Radeon 9100 peformance

[ufuk21p]

i know that radeon 9100's are based on 8500 chipset which were in close competition with the GeForce 3 Ti s.
i actually advised a friend of mine to buy one and he did, for a 100$.
i wanna make sure that i guided him in a good direction.
thanx for replies:cheers: :wow:

[rugbydude]

Well if hes looking for a gameing card then hes gone for a bit of a weak card but for most desktop applications it will be fine:thumb:

[kenny83]

:D

For a budget card, the Radeon 9100 is a damn good card, it based on the old 8500 card which outperforms the Geforce 3 Ti 500 now with the new drivers, and comes close to the Geforce 4 Ti4200. Make sure you don't get a jibbed up one, been hearing reports of 9100 cards being sold with slower ram and cores.
Overall, the 9100 card will run any current DirectX 8.1 games fine, but it will struggle with new games that use DirectX 9, but even the Geforce 4 Ti series will struggle.

:shoot3:

[ufuk21p]

thnx for the replies folks.
it is a better card than he used to have anyway and is prices very moderately.
i wonder why nvidia would't produce ti500 cores anymore like ati does the 8500.
Were there ever 128mb ti500 cards... never heard of one...
i liked the way my Gainward ti500 (even 550MHz ram speed with ease) played until it got burned, (thunderstruck) than i bought gf4 mx440
:shrug:

[rugbydude]

They did but i think it was 3rd party not made by nvidia:thumb:

[kenny83]

:devil:

Powersurges can be a *****, sad to hear you lost a Geforce Ti 500, they were expensive buggers when they came out. There were a few 128 meg models released of the Ti 500, but most of them were Ti 200, mainly due to the cost and the introduction of the geforce 4 Ti series. Some manufacturers even released a 256 Meg Geforce 4 Mx 440 cards, such a waste~! :drool:

[Wiggo]

rugbydude[/size]]
They did but i think it was 3rd party not made by nvidia:thumb:

nVIDIA don't make anything as they're a FAB'less company, they only design and get someone else to make.

[rugbydude]

Yeah i ment it wasn't a reference design to put on 128mgs....i don't think anyway:confused:

[0R1()N]

For a ,"weak card"(9100 -9200series.) I'd say that its pushing C&C generals along verysmoothly.:thumb: :rofl:

back when the new reviews( computer gaming world, websites,gameing websites...etc...) of doom 3 came out the reviews were like and I quote this,"This is the game that will force us to upgrade to geeforce 3 ti cards just to play it!!!" With that being said I really cannot understand why people would say that the 9100 radeon or 9200 radeon or even the 8500 would be a weak card, as clearly they are twice or 3x times better than the geforce 3 ti card. But when doom 3, which I've hear is going to be very graphical intense, would require a geeforce 3 ti or better card to operate and you say that the 9100 is only good for most desktop applications? :confused:

[rugbydude]

hmmmm maybe it would run on a ge force 3 with minimum detail as the graphics are a quite extreme:afro:

[0R1()N]

Splinter cell is quite extreme graphics,but that runs beautiful on my comp......

[Andy72]

I have both Radeon 9100 and Gf4 Ti4200 in use and Gf outperforms the 9100 only about 10% - and thats in benchmarks. In games the difference is even more difficult to notice.

So far I haven't seen anything that would make me want to update my videocards. When I bought the 9100 early winter 2002 I expected it to be replaced by summer 2003 ... I was wrong.

Probably will wait for the real 2nd generation Dx9.0 cards before I upgrade.


Andy

[RDR]

I have both Radeon 9100 and Gf4 Ti4200 in use and Gf outperforms the 9100 only about 10% - and thats in benchmarks. In games the difference is even more difficult to notice.

having used both of those cards myself - I fully agree with that statement:thumb: