Comments on Radeon 9250 ?

[lanstrad]

I presently use a Matrox Millenium G450 AGP (dualhead) with 16MB
memory.

While my concern remains about productivity and look and feel (which
the Matrox card certainly offer for Sonar, as well as some occasional
photo processing), I am very limited for some newest games.

While I do not want to invest in a pricy video adapter, I bought a
Powercolor RADEON 9250 256MB Game FX board which I have not opened
yet. While the card seems to have interesting features (no fan - so
quiet, dual-head, 256MB, and so on) I just cannot find a perfect
comparison chart for both. I surely do not wish to trade excellent
graphic rendering with the Matrox for just speed and capacity to play
MYST IV... Let's put it this way: I want something that offer
graphics at least as good as the Matrox G450 for applications, and
that will work fine with occasionnal gaming.

Any comment or suggestion (especially from anyone using the RADEON
9250) ? (Also on its easiness in terms of not messing configuration
and/or with audio...)

Thanks,
Rob

System : P IV, 1.6 Ghz, 512 or 768 MB RAM

 

[Augustus]

I presently use a Matrox Millenium G450 AGP (dualhead) with 16MB
memory.

While my concern remains about productivity and look and feel (which
the Matrox card certainly offer for Sonar, as well as some occasional
photo processing), I am very limited for some newest games.

While the 9250 is faster than your Matrox G450 and has excellent 2D output,
it's a real bottom feeder for gaming. No DX9 support, 240Mhz core and 200Mhz
memory. On a Barton 2500 it will get around 6500 or so in 3Dmark01. Compare
that to the 11,000 that my old Radeon 8500 128Mb would get on a similar
system. My old Geforce2 GTS 32Mb would get about 6500 on the same benchmark.
If all you want is excellent 2D output and productivity, it's fine. For
gaming it's a bad choice. Consider a 9600XT instead. Same excellent 2D, a
real DX9 card, and will run almost all new games at decent resolutions. Good
bang for the buck. Twice as much as the 9250, but 4 times the card.

 

[Tod]

I presently use a Matrox Millenium G450 AGP (dualhead) with 16MB
memory.

While my concern remains about productivity and look and feel (which
the Matrox card certainly offer for Sonar, as well as some occasional
photo processing), I am very limited for some newest games.

While I do not want to invest in a pricy video adapter, I bought a
Powercolor RADEON 9250 256MB Game FX board which I have not opened
yet. While the card seems to have interesting features (no fan - so
quiet, dual-head, 256MB, and so on) I just cannot find a perfect
comparison chart for both. I surely do not wish to trade excellent
graphic rendering with the Matrox for just speed and capacity to play
MYST IV... Let's put it this way: I want something that offer
graphics at least as good as the Matrox G450 for applications, and
that will work fine with occasionnal gaming.

Any comment or suggestion (especially from anyone using the RADEON
9250) ? (Also on its easiness in terms of not messing configuration
and/or with audio...)

Thanks,
Rob

System : P IV, 1.6 Ghz, 512 or 768 MB RAM

Return the 9250 and get a 9600.
I'm a Matrox fan for their great 2D.
I'm very happy with my ATI 9600PRO AIW.