radeon 9500(pro/nonpro) owners...i have a ?

[Cons]

owners of radeon 9500 pro or non-pro. have u had any problems with your card? driver issues? or games that wont run properly with this card? im planning to get one myself but im not familiar with ATI's product, i have a gfmx right now. so..is it worth it or ti4200 would be a better choice? thanks

[yakumo fujii]

RADEON 9700 Pro seems to be a better choice now, since NV30 is not THAT much faster than RADEON 9700 Pro, and RADEON is cheaper.

He's talking about the Radeon 9500 Pro Compared to a Geforce 4 TI 4400 or 4200.

And the Radeon 9500 Pro is an awesome card. Get it. You will not be disapointed


It's performance/price right now remains unchallenged in the 180-210 dollar range.

[Hanamichi]

I can run a game with 6xFSAA and 16xAF and still get about the same frame rates as my friend who's using the 4200 without FSAA and AF enabled. :wink: That should answer your last question.
I havent encountered any problems so far. Everything's workin' perfect, no compatibility issues, errors, crashes, whatever. Its a pretty good buy IMO.

Originally posted by Han
I can run a game with 6xFSAA and 16xAF and still get about the same frame rates as my friend who's using the 4200 without FSAA and AF enabled. :wink: That should answer your last question.
I havent encountered any problems so far. Everything's workin' perfect, no compatibility issues, errors, crashes, whatever. Its a pretty good buy IMO.

I find that hard to believe, FSAA/AF even at max on a Radeon 9500 Pro offer about a 50% performance hit on the card.

(Same as 4x Anti aliasing on a Geforce 4 Ti)

If your on a Radeon 9700 Pro then I believe its possible ^^

[Hanamichi]

Heh. I forgot to mention that I overclock my card, and that was a comparison with an unoverclocked 4200.
Also the game (Rallisport Challenge) might not have fully stretched the performance of our cards but, hey it gives you the idea.

Well you made it sound like a Geforce 4 Ti is hecka slow. Which they aren;t.


A Geforce 4 Ti 4400 performs almost as fast as the Radeon 9500 Pro W/o AA/AF enabled. So that was kinda misleading ^^ But no problem 0_0

[Hanamichi]

Benches have shown that the 9500Pro performs like a 4600 even without AA and AF. With optimized drivers that is.
But really. With 6xFSAA the GF4's are like, slow, in comparison to the R300's. Im not bashing the GF4 but Im trying to say that the Radeon is definately a better buy.
BTW, I have a nihon-go speaking female cousin beside me! *winks at Kane*

Originally posted by Han
Benches have shown that the 9500Pro performs like a 4600 even without AA and AF. With optimized drivers that is.
But really. With 6xFSAA the GF4's are like, slow, in comparison to the R300's. Im not bashing the GF4 but Im trying to say that the Radeon is definately a better buy.
BTW, I have a nihon-go speaking female cousin beside me! *winks at Kane*

Erm a Geforce 4 Ti 4600 performs a little bit better than a Geforce 4 Ti 4400? Why did you correct me on that?

Geforce Ti cards don't have 6 sample anti aliasing by the way. Closest thing is 4x 9 tap which actually performs close to 4x. Which is close to.


Btw without AA, a Geforce 4 TI 4600 out performs the Radeon 9500 Pro ^^


With Anti Aliasing its 12% Faster in 4x mode.


In 8X AF its about 45% Faster.


And with both its about 55% Faster. Guess the 128 bit architecture catches up about then.


It's a better buy. But it's not even close to your original comparison.

[Demigod]

Originally posted by Han
Heh. I forgot to mention that I overclock my card, and that was a comparison with an unoverclocked 4200.
Also the game (Rallisport Challenge) might not have fully stretched the performance of our cards but, hey it gives you the idea.

Why would you compare an overclocked Radeon 9500 Pro to an underclocked GF4 Ti 4200? If anything let's try to compare with stock settings. Not everyone's going to be overclocking or underclocking their cards.

At any rate I'm with ChrisRay on this. The Radeon 9500 Pro performs faster than a 4400 but slower than a 4600 on most tests.

assuming cons wants to use epsxe as well; how good do ati cards perform with epsxe nowadays?

[Sniper]

aham, if you don't really know, if I remember correctly ati cards *new radeon cards* have problem with win95 or win98, or soemthing, that mean it can't run under those os, correct me if I'm wrong, coz I remember there is a dude, bought one, and say in the label it support win9x, but he can't run it in win95/win98 on this board,
search it, you'll find it, if you have some games, older games, that only run in those OS, you won't be able to play them with radeon newer cards.

[Kane]

>assuming cons wants to use epsxe as well; how good do ati cards perform with epsxe nowadays?

I don't know about hte DX9 ones, but the others stll have problems with reverse subtractive blending (this means you get banding in certain situations like the FF9 menu background), and no support for faster palletised textures (not really an issue except in certagames like Ghost in the Shell), and generally slower framebuffer access (if you have a DX9 card, you're likely to ha ve a big enough CPU to do it in software anyway). There is also the fullscreen bug, but thats solvable

>aham, if you don't really know, if I remember correctly ati cards *new radeon cards* have problem with win95 or win98, or soemthing, that mean it can't run under those os, correct me if I'm wrong, coz I remember there is a dude, bought one, and say in the label it support win9x, but he can't run it in win95/win98 on this board,

Actualy, IIRC this was ChrisRay, and he bought an 8500 AiW pro.

[Hanamichi]

Originally posted by ChrisRay


Erm a Geforce 4 Ti 4600 performs a little bit better than a Geforce 4 Ti 4400? Why did you correct me on that?

Eh?

Originally posted by ChrisRay


Geforce Ti cards don't have 6 sample anti aliasing by the way. Closest thing is 4x 9 tap which actually performs close to 4x. Which is close to.


Btw without AA, a Geforce 4 TI 4600 out performs the Radeon 9500 Pro ^^

Hmm. I thought Mode7 AA was rather close to 6xAA. I could be very wrong though, correct me on this.

Originally posted by ChrisRay

Btw without AA, a Geforce 4 TI 4600 out performs the Radeon 9500 Pro ^^
With Anti Aliasing its 12% Faster in 4x mode.
In 8X AF its about 45% Faster.
And with both its about 55% Faster. Guess the 128 bit architecture catches up about then.
It's a better buy. But it's not even close to your original comparison.

Well, I remember that in a more recent benchmark whom my friend linked me to, the 9500Pro actually beat the 4600 in a few benches, and was losing out only by a little in most others. I remember only vaguely, though Im quite sure that the 9500P was close to the 4600 on that one. Or, it could be a bug in the test system of the site. I have lost the link to the site though, but I have already requested for it once more through ICQ.

And for my original comparison, I've already mentioned that the game I used to compare probably wasnt demanding enough, thus not fully utilizing the 4200 and the 9500's capabilities and giving us the same results even when I turned on AA and AF. Demigod, I wasnt comparing the both head-on, just trying to give an idea of the cards. Though, now that I think of it, the idea's really biased.

There is Catalyst 3.0 drivers for Win98, but Im not sure if the cards work well on it.

[Demigod]

ATI cards should work in Windows 98/ME. I have a Radeon 9000 Pro (based on the Radeon 8500) and it runs fine under Windows ME with the latest Catalyst drivers.

[cooliscool]

Originally posted by Kane
>assuming cons wants to use epsxe as well; how good do ati cards perform with epsxe nowadays?

I don't know about hte DX9 ones, but the others stll have problems with reverse subtractive blending (this means you get banding in certain situations like the FF9 menu background), and no support for faster palletised textures (not really an issue except in certagames like Ghost in the Shell), and generally slower framebuffer access (if you have a DX9 card, you're likely to ha ve a big enough CPU to do it in software anyway). There is also the fullscreen bug, but thats solvable

>aham, if you don't really know, if I remember correctly ati cards *new radeon cards* have problem with win95 or win98, or soemthing, that mean it can't run under those os, correct me if I'm wrong, coz I remember there is a dude, bought one, and say in the label it support win9x, but he can't run it in win95/win98 on this board,

Actualy, IIRC this was ChrisRay, and he bought an 8500 AiW pro.

All ati cards lack subtractive blending (except for standard subtractive which is used in quake), so the problems are most likely apparent on all ati boards.

[Kane]

>All ati cards lack subtractive blending (except for standard subtractive which is used in quake), so the problems are most likely apparent on all ati boards.

It's reverse subtractive blending that is needed.
Hmm.... that's intereting. I wonder if there is a (albiet slower) alternative method, keeping the full image quality, Pete could implement to circumvent this problem...

[cooliscool]

Originally posted by Kane
>All ati cards lack subtractive blending (except for standard subtractive which is used in quake), so the problems are most likely apparent on all ati boards.

It's reverse subtractive blending that is needed.
Hmm.... that's intereting. I wonder if there is a (albiet slower) alternative method, keeping the full image quality, Pete could implement to circumvent this problem...

Reverse that's needed, yes. I just said standard subtractive was supported, and due to that, ATi refuses to add reverse subtractive in their drivers. That's what i call bad customer support. :eyes:

Hmm. I thought Mode7 AA was rather close to 6xAA. I could be very wrong though, correct me on this.

Mode 7 is 8xS anti is not 8 samples of anti aliasing. It's 4 samples sharing another 4 super samples on a verticle grid. It's not the same as 6 sample anti aliasing. This is a method called Over Sampling.

6xS and 8xS should never ever, Be compared to standard sample anti aliasing.

The main reason Radeon cards look so damned nice in anti aliasing is because they use a Rotated Grid Sample pattern.

>aham, if you don't really know, if I remember correctly ati cards *new radeon cards* have problem with win95 or win98, or soemthing, that mean it can't run under those os, correct me if I'm wrong, coz I remember there is a dude, bought one, and say in the label it support win9x, but he can't run it in win95/win98 on this board,

Actualy, IIRC this was ChrisRay, and he bought an 8500 AiW pro.

That was indeed me. While ATI may support it with drivers, They will not officially support the Ati Radeon All in Wonder 8500 card in Windows 95/98 Enviroments

[Cons]

based on a review that ive read, 9500p beats the 4600 with all eye candies features on. but ofcourse ti4600 is a damn good card.
i have another ?, are the models of 9500p have vivo? and in this video-in, can u like record tv shows like a regular tv tuner? i will be getting a 9500 pro, i just hopr it'll be available here feb. any1 from manila? pls let me know if its availble and where. BTW thanks to all ur posts.
another ?, how long does it take for prices to go down whenever a new vcard appears on the market? 1 month?