Ti4600-8x', if so labelled, WILL always be a Ti4600 with AGP 8x - the best of that generation. But, trust me, more than you can afford even now (unless someone is dumping one off in the forums or eBay).
 
I have seen in thr price mecanism of ANANDTECH an
ATI radeon 8500LE BBA 128MB BGA(250/250) by 55 dollars, i would say it is a REALLY GOOD bargain for that card. i have it in my second rig, and it kills tha GF3 ti 500 in my 3rd rig.
It can be overclocked really easy to 275/275 thats the true 8500 specs, and i can get 300/300 from mine.
As far as I can see in the 275/275 spec, my 8500 is almost comparable to a normal ti4200, and i think that for the price it is, no card can compare to that.
Try to give it a look there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top