Radeons

[nath]

Now, I'm sure I could search through the other posts etc. but it's much easier (for me) to ask again and have Jonty write out an incredibly concise and full essay about it here.

I want to buy a radeon for me tired old amd 1ghz. I want to spend around 100, but perhaps less, or maybe more if it's worth it. I'm not looking for the best thing here, just something that will let me play half life 2 alright, and perhaps a few other games. I did already ask this elsewhere but is anyone willing to explain the main differences (not just "ones faster than the other") between the 9xxx series of radeons. Preferably using the Geforce series as a benchmark, as it's the only language I know

Thanks in advance to anyone (jonty) who can be arsed to reply

 

[Jonty]

*Jonty cries after losing all he just typed From what he recalls, it went something like this . . .*

You hold me in far too higher regard

Anyway, the current state of play in terms between ATi and nVidia is something like this (though keep in mind this is no doubt inaccurate and a little out of date):

[i]Legend ~ Category, Approximate Price, mid-2002, early-2003[/i] 

Hard Core     $399+   GeForce FX 5800 Ultra   GeForce FX 5900 Ultra
                      Radeon 9700 Pro         Radeon 9800 Pro

Enthusiast    $299    GeForce 4 Ti            GeForce FX 5900
                      Radeon 9700             Radeon 9800 / 9700 Pro

Performance   $199    GeForce 4 Ti            GeForce FX 5600 Ultra
                      Radeon 9500 Pro         Radeon 9500 Pro / Radeon 9600 Pro

Mainstream 1  $149    GeForce 4 Ti / MX       GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
                      Radeon 9500 / 8500      Radeon 9600 / 9500

Mainstream 2  $99     GeForce 4 MX            GeForce FX 5200
                      Radeon 9100 Pro         Radeon 9100 Pro

Value         $79     GeForce 4 MX            GeForce FX 5200 / GeForce 4 MX 
                      Radeon 9200 Pro / 9000  Radeon 9200 Pro / 9000

So, nath, with regards your situation, we're really looking at the mainstream and value markets. As such, there are really four ATi cards which may be suitable (N.B. both 'pro' and 'non-Pro' versions of the Radeon cards are produced, but considering there is usually only a small difference in price, it's almost always better to go for the 'pro' version and gain the extra features) (N.B.2 if I mention a card without writing the 'pro' suffix, assume I mean the 'pro' version unless otherwise stated ):

• Radeon 9500 Pro
• Radeon 9200 Pro
• Radeon 9100 Pro
• Radeon 9000 Pro

9500

This card actually comes in way over budget, at around £140, but you do get one pretty amazing card for your money. Firstly, it's the only card on the list to fully support DirectX 9, and in terms of performance, it can usually keep up with a GeForce 4 4400 (sometimes even a 4600 in intensive tests) or a GeForce FX 5600. Keep in mind that this is a powerful card, and the rest of your system may mean that it won't be able to show off its true potential. That said, should you ever upgrade, this card would happily sit in a more powerful machine without being out of place.

9000 and 9200

I've grouped these two together as they are essentially the same, the 9200 merely being a 9000 with a few bells and whistles attached, such as AGP8x support (not that it's really worth much). The 9000 and 9200 cards only support Direct 8.1, and lack a few of the other fancy features which the 9500 has (essentially, the 9000 was designed from scratch as a budget card, whereas the 9500 was designed with performance/mainstream markets in mind). That said, most games do not require all the fancy features of the more powerful cards, but not having them does mean these cards will date far quicker than it's bigger brothers.

9100

The 9100 is essentially ATi's old Radeon 8500 rebadged with a few new features thrown in for good measure. The 8500 was once the best card ATi produced before the 9xxx series, and it still outperforms the new 9000 card (hence the reason for the rebadging). Prices for these cards, although much lower than they used to be, still tend to be quite high for a budget card as you're essentially getting an enthusiast-level product, only with yesterday's technology.

Summary

No doubt this is all very confusing, so my apologies for not explaining it better. In short, the 9500 card, although expensive, will provide all the performance you could need and could easily be transferred to a more powerful system should you upgrade. Alternatively, the 9000, 9100 and 9200 all provide good, solid performance at a price which won't break the bank (barring, perhaps, the 9100 for the reasons stated above). As ever, you're stuck between the features/price trade-off.

nVidia

Just a quick word in support of nVidia. Their GeForce FX 5200 Ultra cards retail at a low price, similar to that of a Radeon 9000, and yet offer full DirectX 9 support, unlike ATi's budget cards. Performance seems to be akin to that of a 9000 card at the moment, with benchmarks putting nVidia ahead in most areas (if only by a small amount).

Add to this the speculation surrounding nVidia's Detonator FX drivers. Apparently, and for once these figures may be true, nVidia have been able to truly optimise the drivers for their GeForce FX family. The 5600 Ultra card, which disappointed many in terms of performance, has been seen to show a 15-30% increase in real-world applications, such as games, with the new drivers. Whether such performance gains could be achieved on the 5200 Ultra is unknown, but if so, nVidia could extend their current advantage in the budget sector.

In the end, it's your call, because both nVidia and ATi produce some amazing products. Being as objectively as I can be, it seems nVidia do have the upperhand in the budget sector, even if they are currently lagging behind at the top end of the market.

That's it . . . no, really, I mean it

Well, if you're reading this bit you've either fallen asleep and lost your place or you got bored and skipped ahead Sorry for dragging on, but sadly the graphics market is a tangled mess of late, making it very confusing (so don't take what I've said to be the gospel truth!). My advice is simply to shop around, read a few independent reviews of the cards that interest you, and make a decision on the card that's right for you (so don't be swayed by people who love/hate ATi or nVidia ).

Kind Regards

Jonty

P.S. Half-Life 2 will run a 700Mhz CPU with a DirectX 6 graphics card, due to the scaling technology in Valve's Source engine. It won't be pretty, but it will be stable. That said, a 2Ghz CPU with something akin to a GeForce 4/Radeon 9500 will be required to really begin to show off the eye candy which the engine is capable of.

 

[Testin da Cable]

I hope BW/Game pay you Jonty

 

[nath]

Originally posted by Jonty
(so don't be swayed by people who love/hate ATi or nVidia ).

I never take anything Bodhi says even remotely seriously

Cheers for that though, I think the 9500 pro is fer me

 

[Jonty]

Originally posted by Testin da Cable
I hope BW/Game pay you Jonty

I get 'perks', shall we say But if you'd like to start a petition on the general forum for me to receive a proper wage, or even just super-moderator status, then feel free to do so

*Jonty gets fired for his ungratefulness*

Kind Regards

 

[Jonty]

Originally posted by nath
I never take anything Bodhi says even remotely seriously
Cheers for that though, I think the 9500 pro is for me

Aww, be nice to him

As for the 9500 Pro, good choice I think it should run fine in your system (at least I hope so) but you should be aware it needs a connection to your power supply unit (PSU). It sounds more daunting than it is, and connecting the card is very easy, but before you order just check you have a 300W PSU or above. If you need any advice on finding out your PSU rating, just ask

Kind Regards

 

[Testin da Cable]

Originally posted by Jonty

*Jonty gets fired for his ungratefulness*

*tdc hears every single headhunter in the world CENSORED DUE TO NAUGHTYNESS*

goodness. sometimes I wish I could still hire people

 

[nath]

I'm running an AMD, of course I've got a 300w+ psu

One more thing, is there a big difference between manufacturers or are they all the same hardware?

There's a PowerColor 9500 Pro for 140 that has grabbed my attention, but is it likely to be more than 10 quids worth shitter than the Saphire which is 150?

 

[Jonty]

Hi nath

I must admit, I've often wondered this myself Although I had never heard of PowerColor until a while ago (when looking for 9500 Pro cards, as it happens), I did find this blurb in one of the reviews . . .

FiringSquad
PowerColor is a name that may not be familiar to you, but they’ve actually been in the graphics card business longer than many of ATI’s partners. Before signing on with ATI, PowerColor produced cards based on NVIDIA and 3dfx’s graphics chips. PowerColor was also one of a handful of graphics manufacturers to partner with ST Micro/PowerVR on its Kyro products. Before Hercules stepped in, PowerColor was one of their key customers.

To this day PowerColor still produces GeForce products as well as graphics cards based on the SiS Xabre, and overseas, the Kyro II. But now the company is focusing the majority of its efforts on its products based on ATI’s RADEON 9000, 9500, and 9700 lines. Their EVIL COMMANDO (RADEON 9000 PRO) and EVIL COMMANDO 2 (RADEON 9700 PRO) cards were among the first available on the market when these cores were made available largely due to their expertise in bringing their products to market quickly and at an inexpensive price.

The card itself (the one tested was actually a 9700 Pro) scored well and came out without any serious faults.

That said, companies like Sapphire and Connect3D have a good reputation, which is something money cannot buy. Whether it's worth the extra £10, I just don't know. Technically, the cards are probably identical for all intents and purposes, so it simply comes down to the software and hardware bundle, and the drivers (the latter of which isn't an issue if you're planning to use ATi's reference drivers).

Just in terms of price, I went shopping for you eBuyer (Sapphire) for £146.70 + P&P; The Overclocking Store (Connect 3D) for £139.83 with free P&P; Komplett (Sapphire) £137.65 + (expensive) P&P.

Kind Regards

 

[nath]

Ahh jonty, vis zis price lizt, you are really spoiling uz! (me).

Connect 3d was another I was looking at, reasonably priced.

I've had a very bad experience with the overclocking store, so I'll be avoiding them.

/me ponders buying now.

 

[Jonty]

Your welcome You may also wish to check Blisware (Connect3D) for £142.16 inc. (so it seems) free P&P. I've never used them, but they are linked to from the Connect3D website.

Good luck

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by Jonty
*Jonty cries after losing all he just typed From what he recalls, it went something like this . . .*

You hold me in far too higher regard

Anyway, the current state of play in terms between ATi and nVidia is something like this (though keep in mind this is no doubt inaccurate and a little out of date):

[i]Legend ~ Category, Approximate Price, mid-2002, early-2003[/i] 

Hard Core     $399+   GeForce FX 5800 Ultra   GeForce FX 5900 Ultra
                      Radeon 9700 Pro         Radeon 9800 Pro

Enthusiast    $299    GeForce 4 Ti            GeForce FX 5900
                      Radeon 9700             Radeon 9800 / 9700 Pro

Performance   $199    GeForce 4 Ti            GeForce FX 5600 Ultra
                      Radeon 9500 Pro         Radeon 9500 Pro / Radeon 9600 Pro

Mainstream 1  $149    GeForce 4 Ti / MX       GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
                      Radeon 9500 / 8500      Radeon 9600 / 9500

Mainstream 2  $99     GeForce 4 MX            GeForce FX 5200
                      Radeon 9100 Pro         Radeon 9100 Pro

Value         $79     GeForce 4 MX            GeForce FX 5200 / GeForce 4 MX 
                      Radeon 9200 Pro / 9000  Radeon 9200 Pro / 9000

So, nath, with regards your situation, we're really looking at the mainstream and value markets. As such, there are really four ATi cards which may be suitable (N.B. both 'pro' and 'non-Pro' versions of the Radeon cards are produced, but considering there is usually only a small difference in price, it's almost always better to go for the 'pro' version and gain the extra features) (N.B.2 if I mention a card without writing the 'pro' suffix, assume I mean the 'pro' version unless otherwise stated ):

• Radeon 9500 Pro
• Radeon 9200 Pro
• Radeon 9100 Pro
• Radeon 9000 Pro

9500

This card actually comes in way over budget, at around £140, but you do get one pretty amazing card for your money. Firstly, it's the only card on the list to fully support DirectX 9, and in terms of performance, it can usually keep up with a GeForce 4 4400 (sometimes even a 4600 in intensive tests) or a GeForce FX 5600. Keep in mind that this is a powerful card, and the rest of your system may mean that it won't be able to show off its true potential. That said, should you ever upgrade, this card would happily sit in a more powerful machine without being out of place.

9000 and 9200

I've grouped these two together as they are essentially the same, the 9200 merely being a 9000 with a few bells and whistles attached, such as AGP8x support (not that it's really worth much). The 9000 and 9200 cards only support Direct 8.1, and lack a few of the other fancy features which the 9500 has (essentially, the 9000 was designed from scratch as a budget card, whereas the 9500 was designed with performance/mainstream markets in mind). That said, most games do not require all the fancy features of the more powerful cards, but not having them does mean these cards will date far quicker than it's bigger brothers.

9100

The 9100 is essentially ATi's old Radeon 8500 rebadged with a few new features thrown in for good measure. The 8500 was once the best card ATi produced before the 9xxx series, and it still outperforms the new 9000 card (hence the reason for the rebadging). Prices for these cards, although much lower than they used to be, still tend to be quite high for a budget card as you're essentially getting an enthusiast-level product, only with yesterday's technology.

Summary

No doubt this is all very confusing, so my apologies for not explaining it better. In short, the 9500 card, although expensive, will provide all the performance you could need and could easily be transferred to a more powerful system should you upgrade. Alternatively, the 9000, 9100 and 9200 all provide good, solid performance at a price which won't break the bank (barring, perhaps, the 9100 for the reasons stated above). As ever, you're stuck between the features/price trade-off.

nVidia

Just a quick word in support of nVidia. Their GeForce FX 5200 Ultra cards retail at a low price, similar to that of a Radeon 9000, and yet offer full DirectX 9 support, unlike ATi's budget cards. Performance seems to be akin to that of a 9000 card at the moment, with benchmarks putting nVidia ahead in most areas (if only by a small amount).

Add to this the speculation surrounding nVidia's Detonator FX drivers. Apparently, and for once these figures may be true, nVidia have been able to truly optimise the drivers for their GeForce FX family. The 5600 Ultra card, which disappointed many in terms of performance, has been seen to show a 15-30% increase in real-world applications, such as games, with the new drivers. Whether such performance gains could be achieved on the 5200 Ultra is unknown, but if so, nVidia could extend their current advantage in the budget sector.

In the end, it's your call, because both nVidia and ATi produce some amazing products. Being as objectively as I can be, it seems nVidia do have the upperhand in the budget sector, even if they are currently lagging behind at the top end of the market.

That's it . . . no, really, I mean it

Well, if you're reading this bit you've either fallen asleep and lost your place or you got bored and skipped ahead Sorry for dragging on, but sadly the graphics market is a tangled mess of late, making it very confusing (so don't take what I've said to be the gospel truth!). My advice is simply to shop around, read a few independent reviews of the cards that interest you, and make a decision on the card that's right for you (so don't be swayed by people who love/hate ATi or nVidia ).

Kind Regards

Jonty

P.S. Half-Life 2 will run a 700Mhz CPU with a DirectX 6 graphics card, due to the scaling technology in Valve's Source engine. It won't be pretty, but it will be stable. That said, a 2Ghz CPU with something akin to a GeForce 4/Radeon 9500 will be required to really begin to show off the eye candy which the engine is capable of.

Holy shit

 

[(Shovel)]

I would expect the difference between £140 and £150 might be component quality. I don't know where to find out about that though I'm afraid (Sorry Jonty, that essentially passes it back to you).

To save money different manufacturers will use cheaper RAM, cheaper cooling. The difficulty is knowing if it matters. If someone cuts out something really drastic, and puts a cheap, less reliable cooler onboard, then you could massively decrease the life of the chip. On the new GeforceFX cards - where I believe they underclock themselves if it gets too hot - a cheap cooler can reduce the performance of a 'technically' top model card.

However, if the review that Jonty has quoted have reported no problems, it is probably a pretty safe bet that the componants will be fine. Reputable reviews will tend to give the cooling a poke too to check it for robustness.

As I say, I don't know where to look to find out details about individual manufacturers choice of 'quality parts'. Bear in mind that any manufacturer with a history of using shit RAM, for instance, would be well known to avoid.

The only other thing I can think of that regards pricing would be a software bundle, if any. Somewhere in the small print might £10 worth of bundled software.

 

[Jonty]

Originally posted by Embattle
Holy shit

LOL!

Anyway, good point (Shovel), you're exactly right. Radeon cards are somewhat of strange bunch, though, as you'll often find whole cards, not just chips, being produced by the same manufacturer and simply placed in different boxes. For example, ATi's own Radeon 9xxx cards (which have a very good reputation, but which are unavailable over on this side of the pond) were actually produced by Sapphire for a long time.

Now the roles have reversed, and ATi are producing the cards and simply selling them on. From the review . . .

FiringSquad
As we discussed earlier, the ATI RADEON 9700 PRO and PowerColor’s Evil Commando 2 are virtually identical. The cooling unit on both cards is the same (which is held in place by push pins) as are the capacitors and other circuitry, even the VGA connectors themselves are of the same manufacture as ATI’s own RADEON 9700 PRO card.

We’ve heard from numerous sources that ATI produced many of the early third-party RADEON 9700 PRO cards themselves and simply sold them to their partners, based on our experience with the PowerColor Evil Commando 2, we don’t doubt this.

Once again, I appreciate that this is the 9700 Pro, but PowerColor reviews are hard to find and it wouldn't surprise me if the same held true for PowerColor's 9500 Pro card.

At the end of the day, these deals tend to be the cheapest for resellers like PowerColor. They don't have to manufacturer the cards, they don't have to invest money in research and development on how to improve them, they can merely rake in the profits. Thankfully for ATi, respect is ensured in their brand name as inferior components aren't used. The reasons why Sapphire cards cost more, I can only presume, is because they actually produce their own cards, and they aren't afraid of altering the reference design and using their own (perhaps superior) heatsinks and RAM sinks etc. Cool as this is, they have to make their money back somehow

Kind Regards