K
kalev-
a new 9200 or an old 8500 pro...which card is better?
jk
jk
S
Sleepy Ben
no contest - the 8500
S
Someguy
kalev- said:
8500 without a doubt, is the much better card.
M
Mike P
I think the 9100 is an underclocked 8500 and the 9200 is a p.o.s. for
gaming. The 8500 wasn't a pro btw. And make sure you don't get the SE,
it's a slowed down version. Especially the SESE...
Mike
gaming. The 8500 wasn't a pro btw. And make sure you don't get the SE,
it's a slowed down version. Especially the SESE...
Mike
B
Biffo
I think it's called LE and not SE. 8500LE, slightly slower clock speed
than stock 8500 but can probably be OC to 8500 speed. Or was there an
SE too? It wouldn't surprise me as the vid card companies sure like to
make it confusing for the consumer as to which model is better than
the other.
S
Skid
Biffo said:
True. I had an ATI 128-meg Radeon 8500 LE that came stock at 250/250. No
problem overclocking to 275/275 and beyond.
M
Mike P
Yes, it was LE and LELE. My first ATI card after nVidia was a 32mb Radeon
LE, did a registry hack and overclocked to full speeds, loved the card and
since have had an 8500 and now a 9800np. SE is the new designation, more
suitably refered to as slow edition rather than lite edition..;-)
Mike
LE, did a registry hack and overclocked to full speeds, loved the card and
since have had an 8500 and now a 9800np. SE is the new designation, more
suitably refered to as slow edition rather than lite edition..;-)
Mike
D
Daniel Tonks
Mike P said:
"LE" did pretty well for "lacklustre edition".
- Daniel