Question

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:56:48 GMT, "Augustus" <sashforth.TakeThisOut@wrsd.ca>
wrote:

 >Just switched from an Asus V7700 Geforce2 GTS Pro 32Meg to a Sapphire Radeon
 >9100 128 Meg. Running on a PIII 1133 / XP Pro system. Using the latest set
 >of Catalyst drivers from ATI's website. The 9100 is o/c to 275 Core / 225
 >Memory.
 >
 >Here's the probems:
 >1) 2D performance/screen refreshes are awful....on bootup the login screen
 >scrolls down visibly, and on startup. you can watch screen elements being
 >drawn
 >
 >2) 3D performance is 15% slower than my Geforce2 GTS Pro using 3dmark 2001.
 >
 >Posted this in the ATI group as well, but got no real insight. Is the 9100
 >this crappy a card compared to the GeForce2 GTS Pro?
 >


  The Radeon 9100 is the same as the 8500, but it's clocked
25Mhz slower than the 8500 (8500 = 275/275, 9100 = 250/250). Most of
them can be overclocked to 275/275 easily though. You mention yours is
overclocked to 275/225. Are you sure you don't actually have a Radeon
9000 which is default clocked at 250 core 200 memory.
  The 8500, or 9100 is easily the better card when compared to
the older GF2 GTS. I however have a Radeon 9000 in a second machine,
Celeron 1.1Ghz, and do not see the bad performance you do. I had went
from a GF2 MX 400, and the Radeon 9000 leaves it in the dust.
  How did you go about changing the drivers? Sometimes, files,
and registry entries can be left behind when you just do the
uninstall. I always run driver cleaner to make sure the previous
drivers are wiped clean from the system.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question 

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 21:47:26 -0800, "raj" <rajiv01.TakeThisOut@mts.net> wrote:

 >yes the 9100 is real shit, you should of gotten a geforce fx 5200 if your on
 >a budget ( and you p3 system will bottle neck some of the newer cards)you
 >should return that card and get your self a geforce 3/4 ti cards, or radeon
 >8500/ 9200 for that setup.

  No. The 9100 is the same as the 8500. The 9200 is a 9000 Pro
with AGP 8X. As for the FX5200, if it's a true 128bit memory bus
version, then it should be as good as the GF3 Ti200, but the FX5200
cards seem to be unstable on alot of systems.
  From what he said about his card's core/memory speed, I think
he actually has a plain Radeon 9000, which is a "castraited" 8500.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question 

My card is an actual Sapphire Radeon 9100 128Meg, and I know it's the same
as an 8500. What I'm surprised at is the craptacular performance. It's a
real 128 bit card, not crippled like the 9000/9200's and the o/c I'm using
puts it at full Radeon 8500 spec. I'll probably EBay it and get a GeForce
4200 or an FX 5600.
 >> Stay informed about: Question 

If you are not planning on any DX9 stuff (whenever it comes out), then stick
with a good 4200. Sweeeeeeeeeeet little cards, and they are getting more
difficult to find. Some places are raising prices because people still want
them, but the channel is drying up. Albatron 4200Turbo's I hear are
spectacular, and Gainward Golden Samples are always good choices. Make sure
you get a maker that uses the 3.3ns BGA memory because it has much more
headroom than the regular memory.

NuTs

"Augustus" <sashforth.RemoveThis@wrsd.ca> wrote in message
news:2a_Vb.20486$964.4253@edtnps84...
 > My card is an actual Sapphire Radeon 9100 128Meg, and I know it's the same
 > as an 8500. What I'm surprised at is the craptacular performance. It's a
 > real 128 bit card, not crippled like the 9000/9200's and the o/c I'm using
 > puts it at full Radeon 8500 spec. I'll probably EBay it and get a GeForce
 > 4200 or an FX 5600.
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question