• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

radeon 8500 More FPS then 9200 !??!

O

osxrulez

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 24, 2003
Messages
397
i just bought a radeon 9200 and i got a really bad score on 3dsmark2001 so i put back my 8500 and tested it and i got higher can someone explain to me why this is? and also how i could fix it/ OC the 9200
 
the 8500 is a better card than the 9200.
The 9200 is a 9000 with 8x agp support. The 9000 was slower than the 8500.
The 8500 was ATI flagship product at one time and the 9200 is the current budget card.
A bit of research would have gone a long way here, but i must admit ATI's naming scheme is confusing in cases like this.
 
The 9200 comes in 64 bit and 128 bit interfaces. The 64 bit is dog ass slow, the 128 is a little better and when overclocked, even more so. But it's still less than a 8500. 8500's can be pushed pretty decent, to close to a stock GF4 4200 from what I've seen.
 
I've got a 9600non pro(which may be called an SE now, not for sure) and it is actually as fast or slower than my 8500 that I have from a few years back. THe 9600 has 128Mb of RAM and Direct X 9 support, but the 64Mb 8500 still puts up a pretty good fight. ;)
 
Yep, here's a little background info, the 9000 was a card that was cheaper to produce so they used it as a budget model rather than have the 8500 play that role later in it's life. Just so you know we aren't full of shit, the demand left for 8500 class cards caused them to release some more but renamed to 9100, maybe just to clear confusion, maybe because since they brought it back they needed people to know it was better for pricing reasons as it was a better, more expensive card to produce.The 9200 was the name change when they moved to AGP 8x on the 9000's. Which of course doesnt change the way the products line up. What did Ati care the 9100 *cough* 8500 was down for the count by that point. A far as 64 bit mem-interface SE's etc, that would just cripple the cards bad enough that no matter which of these was picked, it wouldnt keep up with any of their family members with a 128bit one. Yeah, you should have done some research, it's not like this is confusing or anything... heh :p Just kidding of course. Just ask us next time though (prior to purchase!), we will show you the light.
 
The 8500 was a card that was meant to go head to head with the GeForce Ti-4600. I was in themarket for the latter in hte summer of 2002 until i saw the card I currently have in my sig--it had all the aiw features and was chillin' @ $285 while hte top of the line Gainward Geforce Ti4600 was pushing $330. It had something like 10 frames on my 8500 at the time, but in the real world, given the benefits of AIW, those FPS were easy to let go.

Schemes go creazy after the 8500.

ATI phased in the idea of the high end and low end models....Where something like LE or VE on the end of the 8500 namedenoted a specialization in video or something and a lower overall clock, they stated changing numbers around. The 9700 was the follow up to the 8500 and the last of the dx8 cards.

DX9's Hot new card, the follow up to the 9700 was the 9800 Pro. They realised the price of this thing was out of control so in order to capitalize on its success, they used simmilar names to promote the lower end products (9000, 9200 etc). Those cards were jelly compared to the 9700 and 9800 so the names seem to make sense. Then they realised those cards were TOO jelly to be real contenders forthe market of people who actually want hor performance but are not crazy enough to spend janky amounts of moolah on a card, so they broke out with the Audi A4 of cards, the 9600. The 9600 is DX9 as opposed to the 9700s DX8 but the 9700, while lacking DX9s native grace, has more muscle than the 9600.

the bottom line is that the following in the pecking order:

8500(128megs)==>9600==>9700==> 9800 Pro==> 9800 XT(128/256) ==>x800 Pro ==>x800 XT.

Hmm....looks like i need a new card!
 
So, if some one was looking at getting a card to Replace their ageing R8500, would the 9600XT be a good choice?
Also, besides NewEgg what are other good places to mail order from?
 
The 8500 went head to head with the Ti 500.. not the 4600 :D
But with AF I could see it beating it.
 
The 9700 is also DX 9 capable. the 9800 was just a slight warmover of the 9700.
The 9700 is still a kickass card and kicks the absolute crap out of a 9600. I know i had a 9700proAIW for nearly two years, the longest i have ever owned any piece of hardware! :p
 
dwayne001 said:
The 8500 was a card that was meant to go head to head with the GeForce Ti-4600. I was in themarket for the latter in hte summer of 2002 until i saw the card I currently have in my sig--it had all the aiw features and was chillin' @ $285 while hte top of the line Gainward Geforce Ti4600 was pushing $330. It had something like 10 frames on my 8500 at the time, but in the real world, given the benefits of AIW, those FPS were easy to let go.

Schemes go creazy after the 8500.

ATI phased in the idea of the high end and low end models....Where something like LE or VE on the end of the 8500 namedenoted a specialization in video or something and a lower overall clock, they stated changing numbers around. The 9700 was the follow up to the 8500 and the last of the dx8 cards.

DX9's Hot new card, the follow up to the 9700 was the 9800 Pro. They realised the price of this thing was out of control so in order to capitalize on its success, they used simmilar names to promote the lower end products (9000, 9200 etc). Those cards were jelly compared to the 9700 and 9800 so the names seem to make sense. Then they realised those cards were TOO jelly to be real contenders forthe market of people who actually want hor performance but are not crazy enough to spend janky amounts of moolah on a card, so they broke out with the Audi A4 of cards, the 9600. The 9600 is DX9 as opposed to the 9700s DX8 but the 9700, while lacking DX9s native grace, has more muscle than the 9600.

the bottom line is that the following in the pecking order:

8500(128megs)==>9600==>9700==> 9800 Pro==> 9800 XT(128/256) ==>x800 Pro ==>x800 XT.

Hmm....looks like i need a new card!
Click to expand...
http://www.ati.com/products/radeon9700/radeon9700pro/
9700 is a dx9 card. 9200 was the last dx8 card (I think, was it DX8 or 7?). The 9700 was actually the FIRST card produced by ATi that was DX9, hell I think it was the first DX9 card ever, since NVidia didn't jump in until later and there are no other companies :p (well, important ones anyways, lol).
And yes, sorry to say it, they're right, you did downgrade your card :(

I believe that yes, a 9600 or better would be an upgrade from an 8500 (that's the 9600, not the 9600SE which is a pos).

*edit* kirbster>me :( lol
*edit2* wtf mozilla extension img tags!!??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top