Questions about ATI 9500 Pro

[Intelman07]

Will going from a Ti 4200 to a ATI 9500 Pro have an performance increase? (My TI 4200 will go in my second machine so there will be no waste) And I should be able to use this card with most games, I hear lots of problems about ATI cats but that is only a driver issue and will be fixed right? This will be my first ATI card! Just wanted to get some stuff cleared up.

System Specs
Pentium 4 1.6Ghz
512MB DDR ram

..... That is all you really need to know if you need more look at my rigs.

 

[sinensis]

I don't know if this will help you, but here are my benchmarks using UT2003 and 3DMark2001 SE

core/memory

Gainward GeForce 3 Ti200 128 Mb
175/400: Flyby, 48.99 Botmatch, 34.58 6475 3D marks
200/450: Flyby, 55.96 Botmatch, 38.54 6721 3D marks
210/480: Flyby, 58.96 Botmatch, 39.90 6991 3D marks
240/500: Flyby, 65.61 Botmatch, 42.73 7354 3D marks

Sapphire ATI Radeon 9500 64 Mb
276/270: Flyby, 97.36 Botmatch, 41.85 9026 3D marks

PixelView GeForce FX 5200 128 Mb
250/500: Flyby, 82.06 Botmatch, 45.03 6985 3D marks

Sapphire ATI Radeon 9500 Pro 128 Mb
276/270: Flyby, 134.16 Botmatch, 53.12 10227 3D marks

Athlon XP 1800+ (1.53 Ghz)
1 Gb Samsung DDR PC2100 Ram

EDIT: I did test a GeForce 4 Ti4200 64 Mb in my computer once, it scored just over 9000 3D marks in 2001SE

 

[Intelman07]

It does seem to be a bit faster.

 

[MrPabulum]

Certainly looks better.

 

[Dukester0131]

I've heard that some have changed from cat3.2 to 3.1 and issues were fixed. I thought since 3.2 is more recent its supposed to have more fixed. I just recently installed Radeon 9500 PRO on my pc as well.

 

[mamisano]

I had both, the 9500 Pro is faster. Even when I overclocked the ti4200 to almost ti4600 levels, the 9500 Pro would beat it, especially with AA/AF settings turned on.

 

[godmare]

The 9500 Pro is better than the Ti 4200, but I don't think it'd be worth the ~$200 to upgrade. In many cases, the increase is relatively small.
As Mamisano says, though, the AF performance is considerably higher.
Here's a good example
AA Performance
Here's where the 9500 Pro Shines, AF

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: Intelman07
It does seem to be a bit faster.

but upgrading the video card for 1k worth of 3dmarks (not much in real world) probably isn't worth it.. now, upgrading my 4200 to a 9700 Pro seems worth it.. esp. when I can sell my 4200 to a buddy.

 

[Intelman07]

Well you see one of my computers has a geforce 4mx so i am just going to put the ti in that comp and get myself a new card so it won't be an upgrade or wait it will but n/m.

 

[T9D]

..

 

[Megatomic]

Originally posted by: xerosleep
Well I just bought the 9500 pro and I'm taking it back since it's barely faster than my overclocked ti 200. The radeon didn't want to overclock much either. I get around 8400 in 3dmark2001 with the ti 200 and only 8800 with the 9500 pro. Games barely made a difference too. Also the pro rendered some jpg's in wierd was ways. And personaly i'd get the ti4600 since it's the same price (online) since in about every benchmark the ti 4600 does much better than the 9500 pro (without AA and stuff on).

What are the rest of your system specs? If you say the 9500Pro is not much faster than an overclocked Ti 200 then I'd say you are more than likely CPU/RAM limited.

 

[MangoX]

who would play without AA/AF ??
I wouldn't, althought it doesn't make as much of a difference in fps games, but in games like a racing sim, the eye candy is awesome. And of course, once AA/AF gets turned on, the ati cards leaves the nv cards in the dust

 

[godmare]

Originally posted by: AznBoi36
And of course, once AA/AF gets turned on, the ati cards leaves the nv cards in the dust

recently, yes

 

[Jolyon33]

Originally posted by: xerosleep

Well I just bought the 9500 pro and I'm taking it back since it's barely faster than my overclocked ti 200. The radeon didn't want to overclock much either. I get around 8400 in 3dmark2001 with the ti 200 and only 8800 with the 9500 pro. Games barely made a difference too. Also the pro rendered some jpg's in wierd was ways. And personaly i'd get the ti4600 since it's the same price (online) since in about every benchmark the ti 4600 does much better than the 9500 pro (without AA and stuff on).

Yeah, this must be a cpu/mobo limitation. On my system I do 11,500 with very little overclocking in 3dmark2001.

 

[Intelman07]

Now one more issue......will this card last a while? And overall are people happy with this card?

 

[selfbuilt]

Originally posted by: Intelman07
Now one more issue......will this card last a while? And overall are people happy with this card?

I think it will, and I'm certainly very happy with mine (and I've had it for 4 months now). Oh, and I also get 11500 in 3DMark2001, if that means anything to you (XP2000+, KT400 mobo, 512MB PC333 DDR, no overclocking).

 

[Megatomic]

I have a question about the Radeon 9500 Pro myself. Does this card need a refresh rate fix as the GF4 cards do? I run multires in the system tray currently to keep my refresh rate where I want it. Will I have to do this as well with the 9500 Pro?

An answer will be much appreciated.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Now one more issue......will this card last a while? And overall are people happy with this card?

Most people seem to be very pleased with their R9500Pro. I traded mine off for a Ti4200 and am quite happy I did(too many driver issues in games for me with the R9500Pro).

 

[BFG10K]

The 9500 Pro will be quite a bit faster than the Ti4200 especially if you like to crank up the resolution/anisotropy/FSAA and other eye candy related settings.

As for ATI's drivers, they're excellent. There are still a few issues but they're extremely solid for the most part. The Catalyst 3.3s should be here in about two weeks and promise large performance gains. Also with ATi's new end-user beta program more bugs should be found and squashed because the testing is done by real gamers.