Hello, my initial question was going to be " is the 9250 more performerant as the 9200, and should I choose this for my Efika " . But then I found this in wiki about the Radeon family : A later version of the 9000 was the 9200 (RV280), which, aside from supporting AGP-8X, was identical. However, there was a cheaper version, the 9200SE, which only had a 64-bit memory bus. Another board, called the Radeon 9250 was launched in summer 2004, being simply a lower-clocked variant of RV280. It was usually equipped with more RAM than the Radeon 9200 cards though (128 MiB or even 256 MiB), taking advantage of the low-cost of slow-clock high-density DDR SDRAM, a popular trend at the time. Radeon 9250 is also available as a PCI card.

So is it safe to say that the 9200 is actually the faster card compared to 9250 ? I have a 9200 with 128MB onboard, so no need to buy a 9250 ?

It si simple radeon 9250 gpu clock is 240MHz while radeon 9200 is 250MHz, the memory clock is the same for both. (200Mhz.) So radeon 9250 is newer but only the rebadged version of 9200 and a little bit downclocked. This is of course for the full 128 bit version.
There is 9200se which is came with 64bit memory bandwith, and there is 64bit version for the 9250 too. This is almost half speed at 3d, so try to avoid them.
There were some limited 9200 pro which was even better than 9200 but this is rare nowadays.

I tried in my peg some of the radeon line (9200se, 9250se,9250 and 9200), and the winner is 9200.
If you want better card you can search for 9800 lite anyway. AFAIK it is the fastest radeon which has a 3d support under MOS

Afaik MOS 2.x has no support for Radeon 9800 only 7500 -9250 are supported, if you wan't speed then go for a 8500 or 9000/9100 Pro. They are clocked with over 400Mhz.

> only 7500 -9250 are supported

No, 7000 to 9250 are supported.

> if you wan't speed then go for a [...] 9000 [...] Pro.

I don't think so.

> They are clocked with over 400Mhz.

I don't think so.

i bought a 9000 pro several years ago, and i can't complain, it's passive cooled, so it's silent, and high performanced. my 9200 cards are smaller, but not so fast... i have to make some tests...

are there any 2d/3d gfx performance tests for morphos?

bye, MarK.

I do have a 9000pro ( Hercules Prohpet ) also ... this was always a really nice card to use in my pc, and I did use it for a long time. Sadly it is not a low profile card, so I can not use it on my Efika unless I start messing around with other risers and stuff. And since I still have the box of the radeon 9000 pro this is what on th box: Based on the RV250 GPU, this card features 128MB DDR memory, 8.2GB/s memory bandwidth, dual integrated 400MHz DACs, DVI, TV/VCR out, and 2048 x 1536 @ 85Hz resolution. It supports OpenGL, DirectX 8.1, Hydravision, SmartShader, and FullStream technology. And I remember that I even pushed it further on my winbox since it is easy to overclock with software.

[ Edited by Oepabakkes on 2008/9/25 8:22 ]

Radeon specsheet

In french, but I guess it is available in english as well.

Best choice is at a first glance (from best to worst) :

- Radeon 8500
- Radeon 9000 Pro
- Radeon 9250
- ...

I put radeon 9250 because it is the lastest product still available. GPU is a bit slower than the others but the wattage might be a bit lower.

Don't forget that 3D is driven equally by the CPU... Some of my test with Quake/Quake2/Quake3 showed that the GPU is not the limiting factor concerning 3D but the CPU wihich run at a slow pace and can't saturate the GPU.

For example, with Q2, you have to go over 1024x768 before you experience a drop in framerate with Radeon 9250. Until this resolution, the CPU bounds the framerate.

Most of the time for 3D, the limiting factor won't be the GPU but the CPU on Efika.

I choosed the 9250, low wattage, low profile, cheap. It is well balanced with the small horsepower of the 5200B.

Czk

> Best choice is at a first glance (from best to worst) :
>
> - Radeon 8500
> - Radeon 9000 Pro
> - Radeon 9250
> - ...

Order is correct, but there are some missing in between.

like a 9200 Pro ?

Until my Peggy worked I used a Radeon 9200se (128mb DDR 8x as I read on the rear of card) and it worked great under MorphOS 1.4.5. I couldn't stress that under 2.0 'cos Peggy's gone but it was ok (little problem on 1600x1050 24 bit screen). I have a Radeon 9250 128mb low profile DVI but I couldn't test it...

I noticed (reading the rear of the box) that 9250 is 64 bit and have a nenory bandwidth of 3.4 GB sec.

[ Edited by Jambalah on 2008/9/26 9:58 ]

>are there any 2d/3d gfx performance tests for morphos?

There is no "3DMark2008" but PPCNUX did some 3D testing of popular gfxcards with 2D results attached to the German section of Part II.


[ Edited by tarbos on 2008/9/26 16:01 ]

Quote:

yeah i missed, i wanted to write 8500 light or LE, not 9800.

> i wanted to write 8500 light or LE

"8500 light or LE" is also not "the fastest radeon which has a 3d support under MOS".

Which is better the 9250 or the 9200SE?

I've found I've got both, and I've always assumed that the 9250 was better, cus the numbers are bigger, init? Now I've found out that the non-se 9200 was better, but what about the se version?

Also, what's the 9100 in compairson?

> Which is better the 9250 or the 9200SE?

9250.

> what's the 9100 in compairson?

9100 is identical to 8500 LE and is second best after 8500.

The information posted here has some inaccuracies.
The 8500 is the moset powerful card with3D support under MorphOS.
The 9100/8500le is similar but is clocked 25 MHz slower. All three of these cards are limited to 64MB of usable video memory.
The 9000Pro is clocked at the same speed as the 8500, but is missing a few features. It comes in 64 and 128mb versions.
The 9000 is a slower version of the 9000Pro and the 9200 is a 8x AGP version of the 9000 (which does not affect MorphOS use). Again both of these are available in 64 and 128mb versions (as well as a 256mb version which usually shows up as a 128mb card under MorphOS)
The 0250 or 9200SE has a reduced memory bus and performs worse than the standard 9200.

The 9700/9800 cards are supported under MorphOS, but the current drivers don't support 3d acceleration.

I've had at least one of each of these cards and frankly I don't see a lot of performance difference between any of them.
Hopefully, you'll find this info useful.

> The information posted here has some inaccuracies.

Look at the date ;-)

> All three of these cards are limited to 64MB of usable video memory.

No, all three can have up to 128 MiB and you know it.

> as well as a 256mb version

No, that's only the 9250, neither 9000 (Pro) nor 9200.

> The 0250 [...] has a reduced memory bus

That would be the 9250 SE. There seems to be 9250 with 128 bit bus. So the 92xx order from faster to slower is as follows: 9200 -> 9250 -> 9250 SE -> 9200 SE.

hmmm i Have a Radeon 9000 Pro II! Super rare, even bigfoot never heard of it... i think its faster than 8500. Its 128mb 128 bit. Not sure on the speed though..

> i Have a Radeon 9000 Pro II! Super rare, even bigfoot never heard of it...

Interesting.

> Its 128mb 128 bit.

Okay, no surprise here.

> Not sure on the speed though..

Those would be the interesting details: GPU clock, VRAM clock, GPU fillrate, VRAM bandwidth.

Andreas,
The 8500, 9100, and the 8500LE all can have 128MB of video memory. But in a Mac, they're all limited to addressing only 64mb.
The 9200 IS available in a 256MB version (not just the 9250).
I've never seen a 9250 with a 128nit memory bus, but if you say they exist then I'll take your word for it.
So far, I've been avoiding the 9250 because I thought it was an alternate designation for the 9200SE.
I stand corrected on that point and will now consider 9250 as worthwhile.

So, in order of capability:

8500
9100/8500LE
9000Pro
9000, 9200 (Sapphire 9200 256MB video card part number 1024-8C13-05-SA)
9250 (240 Mhz clock)
9200SE (64 bit memory - Sapphire does not list a 256MB version of this card).

So to answer the question at the beginning of the post, a Radeon 9200 would be very slightly better than a 9250.

[ Edited by Jim 17.04.2011 - 04:58 ]

andreas

so how would i find out.. its a radeon pro II i'm sure you can find out.

What is a 9000 Pro II! Super abd a radeon pro II?

Talking about this card?
GV-R9000 PRO II

> in a Mac, they're all limited to addressing only 64mb.

Yes, but nobody talked about Mac specifics here ;-)

> The 9200 IS available in a 256MB version (not just the 9250).

Yes, you're right. I just searched for those and found some. Thanks.

> I've never seen a 9250 with a 128nit memory bus

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anewegg.com+radeon+9250+%22128+bit%22

> So to answer the question at the beginning of the post,
> a Radeon 9200 would be very slightly better than a 9250.

The question was about 9250 vs. 9200 SE, not about 9250 vs. non-SE 9200. As I said, 9250 (no matter if SE or non-SE) is faster than 9200 SE.

> i'm sure you can find out.

I tried but to no avail. None of the listings of such card seems to have the interesting details.