ATI 9200 32MB vs. ATI 9000 64MB

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by TyleRomeo, Jan 12, 2005.

  1. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2002
    Location:
    New York
    #1
    Which one is a faster card if the system specs were identical? What new features are in the 9200 that aren't in the 9000?

    Tyler
     
  2. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2001
    #2
    As far as I know the 9200 is simply a higher-clocked 9000, however its hard to say what speed the core and memory are actually clocked in an Apple product.
     
  3. macrumors member

    northen

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Location:
    Aalborg, Denmark
    #3
    5 years ago, the 9200 would have been faster. Now, you're better off with the higher amount of memory (9000), because most game textures consume that (or more). You could always overclock the 9000 to 9200 speeds with ATIcelerator.
     
  4. macrumors 68040

    cluthz

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Norway
    #4
    The 9200 is basically a 9000 pro with agp 8x support.
    I would rather have twice the VRAM instead of a few percent faster core.
     
  5. Guest

    caveman_uk

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    Hitchin, Herts, UK
    #5
    What about getting a modded AGP ATI 9600 64MB from OWC. I've got one in my MDD and apart from the ADC port being unpowered it works fine.
     
  6. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    #6
    hmm

    I thought??


    9200 built in = AGP .... Mac Mini

    9200 add on = PCI card

    am I right?
     
  7. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2002
    Location:
    New York
    #7
    ohh this is only to drive one display btw.

    Tyler
     
  8. macrumors 6502a

    Maxx Power

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2003
    #8
    The 9200 is the 9000 with an AGP 8X interface, however frequently clocked under the stock 9000's speeds. The integrated versions of 32MB 9200 and 64MB 9000 have a huge difference though. The 32 MB version of the 9200, as well as the 32MB 9000 are limited to a 64bit memory bus, while the 64MB version uses the full 128bit memory bus. As tests show, the 8X AGP advantage of 9200 does not yield any measurable difference over the 9000 of the same clock variety. Hence, the 64MB 9000 is much faster than the 32MB 9200.
     
  9. macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    Old York
    #9
    8500>9100>9000>9200
    r200>r200>rv250>rv280


    the 9100 is a lower clocked version the 9000 is the r200 with a few things lobed off and rebadged the rv250 and the rv280 is a budgetised 9000

    vram being equal of cource,
     
  10. macrumors 6502a

    RGunner

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Location:
    Midnight Sun
    #10
    Hector question

    Hector are you saying (and I do not know...) is the 8500 a faster chip than the 9200 all else being the same (ram size) PCI / AGP etc?
     
  11. macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    Old York
    #11
    yes, go here and look at the vga charts III to see what i'm talking about

    even a 256Mb radeon 9200 would be slaughtered by a 64MB 8500LE!!!!!
     
  12. macrumors 6502a

    oingoboingo

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #12
    He sure is. The 8500 was a good GPU in its day, although it was let down by poor driver performance for a while until ATI got its act together. The budget-priced 9100 which came along a few years later (a direct descendent of the 8500) was great value if you knew what you were looking for (most people just thought it was the next version of the 9000).

    ATI's numbering system doesn't always make sense.
     
  13. macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    Old York
    #13
    they probably started it by haveing the directx version as the first number and the revision as the second number but somehow along the line they thought screw it and threw it all out of the window :rolleyes:.
     

Share This Page