ati product range ...

[VJ]

Hello,

Can anyone enlighten me on the differences between the Sapphire ATI cards (the 9800, 9800Pro, 9800XT and 9800SE) ?
Thanks!


Jörg

[GNEP]

Speed wise, from slowest to fastest, you go:

9800 SE (think of it as "slow edition")
9800
9800 Pro
9800 XT

[Novdid]

9800, 9800 Pro and 9800 XT are basically the same thing, only clock frequencies of the core and mem differ. The 9800 XT supports some very light driver OC'ing dubbed "overdrive" by ATI. Mem configurations are either 128 or 256 MB on all these products.

The 9800 SE has 4 pipes disabled if I'm not mistaken, and probably only has a 128 bit mem bus. I'm not really shure on the SE though.

[VJ]

Ok thanks!
(I knew there had to be something fishy about the SE, judinging by its price)

Sapphire also has "ultimate editions" of their cards, but that merely refers to the fact they are passively cooled (I managed to find that one ).

Jörg

[Admiral]

Leaving the 9800SE aside, all the others should have 8 pipelines and 256bit memory bus, the only difference between them being clock speed and memory rating (3.3ns for 9800np -some initial, at least BBA models, had 2.8ns-, 2.8ns for 9800 Pro; don't really know what memory the XT employs).

The 9800SE is a 4 pipeline VPU, with the potential to activate the other 4, like the 9500 non pro. And like the 9500np they also come in both 128bit (I shaped) and 256bit (L shaped) memory bus, you just have to look at what you're buying.

If you want a nice 9800SE with 256bit memory bus with the price around that of a 9600 Pro, you could look at Hercules' 9800SE AIW version.
Review on hexus.net.

[Belwarrior]

the only 9800 SE i'd buy would have been the sapphire AIW9800-SE as i dont game much... but since i already have 9500pro and an old ati tv wonder i am more than happy..
wish matrox would bring back their g4xxTV type of cards but i dont think it ever happen again.

[GT98]

SE= Sucky Edition

[Gurm]

The XT has some extra goodness packed in there other than just higher clock speeds. A little bit of extra chip logic, and the overdrive thinger. But nothing that sets the world on fire.

- Gurm

[VJ]

Euhm, perhaps a dumb question, but what is the added benefit of more memory (256 MB in stead of 128 MB) ?
We are way beyond the requirements for video modes, so is the only difference the detail of the textures ?
And if so, will all games run on 128 MB (even if their images look better on 256 MB) ? Or are there technical reasons preventing this ?
If so, is the 256 MB minimum a long way off (2-3 years), or will manufacturers still provide a 128 MB "compatibility mode" ?


Jörg

[dZeus]

if you use 6x FSAA at higher resolutions, it will eat into the memory use...

[Kurt]

they have a nice xls file detailing all the differences between cards on their website:

http://www.sapphiretech.com/product-matrix/full_retail.xls

[Gurm]

The "minimum" right now for cards has been upped.

Prince of Persia _requires_ a Radeon-8500 or GeForce3 class card in order to run.

KOTOR still has a 16MB compatibility mode (as do all NWN-engine games), but really wants 32+ to run properly.

But I haven't seen a SINGLE game that actually "requires" 64 megs, so I think the 256MB thing is a ways off yet.

What you have to remember is that although game makers talk a lot of smack, in the end they write games that people play... and it's hard to convince millions of computer owners that they NEED to upgrade their video cards, at a cost of $150.

- Gurm

[GT98]

Originally posted by Gurm
The "minimum" right now for cards has been upped.

Prince of Persia _requires_ a Radeon-8500 or GeForce3 class card in order to run.

KOTOR still has a 16MB compatibility mode (as do all NWN-engine games), but really wants 32+ to run properly.

But I haven't seen a SINGLE game that actually "requires" 64 megs, so I think the 256MB thing is a ways off yet.

What you have to remember is that although game makers talk a lot of smack, in the end they write games that people play... and it's hard to convince millions of computer owners that they NEED to upgrade their video cards, at a cost of $150.

- Gurm

But also wasn't the whole point of the AGP bus was that it could share the system memory if needed? Back when they designed it they wheren't expecting 256MB Video Cards with GPUs that are as complicated or even more complicated then a CPU. Hell Top of the line PC only had 256MB RAM when AGP became widespread

[J1NG]

But wasn't the shared memory loads slower?

J1NG

[Wombat]

It was loads faster than the hard drive, which was your previous choice.