radeon 8500 vs radeon 9000

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by shake, May 22, 2003.

  1. shake macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2002
    Location:
    Toronto, CANADA
    #1
    i was wondering what the difference is between he radeon 8500 and 9000 pro video cards for mac. i have the option to purchase either one (at the same price) but wondering how much better the 9000 is. i would rather have the 8500 because of s-video out and vga out (i know i can use an adapter for dvi to vga on the 9000, but i hate adapters... one of my quirks). also, i will never use the adc port on the 9000. can't see myself buying an apple display, and i will not be using this for games (ok, maybe some games, but i have a pretty smoking P4 with a 9700pro for that!).

    unless someone can talk me out of it, i'll be getting an 8500. by the way, the machine is a dual 533 G4.
    any input would be appreciated!

    shake@mac.com
     
  2. Gymnut macrumors 68000

    Gymnut

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    #2
    Not to seem rude, but why not visit ATI's website and go over the specs? Base your decision off your needs and which accomodates them more for the dollar.
     
  3. shake thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2002
    Location:
    Toronto, CANADA
    #3
    Gymnut,

    i have read all of the specs on both cards. and both seem very close on paper.
    but i want to know if anyone has tried either (or both) cards and can give me a subjective evaluation... rather than just specs. specs never tell real world performance.
     
  4. Catfish_Man macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #4
    Performance is similar, but iirc the 8500 supports more of the latest graphical features and is a little faster for most things. It also costs more.
     
  5. zarathustra macrumors 6502a

    zarathustra

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #5
    The 9000 is a scaled down (read cheaper) 8500. It's still a great card, but having the pick between 8500 and the 9000, I'd go with 8500.

    On several game and 3d sites where they pit cards against each other, the 8500 always finishes above the 9000 Pro. It's only a few seconds, or a few FPS, but it is faster nevertheless.

    I would post links, but soooo tired...
     
  6. Chef Ramen macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    #6
    why the hell is it called the 9000? shouldnt it be the 8000?
     
  7. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #7
    9000 is faster than 8500 in most games! TESTED!!!

    OK. The 8500 is more expensive, and was seen as a high-end card.
    The 9000 is seen as a mere successor of the 7500.
    BUT:
    The core chip of the 8500 runs @ 250 MHz.
    The 9000 @ 275 Mhz, and this is noticed in 10% speed advantage in today's popular games. Rest is quite similar. The extra texture unit per pipe "should" speed up games using this feature with the 8500, but:
    Nascar 2002, RTCW, MOHAA, F1 2000 CS all don't use this feature!

    I have tried them both in my Dual 1.25 (march 2003). And seriously, the 9000 is mostly the full 10% faster.

    For a full review check this out. NOTE: racing games are not listed... too bad, you'll have to take my word 4 it :) )
     
  8. Tim Flynn macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Location:
    Alberta
    #8
    Re: radeon 8500 vs radeon 9000

    500. But I'm not sure which way:D
     
  9. hvfsl macrumors 68000

    hvfsl

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2001
    Location:
    London, UK
    #9
    The 9000pro is faster than the 8500pro (on the PC) in modern games like UT2003. But on the Mac the 8500 should be faster since there arent that many games like ut2003.
     
  10. MacsRgr8 macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #10
    You don't HAVE to believe me... :)
     
  11. donigian macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC, USA
    #11
    The 9000 is in the 9xxx series. It is a later generation than the 8500. The 9xxx series includes the 9500 and 9700 which were DirectX 9 compatible, which was kinda the point of naming them that way. The 9100, 9600, and 9800s are the newest out from ATi, FWIW.

    If memory serves me correctly the 9000 is meant to be on par with the GeForce4 MX line of nVidia's cards and is therefore an entry-level, casual gamer card. The 8500 was introduced as a top-of-the-line for ATi. It was supposed to compete directly with the GeForce 3 series, although it barely managed to do that.

    The 9000 may be a "cheaper" version of the 8500 but it is based on newer designs and has a more efficient implementation and chipset. Plus it runs cooler, mine doesn't use active cooling (It has a heatsink, works perfectly). The 8500 is a card with more features seem to want to use so go with it. Especially if you don't want to use adapters. :p
     
  12. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #12
    from the gaming frame rates i have seen i would go with the 9000 plus it is adc compatable, the 8500 on the other hand needs a special connector and is slightly behind in the gaming benchmarks.
     
  13. barkmonster macrumors 68020

    barkmonster

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2001
    Location:
    Lancashire
    #13
    This Barefeats Page has test results for a lot of the ATI cards. There's more into on the page but for comparison.

    Quake III @ 640 x 480 (more of cpu than graphics card test)

    Radeon 9000 : 228fps, Radeon 8500 : 245 fps

    Quake III @ 1024x768 'Maximum'

    Radeon 9000 : 116fps, Radeon 8500 : 111fps

    Photoshop 400% zoomed scroll test (shorter = faster)

    Radeon 9000 : 15 sec, Radeon 8500 : 14 sec

    Let Windows Bloom

    Radeon 9000 : 29 sec, Radeon 8500 : 28 sec


    Performance is pretty close but the 9000 offers a true ADC connector unlike the 8500 that only has 1 VGA and 1 DVI connector. This means you could use 2 ADC monitors with a 9000 but only 1 with an 8500. It also means that even if you don't need 2 apple monitors you can use 2 DVI monitors or 2 VGA monitors without spending much on adapters to hook them up.
     
  14. shake thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2002
    Location:
    Toronto, CANADA
    #14
    thanks for all your replies! who cares about the ADC connector? i will never buy a monitor from apple. they are way overpriced and they are the only company that offers a 1 year warranty on lcd displays. every other company offers 3 yearson their lcd displays. just another way for apple to rip us off, no way i am forking over that much cash for a display. and we don't need another proprietary apple connector. remember the apple "pro" speakers? try to plug those speakers into an ipod...
     

Share This Page