Radeon 8500 vs. 9500

I've been using Nvidia and 3dfx cards for years, always avoided ATI because
of reported driver issues. But after reading that their new drivers have
taken care of those issues, and wanting a low-priced card to replace the
GeForce2 Ti200 in one of my systems, I just bought a Sapphire-built 8500LE.
Wow, I am really impressed. It far outperforms the replaced card in every
way and even seems the equal of the GeForce3, at a much better price.

Now I'm trying to decide on another ATI card for a somewhat faster system. I
don't need or want a really high-end card but am looking for the best bang
for the buck in something intermediate.

My question is, What exactly is the difference between the 8500 and the
9500? Other than the 9500's full support for DirectX9 and 8X AGP (neither of
which I feel any need for at the present time), aren't these about the same
cards?

I can't answer your main question, but I'd like to point out that I also
upgraded from a Geforce 2 TI (it wasn't labelled a '200' though, I didn't
know the GF2 TI came in more than one flavour). I bought a FULL 8500 and I
agree, it easily outperforms the GF2 (I get over 9000 in 3dMark 2001
compared to 4900 before).

What I'd argue with is that it equals a GF3. I'm trying out a GF3 TI200 I
got for £20 the other day (thought it might have been a TI500, whatever).
It's quite a bit down on my 8500 even if I am only using the XP driver (to
save corrupting my system with Detonator drivers). I guess that might show
the difference between 8500 and 8500LE if you think they're equal.

What I also know is that the 8500 ****es all over the 9000 and 9100. Don't
know about the 9200, but I reckon it probably outwits that too even if they
do have silly amounts of memory.

Don't know the technical differences between the 8500 and 9500, but the
benchmarks I vaguely remember would make it about half as big a jump as our
jump from GF2 to 8500. Then there's the Pro version....

"Neil Harrington" <nojunk@all.thanks> wrote in message
news:jPGJa.5752$w26.1590871198@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com...
> I've been using Nvidia and 3dfx cards for years, always avoided ATI
because
> of reported driver issues. But after reading that their new drivers have
> taken care of those issues, and wanting a low-priced card to replace the
> GeForce2 Ti200 in one of my systems, I just bought a Sapphire-built
8500LE.
> Wow, I am really impressed. It far outperforms the replaced card in every
> way and even seems the equal of the GeForce3, at a much better price.
>
> Now I'm trying to decide on another ATI card for a somewhat faster system.
I
> don't need or want a really high-end card but am looking for the best bang
> for the buck in something intermediate.
>
> My question is, What exactly is the difference between the 8500 and the
> 9500? Other than the 9500's full support for DirectX9 and 8X AGP (neither
of
> which I feel any need for at the present time), aren't these about the
same
> cards?
>
>

"Neil Harrington" <nojunk@all.thanks> wrote in message
news:jPGJa.5752$w26.1590871198@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com...

> My question is, What exactly is the difference between the 8500 and the
> 9500? Other than the 9500's full support for DirectX9 and 8X AGP (neither
of
> which I feel any need for at the present time), aren't these about the
same
> cards?

I recently replaced the 64Mb Radeon 8500 (not LE) in my main PC and the
128Mb GeForce3 Ti200 in my second PC with a pair of 128Mb Radeon 9500 Pros.
Been very pleased with the new cards. I would check out www.anandtech.com
if you haven't already done so for details of the technical differences
between the 8500 and the 9500.

Most noticeable difference for me was in Dark Age of Camelot. With the
Radeon 9500 Pro, the game runs faster with 4xAA & 16xAF enabled than it did
with no AA or AF on the Radeon 8500!

JB