Radeon 8500 vs 9200 Atlantis?

[louise]

I just purchased a new computer which was specifically
built to be very quiet.

I'm using a Sony G520 21" CRT

My new computer has an ATI 9200 Atlantis 128

My old computer has an ATI Radeon 8500, 128 - but with a
fan.

Which would be considered the preferred card primarily for
text and Photoshop work?

I'm a little confused because I expected the Atlantis to be
superior and yet....I think maybe the 8500 is sharper but
it's hard to tell because I switch the monitor back and
forth between the two computers so I can't really do a side
by side comparison.

TIA

Louise

 

[Neil Harrington]

Louise, when you say you switch back and forth between the two computers, do
you mean with a KVM switch? If you're not using one of these, then (assuming
the computers are within a few feet of each other) you might want to try
one. A good one (I use Linksys and Trendnet models with integrated cables)
is not expensive. While it still wouldn't be exactly a side-by-side
comparison of course, it would allow you to switch back and forth instantly
and that should allow you to make a useful comparison between those two
cards.

Neil

 

[Cuzman]

" Which would be considered the preferred card primarily for text and
Photoshop work? "


For text you shouldn't really see any difference. Heavier Photoshop use may
benefit from more graphics card memory, but it relies more on system RAM and
CPU power than the graphics card specs.

The two cards don't vary in spec too much, but although the 9200 is newer,
it is slower as a gaming card.
http://www20.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.html

 

[Tod]

ATI took the GPU chip in the 8500, trimed it down a little, then put the
trimed down GPU into the 9000 and 9200 cards.
So the 8500 will be a little faster.

 

[JAD]

Its funny how we just except that as fact now.... I remember when it
happened and MAN the hype went nutz about how ATI was ripping us off
and selling less a card for twice the money using the 'numbering'
technique to perpetrate it,,,, blah blah blah it was quite the
ordeal.
I still feel that way when I see it worded as you did.

Just a worthless retrospect....

 

[Augustus]

ATI took the GPU chip in the 8500, trimed it down a little, then put the
trimed down GPU into the 9000 and 9200 cards.
So the 8500 will be a little faster.

A real 8500 isn't just a little faster than a 9000/9200, it's a big jump.
Like from 6500-7000 to 12,000-12,500+ in 3DMark 2001. Core speeds, memory
speed and GPU features are vastly superior. You basically have to go to
straight 9600 (non SE) to equal or better the performance of the 8500.

 

[louise]

Louise, when you say you switch back and forth between the two computers, do
you mean with a KVM switch? If you're not using one of these, then (assuming
the computers are within a few feet of each other) you might want to try
one. A good one (I use Linksys and Trendnet models with integrated cables)
is not expensive. While it still wouldn't be exactly a side-by-side
comparison of course, it would allow you to switch back and forth instantly
and that should allow you to make a useful comparison between those two
cards.

Neil

My Sony CRT monitor allows for two inputs and there is a
switch on the front to go from one input to the other. But
when you switch, you get a black screen for about a minute
until it finds itself.

I guess that's not bad - but I would feel more sure of what
I think I see if I had the comparison instantly available.

Thanks for your suggestion.

Louise

 

[louise]

A real 8500 isn't just a little faster than a 9000/9200, it's a big jump.
Like from 6500-7000 to 12,000-12,500+ in 3DMark 2001. Core speeds, memory
speed and GPU features are vastly superior. You basically have to go to
straight 9600 (non SE) to equal or better the performance of the 8500.

Would this difference be noticeable in 2D as well? I think
I see that it is a slower card - that's what made me post.
But I'm basing this on text and some photo work.

Would it be work upgrading to the 9600 Pro?

Thanks.

Louise - if you want to email, send email to louise250
@nyc.rr.com

 

[Augustus]

Would this difference be noticeable in 2D as well? I think

I see that it is a slower card - that's what made me post.
But I'm basing this on text and some photo work.

Would it be work upgrading to the 9600 Pro?

Thanks.

Radeons are noted for excellent color reproduction and fast 2D. The biggest
differences between an 8500 or a 9600 vs the 9000/9200 series are in 3D
work, although they would be faster in 2D as well. Since you already have an
8500 what I would do is put it in the machine you're going to be using for
photowork and text work, and relegate your 9200 to the less used box.
9000/9200's are budget cards, with cheaper components and features. 8500's
are a Mac standard for Photoshop work. Either would do the job for you, and
unless 3D and DX9 gaming is required, I wouldn't run out and get a 9600.

 

[louise]

Radeons are noted for excellent color reproduction and fast 2D. The biggest
differences between an 8500 or a 9600 vs the 9000/9200 series are in 3D
work, although they would be faster in 2D as well. Since you already have an
8500 what I would do is put it in the machine you're going to be using for
photowork and text work, and relegate your 9200 to the less used box.
9000/9200's are budget cards, with cheaper components and features. 8500's
are a Mac standard for Photoshop work. Either would do the job for you, and
unless 3D and DX9 gaming is required, I wouldn't run out and get a 9600.

Thanks - it's interesting, but I do see the speed
difference between the two cards - even in 2D. I think
I'll put the 8500 in the machine I really plan to use.

I could have chosen a different card but didn't know that
the 9200 would offer less than my old 8500. I guess I
should have done my research

Louise

 

[Augustus]

I could have chosen a different card but didn't know that

the 9200 would offer less than my old 8500. I guess I
should have done my research

Louise

For truth in description, 9000/9200 series should really be called 8000/8200
series. The 9100 is different....it's an actual 8500 with slightly slower
core/mem.

 

[Sept1967]

Yeah a 64bit memory bus on anything less then a TNT2/M64 should be a crime.

There was GF3, then GF4 ti , then GF4MX (slower then a GF2)

So ATI does the same...

They had 8500, then 9000/Pro/9100, then 9200 (slower then an 8500)

Gotta love when a "new" line is slower then 2 generations ago.

 

[lm]

For truth in description, 9000/9200 series should really be called 8000/8200
series. The 9100 is different....it's an actual 8500 with slightly slower
core/mem.

Where does 9000 Pro fit in there? how does it compare to a 8500?

 

[Augustus]

Where does 9000 Pro fit in there? how does it compare to a 8500?

All 8500/8500LE/9100's have the RV200 GPU. The 8500 has 275/275 for
core/memory, while the 8500LE/9100's typically use 250/250. The 9000 Pro has
the RV250 GPU at 275Mhz, and 275Mhz (550) memory. Although it may sound
better than the R200 GPU, it's not. The RV250 core processes only 1 texture
per cycle, while the R200 core processes 2 per cycle. The 9000/9200 series
are also missing some of the other proprietary GPU features that the
8500/9100 series have. They're all DX8 cards, but in terms of speed and 3D,
the 9000Pro is about 10-15% slower compared to a 8500. An 8500 compares to
GeForce4 Ti4200. Of all the 9000/9200 series cards, the 9000 Pro is the
better one. The 9200SE is the worst.

 

[lm]

Thanks for the info Augustus. You seem to know a lot of details about
Radeons. I got a Radeon 9000 Pro last week. From what you say, it seems to
be it seems to be fairly good compared to a 8500, so thats ok.

lm