Radeon 9200 32mb vs. go5200 64mb?

Discussion in 'Games' started by shortyjj, Apr 21, 2004.

  1. shortyjj macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    #1
    Any thoughts on which machine will better be able to handle upcoming games, the new 12" ibook or powerbook?

    Specifically, I want to run WoW. The demo's min spec is 64m video card, but that could come down for the final release. I can't find any comments from beta testers using a lower-end graphics card.
     
  2. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    what the hell is WoW and the powerbooks chip is better just look at www.xbench.com
     
  3. Mav451 macrumors 68000

    Mav451

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Location:
    Maryland
  4. shortyjj thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    #4
    Thanks for the link

    Guess I'll just have to wait until the new machines are tested.

    But if anybody who knows about video cards would like to venture a guess, I'm all ears.
     
  5. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
  6. shortyjj thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    #6
    Ok, but I'm still not sure how to do comparisons:

    How in the world do I know which video card is ATY,RV360M11 and which is ATY,RV350M10? And which results would indicate a better performance for games?
     
  7. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #7
  8. shortyjj thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    #8
    Ok, that's exactly what I needed to know. Thanks.
     
  9. Rezet macrumors 6502a

    Rezet

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut, United States of America
    #9
    5200 Ultra is better than 9200 Period.

    My friend has 9200 and i had 5200 before i got ati9800.
    I can tell you, that in most games 5200 performed very nice.
    For PC, I'd get nVidia 5950 Ultra. From what I've seen it performs very well and often goes for less. If I find the link to results I was referring earlier, I'll post it.
     
  10. Rezet macrumors 6502a

    Rezet

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut, United States of America
    #10
  11. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #11
    it is kinda weird, though, because the 5200 outscored the 9200 even in the last rev., when the 5200 was only 32 MB. So either the xbench test is meaningless, or the 5200 is not nearly as bad so most people claim.
     
  12. monarch macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2004
    Location:
    The Great Midwest
    #12
    both the moblie 9200 and 5200 suck, but if you had to choose go with the 5200.
     
  13. yamabushi macrumors 65816

    yamabushi

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    #13
    If you care enough to compare these two entry level offerings then you probably don't want either one. Try the 15" or 17" Powerbook. An ati 9700 will provide the graphics power you crave. The only problem is that WoW currently does not appear to support wide screen.
     
  14. Rezet macrumors 6502a

    Rezet

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut, United States of America
    #14
    Well Yes and No. 5200 does suck if you compare it to 9600 for example. But on its own, it's not bad at all. I had it in my G5 initially and was able to run UT2004 with relatively decent FPS.
    5200 def. better than 9200 especially considering it's 64 mbs vs 32mbs 9200.
     
  15. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #15

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    no wait....

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    What review sites are you reading? The 5950 is garbage. Let me guess, you bought one.
     
  16. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #16
    This test is meaningless. Do a Quake III, Halo or UT2004 timedemo. Unless you 'play' xbench.

    This is conclusive:
    http://www.barefeats.com/ibG4b.html

    The flyby is CPU independent - that is what you want to look at. Bot matches are tied to CPU speed.
     
  17. shortyjj thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    #17
  18. Rezet macrumors 6502a

    Rezet

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut, United States of America
    #18
    You have gotta be an ignorant as hell if you think 5950 sux.

    I couldn't find the site I was referring to but i found this one, which shows a complete review of both cards. Keep clicking "next" to get to the FPS comparesment. I'd say it seems about evenly split.
    http://www.motherboards.org/articlesd/hardware-reviews/1286_1.html
    I may accept that it's not a clear winner, but it certainly not garbage.
    I have ATi and in my PC have old 3dfx.
    My friend has a 5900 though.
     
  19. Rezet macrumors 6502a

    Rezet

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut, United States of America
    #19
    Here is a quote from the tester from that webpage:

    "I'm impressed by Asus's 9800XT card in many ways. Performance wise, the card is either faster than the 5950 Ultra from Gigabyte or just a little bit slower. With the allegations of Nvidia cheating in benchmarks with their drivers, I would tend to put more weight into the 9800XT than the 5950 Ultra performance wise. Image quality wise, without AA the two cards are about equal. With anti-aliasing, the 9800XT from Asus has the edge.

    I'm similarly impressed with Gigabyte's 5950 Ultra card. While the quality of the FSAA isn't as up to snuff as the 9800XT, performance compatibility and stability of this card is top notch. If the 5950 Ultra wasn't $400+, I'd have a easier time recommending this card. The best bang for the buck video card available at the moment is the 5900SE/XT .


    In terms of drivers, I would have to give the slight edge to Gigabyte's 5950 Ultra. Nvidia's releases their drivers about quarterly. In the games I'm playing now, there aren't issues with the 5950 Ultra. Otherwise I haven't run into any driver issues on either card. However, ATI's Catalyst drivers and their monthly release schedule is a huge improvement over before. Also they release fixes right away. If they hadn't had a problem with OpenGL and their AIW cards a month or two ago, I would give ATI's card the advantage. Also of note, Asus has not upgraded their driver version to the latest 7.962 drivers (still on 7.95)."

    How is it Garbage? Just cuz it FPS was about 55% vs 45% it doesn't make it garbage. Especially considering i can get it for 50 bucks cheaper than 9800xt. But why would I? I don't even have a FAST Pc.
    I think you just don't like nvidia for whatever reason and tend to act stupid when it's a good opportunity for you to bash it.
     
  20. applekid macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    #20
    You shouldn't compare cards based on how much VRAM they come with. If ATI made a Radeon 9800 that had 32 MB (which will never happen), and you compared that to, say, a GeForce4MX that had 64 MB, the Radeon 9800 would win all benchmarks hands down. Core clock, pixel pipelines, fill rate, memory clock, memory bus, bandwidth, and any performance enhancers (ATI's and nVidia's own little technologies) have a more significant effect on game performance than VRAM alone.
     
  21. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #21
    I see a 12" 1GHz PB - that has the 5200 32mb

    I see a 12" and 14" iBook G4 with the 9200.

    So, what am I missing?
     
  22. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #22
    http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTM3LDg=

    'Comparing the GeForceFX5950 Ultra with the Radeon 9800XT is really a no-brainer. If you want the best IQ, such as AA and AF combined with DX9 performance, the ATI Radeon 9800XT is still HardOCP's card of choice. Both the Radeon 9800XT and the GeForceFX 5950 Ultra are priced at MSRP $499. When we sit here and look back at the performance and image quality obtained in this preview as well as special XT perks, like a full single and multiplayer version Half Life 2, we really can come to only one conclusion. The Radeon 9800XT is the better buy; you simply get more for your money compared to the GeForceFX 5950Ultra. '

    http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=2031

    'In the end, it wasn't the architecture of the NV3x GPU that was flawed, but rather an accumulation of an unfortunate number smaller issues that held the architecture back from its potential. '

    http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1896&p=60

    'The 5950 hasn't been shown to perform much better than the 5900, but it definitely has an acceptable performance increase for a Fall refresh product. So far, we like what we have seen from the 9800XT, and we are anxious to test out ATIs OverDriver feature.'

    http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/xt59/index9.htm

    'The gap in performance is closer in this product cycle than it was when the 9800 Pro and 5900 Ultra were doing the rounds however based on the fact that the Radeon is faster overall in all but one of the tests we performed the Radeon 9800 XT should still be the card that’s top of your shopping list.'

    Garbage is harsh - but not when you factor in the NV3x shader performance (very poor) and the driver cheats NV employs.
     
  23. Rezet macrumors 6502a

    Rezet

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Connecticut, United States of America
    #23
    First of all I see many different reviews. I saw one where 12/20 games 5950 was better. then I see where 9800x is better in 80% of the games tested.
    And right here dude xt is priced at $459, while 5950 is $412. So you probably get a 50 bucks worth of an upgrade.
    And I don't care what you say, but Ati always has freakin drivers problems. C&C generals wont play normally with 9000 or 9200 cards cuz there is some bug in there again.
    And all these cheating accusations have little ground. I havent seen anyone to be able to prove it yet.


    I wonder if 6800 will actually come out for mac... that will be a nice thingy to have.
     
  24. lewdvig macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Location:
    South Pole
    #24

    I am not an ATI fan boy. 6800 is very nice.

    But I would strongly advise anyone against buting NV3x based cards. They are going to have problems running cool new games. Shader performance in Halo, Tomb Raider AOD and Half Life 2 proved that the architecture has problems.

    As for ATI drivers. I finished NWN nights on the PC before ATI fixed a bug that caused the game to crash. I need to use the very first Catalyst driver in order to play the game. So, I think we agree there.
     
  25. aafuss1 macrumors 68000

    aafuss1

    Joined:
    May 5, 2002
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Australia
    #25
    I have a PC version FX5200 myself -but has the same amount of VRAM as the BTO Ati 9700 Mobility-128MB.
     

Share This Page