How good is Radeon 9200 pro?

I beleive I won a Radeon 9200 Pro 128mb in a contest recently and was wondering how good this card is. I looked for benchmarks but that just got confusing.

Right now I am running a GF4 TI4200 64mb.

How does the Radeon 9200 Pro compare to my current card?

I know it'll beat my old PCI Voodoo 3 in my secondary comp though, so it won't go to waste in any case=)

edit(will this card run ATI demo's decently? ...ya know, dawn^_^)
edit(me remembers it was actually as nvidia demo that ran better on ati cards than nvidia!)

The Radeon 9200 is an 8500 with support for AGP 8x. It will definitely beat your Voodoo 3, yes, but I doubt it will be any faster than your Ti4200. It should have somewhat better image quality than the Ti4200, though.

How'd ya win it? Good deal!

Thanks for the info!

I won it in an ATI Enemy Territory online tournement.

Final match was 16vs16, top on each team got a 9800, 2nd/3rd got 9600, 4-8th got 9200.

The contest wasn't designed very well, it was set up so you didn't really need to play to win, just play for xp, so it was people being as cheap as possible. I barely got up to 8th place.

Well if the 9200 is just a 8500 with agp 8x support it won't run it at all since the 8500 is just dx8 and dawn needs dx9.

what are you people talking about? The 9200 suck. The 9100 is the 8500LE.

9200 is pure crap and get eaten by a 9100.

As i understand all 9xxx series cards are DX9 not 8.1.... the 9200 is a 8500 but with AGP8x and DX9 support

Happy playing

you people need to get your info straight, seriously. The 9100 is an 8500. 9200 is pure crap, it gets it *** kicked by a 9000 pro and get kicked more bad by a 9100..

Try and do some research before you post. Don't mean to pick on anyone, but this is just a shame. So many people just don't get it.

Stop misleading people..

the 9200 is based on the 8500, only supports DX 8.1, and has just 1 pipeline to 8500's 2.

I thought it was just an updated version of the 9000 though...

I'll go and make sure...

the 9000 series is slower than the 8500, so I'd expect the 9200 to be slower than the 8500 as well.

edit:

Yub, the 9200 is an updated version of the 9000, which is based on the 8500.

I guess tom's isn't totally useless... here's some info on the 9200:

"Like its predecessor, the RV 250 (Radeon 9000), the RV280 is based on the DirectX 8.1 Radeon 8500 design (R200). To create this budget chip, ATi took the R200 and stripped it of two pixel pipelines, two texture units, and a vertex shader. And voilà - the RV280. In contrast to the Radeon 9000, the newer 9200 supports AGP8x and runs at higher clock speeds."

I don't know where Tom got that info, but the 9200 still has four pixel pipelines, it just has one texture unti per pipe (4x1) instead of two (like the 8500/9100). However, it does have twice the textures per texture unit than the 8500.

I wouldn't say that it's pure crap, but like mentioned the 9200 is worse than the 9100. But you mentioned that you've won a 9200 Pro, which I haven't seen before. I assume that it's a 900 Pro with 8x support, in which case it would perform about the same as a 9100, and probably better than the 9100s that are clocked at 250/200 (9000 Pro is clocked at 275/275).

there is no 9200 pro that i have seen either. Fact stay the same, the 9100 beats both the 9000 pro and 9200.

The 9100 is a 8500le, lite edition. so i would think the full 8500 is better also, i read a review that said the 8500 was better in some ways.

Captain, the 9100 and 9000 pro are clocked as follow.. 275/270 and 250/200 for the 9100?Benchmarks prove the 9100 is better though. As you recall the 9000 pro was a slower version of the 8500..

As for the 9200 its clock at 250/200. This card is crap, no doubt about that. I don't know where it says this is a 8500, but the 9100 is really a 9500le, and benchmarks prove it since it outperformed the 9000 and 9200.

The 9200 can't be a 8500 and get beat by a 9100 if they r both clock at the same speed and use same core, you know what i am saying?

MajinSSJVegetto: please benchmark it! this way we'll all know how it compares to the 8500.

this is what Anand's had to say about the 9200:

"The final product of the day is ATI's Radeon 9200, based on the RV280 core. The Radeon 9200 is nothing more than an AGP 8X version of the Radeon 9000, yet it carries a higher model number; marketing at its best, go figure. There is a chance the Radeon 9200 Pro could be higher clocked than the Radeon 9000 Pro, but we'll have to wait until April before confirming that."

check out this benchmark, the 9100 beats the 9000 pro on most test. And you gonna tell me a 9200 can beat a 9000 pro? I don't know where people got it that a 9200 is a 8500, but fact is, the 9100 is an exact 8500le, nothing really taken out..

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-9100.html

and want more, 9200 get kicked by a 9000pro
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/gig-radeon9200.html

now it doesn't take a genius to figure this out, but if the 9000 beat the 9200, and the 9100 beats a 9000, which is the better card? More important, how can a 9200 be a 8500 when the 9100 is also a 8500 that clocked at the same speed? If they are both 8500, then how come 9200 performs less than a 9000pro? Speed? No way, 9100 is the same speed as the 9200..

One thing is for sure, between the 9100 and 9200, one is not an 8500, or one is crippled.. and we all know which one that will be.

Pinnacle2k4: I don't really think I was disagreeing with you on anything....

no idea if a 9200 is better than the 9000 Pro...(edit: just saw the second link provided by Pinnacle2k4, and it looks like the 9200 is slower than the 9000 Pro, for sure.) and I said it's BASED on the 8500 with less stuff, not that it IS a 8500.

man, the 9000 looks pretty crap in that. can't expect the 9200 to be much better.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video/radeon-9100/3dmark-1.png

I don't know what I get the card, will probably take them a while to delivery it =(

Anyways, thanks for all the info! It should be perfect for my secondary PC.

shiyan, i have no idea about 9200 pro, but it still wouldn't beat a 9100. Most likely it has higher speed, but still crippled 8500. 9100 is a 8500le with new name, nothing taken off.

I totally agree. the 9200 Pro will still be slower than the 9100 Pro.

Due to a typo I typed out " it looks like the 9200 is slower than the 9200 Pro, for sure", when what I was trying to say was that the 9200 is slower than the 9000 Pro for sure.

(the 9200 Pro does not actually appear anywhere on the xbitlabs review...)

Sorry for that typo and confusion.

We all know that a 9100 is an 8500LE, but it is not clocked at 275/275. It is possible to find an 8500LE clocked at 275/275, but they are very rare. Most were clocked at 250/250 or lower, with the 128mb versions often clocked at 250/200. Some are even lower.

The 9100s are generally clocked at 250/200 for the 128mb versions. I say this because this is what the Sapphire version is clocked at, and they seem to be the most abundant. Now with a 9000 Pro you're guaranteed to get 275/275, so you can't make the general statement that the 9100 is better than a 9000 Pro. It depends on what your 8500LE or 9100 is clocked at.

I'm not sure what your xbit labs article is supposed to prove. In the 3dmark tests, the 9100 wins, as it does in UT2003, but the 9000 Pro wins in Serious Sam and RTCW. I don't see how you can claim that this is an absolute victory for the 9100. Furthermore, you'll notice that the 9100s in the review were clocked at 250/250, and like I already mentioned, this is not always the case.

The fact of the matter is that people needlessly bash the 9000 Pro without fully taking knowledge of the situation, probably because they're a bit nostalgic for the 8500. While the 8500 is clearly the best, the 9000 Pro performs about on par with most 8500LEs and 9100s. I assume that the 9200 Pro would be at least this good.

MajinSSJ, if you can, please let us know what the card is clocked at when you get it.

no card is perfect man. Even the 9800 lose in some test. The fact is, overall the 9100 is a better card.

As for 9200, if you see the benchmarks, i need to say nothing. 9200 Pro? i have never seen them or read any review, even if there is a 9200 pro, it will most likely be higher clocked.

You fail to realize that clock speed does not mean anything, you base everything on clock speed. 9000 and 9200 are what you can say, crippled 8500. Its that simple. The 9100 on the other hand, is a 8500le with new name.

The clear winner is the 9100, end of matter. If you want, go with whatever u please, i just choose the overall better card.

Clock and memory speed sure does matter when it comes to performance. No one's trying to argue that the 9200 is as good as any of the others, but I'm just saying that if the 9200 Pro is clocked the same as the 9000 Pro, then it's about equal or probably better than a 9100 clocked at 250/200. And yes, I know that the 9000/9200 series has one less texture unit per pipeline, but I measure cards based on performance, as that's what matters in the end.

performance? Dude go back and read the benchmarks man, the clear winner is the 9100. Did you even read the anything we were saying?

This is like saying a 9600 give you better performance than a 9700 because of its higher speed.

Please read the article, i see where your coming from, but the 25mhz increase in speed is not enough to make up for the loss the card already have.