regarding the ati 9200

by **paseo85** on Sun Sep 14, 2003 11:20 pm

i want to upgrade i just purchase ati 9200 mb128 i have 9000 also im just nvidia 5200 better than these two cards or what please let me know

by **nickia** on Mon Sep 15, 2003 5:16 am

9600 or 9500 series

by **bishibashiboy** on Mon Sep 15, 2003 6:14 am

paseo85 wrote:i want to upgrade i just purchase ati 9200 mb128 i have 9000 also im just nvidia 5200 better than these two cards or what please let me know

That wasn't much of an upgrade. In actuality the 9200 is just the 8X AGP version of the 9000 (which in the end makes very little if any difference at all). The Radeon 9200 128MB version is also actually slower than the Radeon 9000pro due to slower memory.

The GeforceFX 5200 is slightly faster than the 9200. That isn't saying much in the end. Do not expect either cards to play your games very well.

If you want a budget card, go with the Radeon 9100 series. However, try not buy anything lower than the Radeon 9600 series now if possible. And stay the hell away from the GeforceFX series.

by **paseo85** on Mon Sep 15, 2003 10:50 pm

again thanks for the advice.

by **fvdmc** on Tue Sep 16, 2003 8:19 am

If I had a bundle of money, I would buy a NVida 256mb GeForce FX 5900. :cool:

by **ReyJ** on Tue Sep 16, 2003 9:08 am

You know, what I never understood was why the ATI 9100 and 9200 was considered a slower card than the 9000. Is it just the slower memory of the new cards? Or does something else come into play here?

by **bishibashiboy** on Tue Sep 16, 2003 2:19 pm

fvdmc wrote:If I had a bundle of money, I would buy a NVida 256mb GeForce FX 5900.

A month ago, I would have agreed, but check it out:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1863&p=8
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1863&p=9
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1863&p=10

ouch..a R9600p beating an FX5900U? Somebody's shader performance stinks. :wink:

ReyJ wrote:You know, what I never understood was why the ATI 9100 and 9200 was considered a slower card than the 9000. Is it just the slower memory of the new cards? Or does something else come into play here?

Oh no actually, the 9100 is faster than both the 9000 and 9200. Ati numbering scheme is screwed. The 9100 has the memory bandwidth advantage over the other two. The 9200 has slower memory than the 9000.

This is how Ati's cards rank:
9200<9000<9100<9500nonpro<9600nonpro<9600pro<9500pro<9700nonpro<9800nonpro<9700pro<9800pro

confusing eh?

by **Metsis** on Tue Sep 16, 2003 3:03 pm

Man bishibashiboy you are gullible... You find one site with reviews of Radeon being better then GeForce and you eat it up whole. Find us atleast two more sites and then you might be onto something.

If I was a fan of GeForce, well I could probably find a web site or two that would contain "real" test data and they would bash radeon to hell in those and praise GeForce to the seventh heaven.

The computer magazines and web sites and all have their own likes and dislikes. Some want to bash EA for being EA and giving us quality games each year (at least in my mind). That's just how jealous we people are.

by **bishibashiboy** on Tue Sep 16, 2003 3:22 pm

Metsis wrote:Man bishibashiboy you are gullible... You find one site with reviews of Radeon being better then GeForce and you eat it up whole. Find us atleast two more sites and then you might be onto something.

If I was a fan of GeForce, well I could probably find a web site or two that would contain "real" test data and they would bash radeon to hell in those and praise GeForce to the seventh heaven.

The computer magazines and web sites and all have their own likes and dislikes. Some want to bash EA for being EA and giving us quality games each year (at least in my mind). That's just how jealous we people are.

No seriously, you're joking right? I only posted one because that's the most influential one and the most respected.
This has been big news the last few days and it's going off-topic (as seemingly all my posts do), but here ya go:

First from valve:
http://www.beyond3d.com/misc/hl2/index.php?p=3

There's still more:

http://www20.tomshardware.com/graphic/2 ... 1024x76832

and here:
http://www.beyond3d.com/misc/hl2/index.php?p=6

and here:
http://gamersdepot.com/hardware/video_c ... up/002.htm

and for good measure let's just throw in some laptop GPUs:
http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.html?i=1866&p=9

I won't even bother posting the links to the new Aquamark benchmark released and how nvidia is cheating in them and still getting beat bad.
Unless nVidia has something cooking with its Det 50 drivers (and in fact it's already proven that the shader performance still sucks with them), it's basically over for them for this round. They're just not dx-9 cards and only fools would buy them as of right now.

by **fvdmc** on Wed Sep 17, 2003 9:30 am

Whoa... I change my mind. If I had a bundle of money, I would buy a ATI Radeon 9800 pro.

by **fvdmc** on Wed Sep 17, 2003 9:40 am

Take a look at this:
http://www.betanews.com/article.php3?sid=1060907352
One word, OUCH.

Chief Executive of ATI is an asian. What a surprise. :-)

by **bishibashiboy** on Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:16 pm

fvdmc wrote:Take a look at this:
http://www.betanews.com/article.php3?sid=1060907352
One word, OUCH.

Chief Executive of ATI is an asian. What a surprise.

Just out of curiosity, is that a good or bad thing? :?:

by **fvdmc** on Wed Sep 17, 2003 1:11 pm

bishibashiboy wrote:
fvdmc wrote:Take a look at this:
http://www.betanews.com/article.php3?sid=1060907352
One word, OUCH.

Chief Executive of ATI is an asian. What a surprise.

Just out of curiosity, is that a good or bad thing?

It isn't good or bad. I just put up an article on how NVidia got bumped off by ATI. The Asian thing was a racial joke. :lol:

by **bishibashiboy** on Wed Sep 17, 2003 1:16 pm

fvdmc wrote:
bishibashiboy wrote:
fvdmc wrote:Take a look at this:
http://www.betanews.com/article.php3?sid=1060907352
One word, OUCH.

Chief Executive of ATI is an asian. What a surprise.

Just out of curiosity, is that a good or bad thing?

It isn't good or bad. I just put up an article on how NVidia got bumped off by ATI. The Asian thing was a racial joke.

Yeah i was talking about your 'joke'. :roll:

I guess i should be a CEO somewhere too then. :cool:

by **fvdmc** on Wed Sep 17, 2003 1:19 pm

bishibashiboy wrote:Yeah i was talking about your 'joke'.
I guess i should be a CEO somewhere too then.

There were two things there, I didn't know what you were referring to. Well now I know.

Did you know Nvidia's CEO is also an Asian. lol

by **bishibashiboy** on Wed Sep 17, 2003 2:30 pm

fvdmc wrote:
bishibashiboy wrote:Yeah i was talking about your 'joke'.
I guess i should be a CEO somewhere too then.

There were two things there, I didn't know what you were referring to. Well now I know. Did you know Nvidia's CEO is also an Asian. lol

oh hell yeah..gooo 'AzIaN PrYde'! <-- i hate that..and i'm honestly embarrased to be asian when ppl write something like that and are for real.

Anyways back on topic.
Does anyone here actually own a GeforceFX 5200 and are happy with it's performance in Live 2003?
If yes, expect it to be worse in 2004.
If no, then stop buying this kinda crap.

I cannot stress this enough to people. You may skimp out on other things in your computer but DO NOT skimp out on the graphics card. It's the most important component (other than the cpu) in a gaming machine. When Live 2004 comes out and you have this card or anything less than a Radeon 9600, don't you dare complain. You get what you pay for, and you aren't paying much for an FX5200.

by **nickia** on Wed Sep 17, 2003 2:57 pm

ReyJ wrote:You know, what I never understood was why the ATI 9100 and 9200 was considered a slower card than the 9000. Is it just the slower memory of the new cards? Or does something else come into play here?

9100 was 8500LE, ATI just changed the name to 9100 so they can resale their old 8500LE storages.

9100 is better than 9000.
but i don't think 9100 will be enough for 2004 live if you want smooth and nice game. i'm using 8500(my $350)right now, and it's good enough for now. i rather wait till half life 2 come out and consider upgrade at that time.

by **Boyk** on Fri Sep 19, 2003 12:28 am

bishibashiboy wrote:
fvdmc wrote:
bishibashiboy wrote:Yeah i was talking about your 'joke'.
I guess i should be a CEO somewhere too then.

There were two things there, I didn't know what you were referring to. Well now I know. Did you know Nvidia's CEO is also an Asian. lol

oh hell yeah..gooo 'AzIaN PrYde'! <-- i hate that..and i'm honestly embarrased to be asian when ppl write something like that and are for real.

Anyways back on topic.
Does anyone here actually own a GeforceFX 5200 and are happy with it's performance in Live 2003?
If yes, expect it to be worse in 2004.
If no, then stop buying this kinda crap.

I cannot stress this enough to people. You may skimp out on other things in your computer but DO NOT skimp out on the graphics card. It's the most important component (other than the cpu) in a gaming machine. When Live 2004 comes out and you have this card or anything less than a Radeon 9600, don't you dare complain. You get what you pay for, and you aren't paying much for an FX5200.

hey, i have a 5200 and it worls great on live and unreal 2 and all high powered games.
it took a few updates but now is great (Y)

by **bishibashiboy** on Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:07 am

Laddas_KB8 wrote:hey, i have a 5200 and it worls great on live and unreal 2 and all high powered games.
it took a few updates but now is great

Whoa you gotta be kidding!

Seriously, i understand a lot of people have their own idiosyncracies when it comes to playable framerates, but being able to play unreal 2 on it? hmm..i guess it would depend on whether or not you turn all the details up and at what resolution. Likewise with Live. I know for sure it can't reach the magic 60fps needed to play either of these games online comfortably.

But the fact that you can tolerate it at all, big (Y)

to you.

Just don't try to play half life 2 on it when it comes out unless you can tolerate 10-12fps. :wink:

by **ReyJ** on Fri Sep 19, 2003 12:55 pm

There are a few other sites where ATI cards are better than NVidia's. Namely-

www.guru3d.com
www.megagames.com

MegaGames.com usually are non-biased and have informative stuff concerning updates of video card.

bishibashiboy Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2003 2:30 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

oh hell yeah..gooo 'AzIaN PrYde'! <-- i hate that..and i'm honestly embarrased to be asian when ppl write something like that and are for real.

Yeah, tell me about. It's kinda annoying ain't it?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess it all boils down to what the user prefers. If they prefer NVidia, thats fine. If they prefer ATI, thats fine too. :wink:

I'm the type of guy who sits on the fence. I have both NVidia and ATI cards. And to be honest I can't really complain. Well, except the time my NVidia card decided to crap out on me more than once. But hey, it works now and that's all I care about. :cool:

As for the ATI card, it's perfect for games. Everything works smoothly especially now that I've upgraded my RAM. And then again, so does the other machine with the Nvidia card. Both PC's work are really fun to play with especially when my cousins come over for a game of Star Trek Elite Force, Warcraft III, Rise of Nations, UT2003, etc etc.

by **bishibashiboy** on Fri Sep 19, 2003 1:00 pm

ReyJ wrote:There are a few other sites where ATI cards are better than NVidia's. Namely-

www.guru3d.com
www.megagames.com

MegaGames.com usually are non-biased and have informative stuff concerning updates of video card.

bishibashiboy Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2003 2:30 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

oh hell yeah..gooo 'AzIaN PrYde'! <-- i hate that..and i'm honestly embarrased to be asian when ppl write something like that and are for real.

Yeah, tell me about. It's kinda annoying ain't it?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess it all boils down to what the user prefers. If they prefer NVidia, thats fine. If they prefer ATI, thats fine too.

I'm the type of guy who sits on the fence. I have both NVidia and ATI cards. And to be honest I can't really complain. Well, except the time my NVidia card decided to crap out on me more than once. But hey, it works now and that's all I care about.

As for the ATI card, it's perfect for games. Everything works smoothly especially now that I've upgraded my RAM. And then again, so does the other machine with the Nvidia card. Both PC's work are really fun to play with especially when my cousins come over for a game of Star Trek Elite Force, Warcraft III, Rise of Nations, UT2003, etc etc.

All very true. Actually normally I'm on the 'fence' as well. But this time around however there is no defending nvidia. The kinda crap they pulled this time is not acceptable, and I'm not talking about the performance.

Hey which Ati card do you have??

by **Boyk** on Sat Sep 20, 2003 12:31 am

bishibashiboy wrote:
Laddas_KB8 wrote:hey, i have a 5200 and it worls great on live and unreal 2 and all high powered games.
it took a few updates but now is great

Whoa you gotta be kidding!
Seriously, i understand a lot of people have their own idiosyncracies when it comes to playable framerates, but being able to play unreal 2 on it? hmm..i guess it would depend on whether or not you turn all the details up and at what resolution. Likewise with Live. I know for sure it can't reach the magic 60fps needed to play either of these games online comfortably.

But the fact that you can tolerate it at all, big to you.

Just don't try to play half life 2 on it when it comes out unless you can tolerate 10-12fps.

hey man, listen i respect u and all, but i play every game i have on maximum setting with smoothness.
either you dont know what ya talking about, or you just dont like fx5200's

by **bishibashiboy** on Sat Sep 20, 2003 1:06 am

Laddas_KB8 wrote:hey man, listen i respect u and all, but i play every game i have on maximum setting with smoothness.
either you dont know what ya talking about, or you just dont like fx5200's

Sorry Laddas, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you here, I'm just very surprised you find this card a good performer. You must have a very fast system overall to cover for its weaknesses, or you're not one of those fanatics that like everything running at 60+fps with max details and resolution. I know this card, and I know what kind of limitations it has (as all mainstream-budget cards have), and it pales in comparison to some of the mid-range cards, nevermind the top of the line ones.

I was just recommending people to buy something in the mid-range and up right now if they intend on playing nba live 2004 or ANY new directx9 games on the verge of being released. From my experience, it's worth it to pay a little more for graphics cards. I used to only buy low-end cards, and when i finally got something a lil more expensive, I was truly blown away by the difference.

Besides, if a $100 card is so great, why would anybody be willing to shell out $250-300 for the top of the line card? It's because in the end, they really are flat out better and much faster for upcoming titles. It's worth it to look ahead a little if you're buying now IMHO.

Sorry if i sounded like I'm attacking you :oops:

. As i said, big (Y)

to you for liking this card. You're one of the first people I've met that are very very content with it.

by **Boyk** on Sun Sep 21, 2003 9:23 pm

listen i here what ya saying, but like ive said, i play every latest game on max graphics.
live 2003,unreal 2,gta vice city,battlefield 1942(is it new anymore) flight simulator 2004 and then some.
i know the card aint the best, but its doing its job.
my system is a pentium 4 2.53ghz 768mb of DDR Ram on an ASUS motherboard(great board IMO).
i am looking to spend upto 200-500 on a top end grpahics card. but that is when this one cant support much anymore, but its working great right now so why change?

by **bishibashiboy** on Mon Sep 22, 2003 4:11 am

Laddas_KB8 wrote:listen i here what ya saying, but like ive said, i play every latest game on max graphics.
live 2003,unreal 2,gta vice city,battlefield 1942(is it new anymore) flight simulator 2004 and then some.
i know the card aint the best, but its doing its job.
my system is a pentium 4 2.53ghz 768mb of DDR Ram on an ASUS motherboard(great board IMO).
i am looking to spend upto 200-500 on a top end grpahics card. but that is when this one cant support much anymore, but its working great right now so why change?

Exactly, there is no need to change at the moment. Just if people are buying now they should look up instead of down.

You got a pretty nice system though, which supports my idea. If you had my system (athlon xp 1800+) you'd be dead with that card..

which actually is the point since most people that buy your card don't have a powerful system to back it up.
btw, which Asus board do you have?

I'll prolly buy a new graphics card too when Half life 2/Halo/Doom3/Live 2004 comes out. I think a good time to upgrade to the better graphics cards would be after ATi and Nvidia release their new chips sometime next year.

Does anyone know if Nba LIve '04 will be a directX9 game? Any official requirements anywhere?

regarding the ati 9200

regarding the ati 9200

Re: regarding the ati 9200

Who is online