ATI Radeon 9500 Pro 128MB Video Card for Pre-Order!

[j@cko]

Canadian site though
The price is $335 CDN = $205 USD

I guess the price isn't that bad at all, and I am sure that it will come down pretty soon.

 

[ed21x]

thats a pretty good deal for ~ti4600 performance

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: ed21x
thats a pretty good deal for ~ti4600 performance

It's unknown whether the R9500 PRO will stack up against the Ti4600 as all the previews used castrated R9700 silicon. ATi intends to aim the 9500PRO at the Ti4200 and the R9700 at the Ti4600/Ti4400. R9000 and R9100 will compete with the MX cards, while of course R9700PRO competes with the GeForceFX.

 

[wake]

This store is right down the street from here.. Is this card really good? I need an upgrade from my geforce1 ddr!

 

[j@cko]

you can check the preview right here at Anandtech.com

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: wake
This store is right down the street from here.. Is this card really good? I need an upgrade from my geforce1 ddr!

It's better than a GF1DDR, but how it stacks up to GF4 Ti4200/4400/4600 is unknown. I'm surprised ATi hasn't officially released them during COMDEX. Maybe they're waiting until all the GeForceFX noise dies down a little. I'd expect Anand to review retail versions of R9500PRO in the next few weeks.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: j@cko
you can check the preview right here at Anandtech.com

That preview was not very indicative of final silicon. Basically, ATi castrated a Radeon 9700. The final R9500PRO will ship with 128MBs of DDR1 RAM among other things.

 

[wake]

Is that previewed card different from this reviewed card? :
9500 Review Anandtech

If it is, wouldn't your $200USD or $335CAN be better spent on a Ti4400 ?

 

[GTaudiophile]

Those links point to the same preview (All R9500/R9500PRO/R9700 previews were done in mid-October.)

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: wake
Is that previewed card different from this reviewed card? :
9500 Review Anandtech

If it is, wouldn't your $200USD or $335CAN be better spent on a Ti4400 ?

The reason I would buy ATI over nVidia is that ATI is generally regarded as having much better 2D quality than nVidia. I haven't personally seen the GeForce4's, but I do know that holds true for every nVidia product before that when compared with its comparable ATI one. I've also seen people state that the GeForces aren't as good as the Radeons even in the latest cards (4's versus 8500).

Since I do most of my computing in Windows, it makes more sense for me to buy the card that makes it look best.

Plus, the new Radeons are DX9 compliant, which the 4400 is not (right??). I have also looked at buying the 4400, but one other consideration is that it really isn't easy to find them. Newegg only has two choices from what I remember (Leadtek and someone else). Seems like it's somewhat of a redheaded stepchild in the videocard market.

 

[DaFinn]

The reason I would buy ATI over nVidia is that ATI is generally regarded as having much better 2D quality than nVidia

Personally, I had a change to test the Hercules R8500 and MSI GF4 TI4200-VTP both 128Mb versions, and the MSI card had MUCH better 2D than Hercules. I think the 2D is all about the quality of components used by the manufacturer. Off course I cant say anything about Build By ATI cards as I have not tested them. Then again, my brothers PNY GF4 has very fuzzy 2D at higher resolutions...

These days, if you stick with quality manufacturers cards, I dont think you need to worry about 2D. Concentrate on other aspects...



-DaFinn

 

[Martijnos]

I had an Ati 8500 64mb le and now I have a Gainward ti4200 128mb. I'm not happy with the 2d quality and I'm thinking of replacing it with an Ati 9500pro when it comes out.

 

[bearxor]

I had a r9000 Pro, and returned it because I wanted a 9500 Pro. I decided to pick up a PNY ti4200 to hold me over.

Benchmarks do not fully do justice as to how fast a ti4200 is over a 9000 Pro.

The 9000 Pro 128MB struggled to get over 30fps in the nature test of 3DMark2001SE, while the ti4200 64MB runs at a constant 50~60fps.

Perhaps its that vertex shader they removed.

BUT, the image quality going from a gf2gts 2 a 9000 pro was incredible.

After using my gf2gts again for almost a month, and then using the ti4200, I can safely say that the quality of the 9000 Pro was still leaps and bounds above the ti4200.

Just my 2 cents. Still going to return the ti4200 for a 9500 pro

 

[Tab]

Will this model require a external power source? ATI is doing a great job IMHO at making a card targeting the middle end graphics card market. This one is on my christmas wishlist Anyone have any final PCB Benchmarks for UT2k3?

 

[Mem]

The reason I would buy ATI over nVidia is that ATI is generally regarded as having much better 2D quality than nVidia. I haven't personally seen the GeForce4's, but I do know that holds true for every nVidia product before that when compared with its comparable ATI one. I've also seen people state that the GeForces aren't as good as the Radeons even in the latest cards (4's versus 8500).

I would say that in general Nvidia drivers are better then ATi but that`s just my opinion .Btw image quality on the GF4s is very good,infact even my Leadtek GF2 Ti has good 2D compared to my friends ATI card which was very good(I had the chance to try it on my monitor).

In the end owners of either brand will give reasons why one is better then the other,in the end whatever makes you happy is the important thing.I for one am just tired of all this flaming from both sides we see in the forums,as long as the video card is good for you, who cares what brand it`s.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Mem

The reason I would buy ATI over nVidia is that ATI is generally regarded as having much better 2D quality than nVidia. I haven't personally seen the GeForce4's, but I do know that holds true for every nVidia product before that when compared with its comparable ATI one. I've also seen people state that the GeForces aren't as good as the Radeons even in the latest cards (4's versus 8500).

I would say that in general Nvidia drivers are better then ATi but that`s just my opinion .Btw image quality on the GF4s is very good,infact even my Leadtek GF2 Ti has good 2D compared to my friends ATI card which was very good(I had the chance to try it on my monitor).

In the end owners of either brand will give reasons why one is better then the other,in the end whatever makes you happy is the important thing.I for one am just tried of all this flaming from both sides we see in the forums,as long as the video card is good for you, who cares what brand it`s.

True -- ATI has suffered some problems in the past with their driver department. A lot of those, however, were solved with the Radeon launch, though by no means all of them. I haven't heard many complaints over the current products, and I am certain that ATI has driver support as one of their top priorities simply because of the history they had -- it's terrible for business, as witnessed by this reputation. ATI was gutting Matrox for engineers and software people a little while back, which is one of the reasons that company is hurting nowadays.

Frankly, I couldn't care less what brand is in my computer if it does the job that I want it to do. I think a lot of people, however, only look at game speed and fail to appreciate what a QUALITY picture is like until they actually see the difference on their system. I remember when I loaded my Matrox G200 for the first time after using a TNT2 -- the improvement in Windows was breathtaking! Sure, it's 3D performance was lackluster, and it took Matrox forever to issue Open GL drivers, but I came to expect crisp 2D after that card. ATI delivers that consistently, while nVidia has lagged behind. I have no experience with the ATI OEMs, however.

I just wish the prices weren't so high for good cards!!