Radeon 9600, FX5200, or Ti4200

[LRW]

Well, my old card finally gave up the ghost (I was long overdue for a
new card anyway being a Radeon 7500,) but I can really only spend less
than $150 for a new card.

Looking at a couple reviews, I've seen good things about the ATI
Radeon 9600. A little more than $150, but supposedly excellent for the
price.

But, I've had GeForce chip cards before, and have been very impressed.
Plus I can find the FX5200 and Ti4200 both for $115 or less.

AND here's what I found techspec-wise:

Radeon 9600Pro: $160 / Core/Memory clock 400MHz / 300MHz / Memory
Interface 128 bit

FX5200: $68 / Effective Memory Clock: 400MHz / RAMDACs: Dual 350MHz /
Graphics Core: 256-bit

Ti4200: $115 / Effective Memory Clock Rate (MHz): 512 RAMDACs (MHz)
(each have 2 RAMDAC): 350 / Graphics Core: 256-bit

I really want to get the Radeon because anecdotally I hear good
things, but from the numbers, the FX5200 seems much better, AND much
cheaper (which is really surprising, because isn't the Ti4200 a
generation behind the FX5200??)

So, what am I missing here? Why does the more expensive card have
seemingly less power?
And if anyone knows of where I can get any one of these cards for less
than those prices, please let me know! Thanks. =)

Liam
druid -at- celticbear -dot- com

 

[Skid]

Well, my old card finally gave up the ghost (I was long overdue for a
new card anyway being a Radeon 7500,) but I can really only spend less
than $150 for a new card.

Looking at a couple reviews, I've seen good things about the ATI
Radeon 9600. A little more than $150, but supposedly excellent for the
price.

But, I've had GeForce chip cards before, and have been very impressed.
Plus I can find the FX5200 and Ti4200 both for $115 or less.

AND here's what I found techspec-wise:

Radeon 9600Pro: $160 / Core/Memory clock 400MHz / 300MHz / Memory
Interface 128 bit

FX5200: $68 / Effective Memory Clock: 400MHz / RAMDACs: Dual 350MHz /
Graphics Core: 256-bit

Ti4200: $115 / Effective Memory Clock Rate (MHz): 512 RAMDACs (MHz)
(each have 2 RAMDAC): 350 / Graphics Core: 256-bit

I really want to get the Radeon because anecdotally I hear good
things, but from the numbers, the FX5200 seems much better, AND much
cheaper (which is really surprising, because isn't the Ti4200 a
generation behind the FX5200??)

So, what am I missing here? Why does the more expensive card have
seemingly less power?
And if anyone knows of where I can get any one of these cards for less
than those prices, please let me know! Thanks. =)

In order of performance is just like the price ranking, the Radeon 9600 will
be the fastest, with the Ti4200 coming in second and the FX5200 last. The
Radeon will have better image quality -- and it's definitely the pick of
this litter.

 

[tom]

In order of performance is just like the price ranking, the Radeon 9600 will
be the fastest, with the Ti4200 coming in second and the FX5200 last. The
Radeon will have better image quality -- and it's definitely the pick of
this litter.

In current and older games, the ti4200 is generally as fast or faster than
the radeon 9600 - it's just not dx 9.0 compatible so that's probably an
issue.

People really seem to like the 9600, and it's a decent card, but it really
isn't all that fast.


Tom

 

[Paul Turnbull]

In current and older games, the ti4200 is generally as fast or faster than
the radeon 9600 - it's just not dx 9.0 compatible so that's probably an
issue.

People really seem to like the 9600, and it's a decent card, but it really
isn't all that fast.


Tom

Where did you hear that? Doesn't the 9600 pull ahead once you enable AA and
AF?

A quick look on Google brought these up:

http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2003q2/radeon-9600pro/index.x?pg=9

http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2003q2/radeon-9600pro/index.x?pg=8

 

[Alan Shepherd]

In order of performance is just like the price ranking, the Radeon 9600

will


In current and older games, the ti4200 is generally as fast or faster than
the radeon 9600 - it's just not dx 9.0 compatible so that's probably an
issue.

People really seem to like the 9600, and it's a decent card, but it really
isn't all that fast.

Well let's start - the FX5200 is the slowest of the bunch, and pretty much
useless for games at anything other than lower resolutions.

The Ti4200 is a decent card, and the 9600 is also a good card, but for DX8
functions the Radeon and GF are too close to call in terms of performance -
BUT for DX9 eye candy the Radoen has to take the crown - HL2 is the first of
many such games.

 

[Too_Much_Coffee ®]

Well, my old card finally gave up the ghost (I was long overdue for a
new card anyway being a Radeon 7500,) but I can really only spend less
than $150 for a new card.

Looking at a couple reviews, I've seen good things about the ATI
Radeon 9600. A little more than $150, but supposedly excellent for the
price.

But, I've had GeForce chip cards before, and have been very impressed.
Plus I can find the FX5200 and Ti4200 both for $115 or less.

Wait for the 9600XT (November). The core is 100MHz faster than the 9600 Pro.
ATI says the card will be faster than a 9700 Pro. If true, that would be a
very fast card for an MSRP of $199US.


Too_Much_Coffee ®

 

[Inglo]

Where did you hear that? Doesn't the 9600 pull ahead once you enable AA and
AF?

A quick look on Google brought these up:

http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2003q2/radeon-9600pro/index.x?pg=9

http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2003q2/radeon-9600pro/index.x?pg=8

Yeah that's a fact. Raw speed, compared even to my old GF3 Ti500, on my
new 9600 Pro isn't really that mind blowing, but with that card I would
only occasionally enable 2x AA & AF, and I have friends with Ti4200s
that pretty much leave those features off. On older games I was
getting ridiculously high frame rates if I wanted to set things up that
way. Now with the Radeon 9600 Pro, I can run a game like Quake3 with
optimal framerates, 160 fps avg., and have 6x AA and 8x AF enabled.

 

[J.Clarke]

On 9 Oct 2003 07:26:43 -0700

Well, my old card finally gave up the ghost (I was long overdue for a
new card anyway being a Radeon 7500,) but I can really only spend less
than $150 for a new card.

Looking at a couple reviews, I've seen good things about the ATI
Radeon 9600. A little more than $150, but supposedly excellent for the
price.

But, I've had GeForce chip cards before, and have been very impressed.
Plus I can find the FX5200 and Ti4200 both for $115 or less.

AND here's what I found techspec-wise:

Radeon 9600Pro: $160 / Core/Memory clock 400MHz / 300MHz / Memory
Interface 128 bit

FX5200: $68 / Effective Memory Clock: 400MHz / RAMDACs: Dual 350MHz /
Graphics Core: 256-bit

Ti4200: $115 / Effective Memory Clock Rate (MHz): 512 RAMDACs (MHz)
(each have 2 RAMDAC): 350 / Graphics Core: 256-bit

I really want to get the Radeon because anecdotally I hear good
things, but from the numbers, the FX5200 seems much better, AND much
cheaper (which is really surprising, because isn't the Ti4200 a
generation behind the FX5200??)

So, what am I missing here? Why does the more expensive card have
seemingly less power?

Clock speed is far from the whole story. The FX5200 is entry level,
like the Geforce4 MX--the competing ATI board would be the Radeon 9000
or thereabouts. The 9600 is midrange--various design features and
optimizations give it a good deal more real-world performance than the
5200 (well, doesn't really need much in the way of features and
optimizations to beat a 5200--the 5200s are pretty doggy, especially
the ones with 64-bit memory). The Ti4200 will perform about like the
9600, maybe even a bit faster, _provided_ you don't want to use the new
capabilities provided by DirectX 9--the 4200 will run most DirectX 9
games just fine but if you turn on all the new graphic features then
you'll see your system grind to a halt as it tries to do in software
what the Geforce FX boards and the Radeon 9500 and up do in hardware.

 

[LRW]

In order of performance is just like the price ranking, the Radeon 9600 will
be the fastest, with the Ti4200 coming in second and the FX5200 last. The
Radeon will have better image quality -- and it's definitely the pick of
this litter.

So, why's the Radeon, which I trust your and the other replyer's
assesment that it's better as well as the higher price tag, better
than the two nVidias which have the 256bit core and higher clock
speeds? The Radeon having only 128bit and slower speeds, it SEEMS
logical that it should be less powerful.

But then, it seems the video card insdustry thrives on confusing the
consumer.
I mean, the FX5200 IS newer than the Ti4200, right? But it's less
powerful?
CPUs, mobo chipsets, harddrive specs, they're all easy to understand
but video cards are a mess! And a new one comes out every week that
may or may not be better than its predecessor, and you sure can't tell
by its name. =/

 

[Justin Baker]

SNIP

So, why's the Radeon, which I trust your and the other replyer's
assesment that it's better as well as the higher price tag, better
than the two nVidias which have the 256bit core and higher clock
speeds? The Radeon having only 128bit and slower speeds, it SEEMS
logical that it should be less powerful.

I'm afraid it doesn't work that way - I suggest you search the web for
reviews that compare the performance of both cards and make your decision in
light of actual performance figures.

Try www.anandtech.com for example.

JB

 

[Trident9440]

If you go for FX5200, you will find you almost can not play any games
released this year.

 

[tom]

Where did you hear that? Doesn't the 9600 pull ahead once you enable AA and
AF?

I read it, but you're right in once AA is enabled the 9600 does become
faster. I guess it's just a matter of whether or not you want to use AA..

A quick look on Google brought these up:

http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2003q2/radeon-9600pro/index.x?pg=9

http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2003q2/radeon-9600pro/index.x?pg=8

FWIW, I don't think either card will be fast enough to run next years games
with AA..

Tom

 

[Derek Baker]

So, why's the Radeon, which I trust your and the other replyer's
assesment that it's better as well as the higher price tag, better
than the two nVidias which have the 256bit core and higher clock
speeds? The Radeon having only 128bit and slower speeds, it SEEMS
logical that it should be less powerful.

But then, it seems the video card insdustry thrives on confusing the
consumer.
I mean, the FX5200 IS newer than the Ti4200, right? But it's less
powerful?
CPUs, mobo chipsets, harddrive specs, they're all easy to understand
but video cards are a mess! And a new one comes out every week that
may or may not be better than its predecessor, and you sure can't tell
by its name. =/

All three cards have the same memory interface 128bit - though I think
some FX5200's are only 64bit. You're not comparing apples and apples.
The 256bit figure for the Nvidia chips is some internal measure, where
I doubt the 9600 is inferior.

 

[Nick]

On 9 Oct 2003 07:26:43 -0700, (e-mail address removed) (LRW) wrote:



Tom's VGA Charts - 32 card comparison
http://www17.tomshardware.com/graphic/20020418/

VGA Charts, Part I: High-End Systems - 32 cards comparison
http://www17.tomshardware.com/graphic/20021218/index.html

 

[Darthy]

So, why's the Radeon, which I trust your and the other replyer's
assesment that it's better as well as the higher price tag, better
than the two nVidias which have the 256bit core and higher clock
speeds? The Radeon having only 128bit and slower speeds, it SEEMS
logical that it should be less powerful.

Funny... you know Nvidia is in trouble when HONEST Nvidia owners are
refering people to ATI You wouldn't have seen this 18 months ago.
But, Nvidia has a new driver update which is going to help a lot...
but in many cases, puts them almost even.

But then, it seems the video card insdustry thrives on confusing the
consumer.
I mean, the FX5200 IS newer than the Ti4200, right? But it's less
powerful?

Yep... blame Nvidia for this BS! They started this crap with the
MX-200/400 (the mx400 is 100% the same as the MX original) and then it
got worse with the GF4-MX420/440/460 (which were really GF2 cards
with new names, none as powerful or fast as the GF3)... (The mx420 =
GF2mx, 440= GF2Pro, 460= almost GF3 speeds, but costs as much as the
GF4-TI4200 which is twice as fast).

Then it got WORSE with the 440se which is REALLY an overclocked 420!
(Shouldn't it be called 420se?) then they added AGP 8x (which adds
0~3% performance = Who cares?) and renamed their cards, yet didn't
change performance... usually 0~1%.

Ti4200 > Ti4200 8x AGP
Ti4400 > Ti4600se
Ti4600 > Ti4800

yep... many suckers "side-graded" from a Ti4400 ti a renamed Ti-4400
(with AGP 8x! oooooooooo)

CPUs, mobo chipsets, harddrive specs, they're all easy to understand
but video cards are a mess! And a new one comes out every week that
may or may not be better than its predecessor, and you sure can't tell
by its name. =/

Ah... now we have the 5200 and 5600 series... You see... with the
fucekd up names... the customer DOESNT quite know what they're
getting. When you get an ATI PRO, you know its "PRO" Specs, period.
Non-pro... is a bit up in the air, but they're all pretty much the
same.

But now theres about 3-4 varients of the "5200", that go from pure
CRAP to slow- cards. ie: GF2-MX speeds with "DX9 features!!" =
useless. Just because you can bolt a Semi-(18-wheeler style) Trailer
to the back of a Ford Pickup - doesn't mean it can DO THE JOB.

THEN both companies TOSS in Uber HIGH END 256mb version cards that add
0~1% performance to the best cards ($500 instead of $600)... don't get
speed, but you got bragging rights. Man, for the $100 saved, you
could have bought a Japanese bath house massage (naked chick washes
you).

Best deal:

ATI-9600Pro (9500Pro if its under $200)
Ti4200-64mb - $80 delivered (www.pricewatch.com - MSI highly
recommended)

mx5200 - if you really want to watch the 3DMark03 Slide show.

 

[chrisv]

The Ti4200 is a decent card, and the 9600 is also a good card, but for DX8
functions the Radeon and GF are too close to call in terms of performance -
BUT for DX9 eye candy the Radoen has to take the crown - HL2 is the first of
many such games.

The floating-point math of the new cards (any of the 9000 series)
gives noticeably better image quality on all games.