Hi there!!

I and a friend am trying to decide between two graphics card. One is an ATI 256 MB, but relatively slower then another ATI with 128. I'm planning to use this card for gaming purposes. Which is the most important feature? Speed or amount of memory?

Sapphire Radeon 9600 Pro Advantage 256MB DDR - TV-Ut / DVi:
http://www.webhallen.com/prod.php?id=34383


Club 3D Radeon 9600 Pro 128MB DDR - TV-Ut / DVi / VGA:
http://www.webhallen.com/prod.php?id=35560


They look quite similar, with an exception: that the second one, is about 40 bucks more expensive

Thanks in advance!

Now tell me, are you planning, or he planning, on using this in Linux or Windoze?

See, if it's for Linux, don't bother with ATi. Don't even bother.

But if for the Doze, I would go with the 128MB one, simply becuase the 9600 IMO really doesn't have what it takes to take advantage of 256 anyway. ( Running Far Cry @ 1600x1200 max settings, etc)

Thanks for your reply Agizor!. That's a card for myself . I'm planning to dual boot Linux/Windows as usual. I'm used to use Linux a little bit for gaming, but since support for games is still a bit limited for Linux, I decided to use that card with Windows. Sure, I would be happy if the 2D generic drivers work with that card. I really don't need 3D acceleration or TV-Out support under Linux.

Well, I guess I'd stick with the 128 MB card then

Regards and Merry Christmas!

That is not true. The 256 MB version has less memory bandwidth than the 128 MB version. If the 256 MB version has equal or more memory bandwidth than the 128 MB version, it will be the same speed or faster.

I suggest using nVidia card if you are using it in Linux. The 6600 nVidia series looks good for both OS but for games I would go for 6800 nVidia series.

I would have to agree on that. For the time being, and until ATi realizes that Linux is more and more a gaming system, your best bet will be with an nVidia card. For the occasoinal gamer (not a diehard gamer) a [now] cheap 5900 Ultra 256Mb will be enough, plus you'll enjoy pretty much the fastest Linux gaming there is (well if you wanted to play Doom3 all day, then the 6800 Ultra is a no-brainer, if you've got the buck for it). On pair to the 9600 Pro, you could also get either a 6600 or a 5700 Ultra 256, depending on budget... It quite saddens me to say this, but if you're gonna game on Linux, stay away from ATi, they're not there... yet.

Again, 5700 Ultra 256 is not be faster than the 128 MB version. I compared the 256 versions and the 128 MB versions. The 128 MB versions have a much higher speed, so the bandwidth is better. I will say this again do some homework by comparing the bit pathways and memory speed of the choosen video cards.

On the tests I ran (in Windows, not Linux), both 5700 Ultra (128Mb/256Mb) had a 256-bit wide bus (according to the famous rivatuner), on syntetic tests, the 256Mb one was a bit (not much, mind you) faster than the 128Mb version. Still, I have not seen any game that would take advantage (as you said Electro) of the additional 128Mb RAM on the card... Except for one case (on Linux): Doom3, which allowed to run at a higher detail level at the same resolution noticeably faster than the 128Mb version. Another game that from what I've seen, benefits from the 256Mb memory is UT2004 when using maxed out settings... More on-board RAM means less AGP swap, which for these two memory hungry games means more memory for other things, like polys and sounds.

The GPU or VPU (whatever the graphics manufacture calls it these days) is 256-bit. This has nothing to do with memory bits. I'm talking about the memory bits. On a GeForceFX 5700 Ultra are 128-bit. The memory speed is around 900 MHz to 950 MHz which depends on the manufacture. The memory bandwidth depends on how wide the memory pathway is in bits and the speed that the memory chips are clocked at on the graphics card.

Actually, no... The 5700 Ultra has a 256-bit wide memory bus, while the standard 5700 has only a 128-bit wide memory bus. If memory serves me right (which often it does not), actual memory speeds are not that different from the plain 5700 to the Ultra, what changed (AFAIK) was core speed and memory bus interface, from 128-bit to 256-bit. Again, all this information was reported by rivatuner, so there is one possibility the program is actually lying about the memory bus width bits based on the recognized card's BIOS or whatnot... I'm only stating what the program I saw said about these two situations.

Again, you may be right, and the actual speed on the Ultra (core/mem) is higher than the plain, but the most bigger improvement (memory width bits) are still the same on the two cards... Also I was saying this based on the differences between two ATi cards: The 9500 plain and the Pro, they were the SAME chip and card, but one had a 256-bit memory bus and the extra 4 pipes disabled (plain 9500) and the Pro had a 128-bit memor bus width with the extra 4 pipes enabled... That was why converting a Pro into a 9700 was only a matter of widening the bus interface bits, while the plain could not be that way, because these cards were most probably 9700 chips which failed at some point and the extra 4 texture pipelines were defective and thus disabled, while the memory interface was still the same as the 9700.

All FX 5700ultra and non ultra cards are 128-bit, or you have unique sample. Only 5900/ultra/XT of FX series are 256-bit. And R9500 was available either as 128-bit (moddable to 9500Pro, even 64mb L shape) or 256-bit (moddable to 9700, L shape memory arangement). Same situation with R9800SE. R9500Pro was 128-bit by reference ATI design (I-shape memory arangement).

On the 9500 I know for a fact, because I own one... on the 5700 issues, I don't own one, but two friends do, and that was what we saw when we used a "neutral" system to check for differences on the two cards, by means of Rivatuner... Now that you mention it, it may very well be that RivaTuner was reporting wrong the memroy width bits on the Ultra.

Also, if you have to choose between ATI R9500/9700/9800/Pro and and nvidia FX series for dual boot machine, choose ATI. At least you'll enjoy full DX9 support on Windows on all new games (take HL2 for example). It's different story if you're going for GF6 series or don't use Windows.

Hi again guys!

Thanks for so many replies, I really appreciated it. Sorry for the long time I took to answer here, but you know, it's soon Christmas and I'm not done shopping yet .

However, I actually knew how horrible ATI drivers are for Linux. I really, really don't need any sort of 3D support in Linux. I do a lot of coding in 2D with pygame(on Linux and FreeBSD) and I've an old Nvidia card without the Nvidia drivers and it works very well with pygame. So default 2D ATI drivers for me are just more then enough for Linux. I not even need TV-out, because I send my movies to my Xbox via network...

I do, know that Nvidia cards are nice. But at least over here they are a bit more expensive and some models even requires a better PSU. I'm not planning in upgrading also my power supply for the moment. So Nvidia is a no go for the moment . We are comparing apples to wookies by comparing those cards/vendors. (this is a joke, I meant no offense to anyone whatsoever ). Those cards are totally different on it's very core and that's also one of the reasons why the driver for linux ain't that great (in the case of ATI)... Since where and why they are different and the reason why one driver or the other is better for an specific platform is beyond the scope of this thread, we shall not start a debate about it.

I'm just not sure if I should either get "Sapphire Radeon 9600 Pro Advantage 256MB DDR - TV-Ut / DVi:" and save about 40 bucks and regret later or if I should spend a little bit more and get a card with less memory but a bit faster (Club 3D Radeon 9600 Pro 128MB DDR - TV-Ut / DVi / VGA.

I do realize that not many games actually makes use of the extra 128 MB on the card, but you know how things in computers goes. Today we don't think it's a good idea getting a 64 bits processor because of the current support (or lack of it) or price, but that's more or less the standard for tomorrow (not quite accurate comparison, I know, but you get the point)

So, which ATI card would be the best for the money? And I really can't get any higher then "Club 3D Radeon 9600 Pro 128MB DDR - TV-Ut / DVi / VGA"'s price. So recommending a 600/700+ USD card as "Asus Radeon X800xt 256MB DDR3 (EAX800XT/2TD/256M) - Dual DVi-I (PCI-Express)" is not an option either, because first my PC would not be able to run it, second I could never afford that and last, I just want to play a few games, not to recreate 3D animations in my PC as Disney's Nemo or something of that sort.

Thanks again.

P.S: feel free do debate Nvidia or ATI as much as you please in this thread. But when recommending a card, it's no nvidia for me and not more expensive then Club 3D Radeon 9600 Pro 128MB DDR - TV-Ut / DVi / VGA

Used R9500 64/128Mb moddable to Pro (full 8 pipes) would be best for the money. Otherwise Club3D 9600Pro 128mb (I hope 600Mhz mem clock, BGA chips). "Advantage" has TSOP chips and 400/450 Mhz mem clock depending on amount of memory.

Wow, thanks stef52. You guys surely know a lot about hardware . I will take a look into R9500. Been reading some reviews on the net and seems that both cards are good choices for the money. One thing is interesting though, the "Club 3D Radeon 9600 Pro 128MB DDR - TV-Ut / DVi / VGA" has "Linux" as a supported OS on the box, which is quite unusual, while the other 256MB hasn't... I doubt that would make any huge difference, but surely looks interesting