1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Radeon 600 Pro (256Mb) or 9800 Pro (128Mb)

Discussion in 'ATI' started by Bobby, Jun 15, 2005.

  1. Bobby

    Bobby Guest

    The 600 Pro is available for £99 and the 9800 Pro for £95.

    Which card is best?

    I do mostly Internet, video playing, music, photo processsing and some games

    Windows XP Pro, 1Gb RAM.


    Bobby, Jun 15, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bobby

    ofn01 Guest

    The 9800 Pro with 128Mb is far far better than the 9600Pro with 256Mb.

    Despite having 'less' on board memory, it uses its memory much more
    efficiently - it has twice the bus width (256bit vs 128bit on the 9600
    Pro - note do not confuse this with the memory amount) and it has twice
    as many pipelines (8 vs 4). This means that it runs much faster than a
    9600 Pro. The extra memory on the 9600 Pro will not be used at all
    efficiently so makes it null and void

    You can see a comparison of the cards in this table as well:

    Note that the 9800 Pro has higher power requirements than the 9600 Pro -
    you need to have at a minimum a good 300W CPU with at least 15A on the
    12V rail (which you can find out by looking at the side of your PSU -
    there will be a sticker with all the details)
    ofn01, Jun 15, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bobby

    Bobby Guest

    Thanks for the feedback.

    But I meant the Radeon 600 - not the 9600 Pro.

    How does the 9800 Pro compare to more recent (AGP) cards such as the Radeon
    700 or 800?

    Bobby, Jun 15, 2005
  4. Bobby

    ofn01 Guest

    Ah right - I wasn't aware that the X700 and X800 had come out in AGP

    Both the X700 and X800 (if they're AGP cards and therefore comparable to
    a 9800 Pro which is only AGP), will be more powerful than a 9800 Pro. An
    X800 Pro will be almost twice as fast - an X700 will still be faster.

    An X600 though will be slower as it is comparable mostly to a 9600 and
    still only has 4 pipelines and I think only a 128bit interface.

    I would still choose a 9800 Pro over an X600
    ofn01, Jun 15, 2005
  5. Bobby

    Ian Oxley Guest

    I made that "mistake when I bought my 9600 PRO with 256mb, which is not
    really exploited anyway! Mind you, with the Athlon 3200+ I paired it
    with, none of the games I own to date suffer performance problems at
    all. They are probably a good match, actually.

    avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
    Virus Database (VPS): 0524-2, 15/06/2005
    Tested on: 15/06/2005 21:04:14
    avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
    Ian Oxley, Jun 15, 2005
  6. Bobby

    Augustus Guest

    Hands down, the 9800 Pro by 25% to 40% at any and all resolutions. AFAIK
    it's a moot point since I don't think the X600 Pro is available in AGP and
    the 9800 Pro is AGP only.
    Augustus, Jun 16, 2005
  7. Bobby

    Bobby Guest

    PC World is selling an AGP X600 (I think) for £99 (256Mb).

    But it sounds like the 9800 Pro is the better card.

    How does the 9800 Pro compare to newer cards like the X700 or X800?

    What's the best AGP card right now? My budget is limited to around £100
    (hence the £94 9800 being attractive).

    Bobby, Jun 16, 2005
  8. Bobby

    ofn01 Guest

    I had a look at the X700 specifications on the ATI site here:

    It seems that you get either 4 or 8 piplines and either a 64 or 128bit
    memory interface.

    I can't imagine that even with the newer technology chip that the 128bit
    interface would be better than the 256bit interface of the 9800 Pro,
    *however*, I believe that the 6600GT has a 128bit interface and that is
    definitely faster than a 9800 Pro.

    Gladiator computers have an AGP X700 going for £80 at the moment:

    I cannot find any X700 vs 9800 Pro comparisons on the web. an X800 is
    *definitely* better than a 9800 Pro

    PC World get a *crap* rating on this site by the way:
    ofn01, Jun 16, 2005
  9. Bobby

    ofn01 Guest

    OK couple of extra notes
    1. Gladiator computers also have an X700 256Mb for around £90
    This website shows the difference between an X700, X700 Pro and an X700XT:

    An X700 has about 2/3 the fill rate, 2/3 the memory speed and about 3/4
    the GPU speed of an X700XT

    That same site on page 6 shows that an X700XT is about 30% faster than a
    9800 Pro. (though that is a PCI-express X700XT compared to an AGP 9800 Pro)

    From this I would *roughly estimate* that a plain vanilla X700 is
    probably going to be about the same speed as a 9800 Pro.

    I would personally wait for some actual benchmarks to come out - but the
    plain vanilla X700 with 256Mb of RAM for around £90 isn't a bad option
    compared to the 9800 Pro - it is newer technology, comparable
    performance and you do get twice as much RAM.

    If you're looking to fullproof your purchase though then you would have
    to look at going for an X800 series which will be more expensive (though
    prices may drop in a month with ATI introducing their next generation card)
    ofn01, Jun 16, 2005
  10. Bobby

    Bobby Guest

    Cheers. Thanks for the advice.

    What's the best price for an X800 (AGP) right now?

    Bobby, Jun 16, 2005
  11. Bobby

    ofn01 Guest

    The slowest X800 AGP I am pretty sure is an X800 Pro.
    You're still looking at over £200 for one of these (closer to £240) at
    the moment. Again, these prices could drop when the next generation of
    ATI cards are introduced in about a month or so.
    ofn01, Jun 16, 2005
  12. Bobby

    Bobby Guest


    I think that you just made my mind up to buy the 9800 Pro (for £94) which
    will be more than fast enough (along with my AMD64 3GHz CPU) to run any

    Bobby, Jun 16, 2005
  13. Bobby

    ofn01 Guest

    OK - Thought I still do think that the X700 for £90 with 256Mb of RAM
    isn't such a bad option either. I have a 9800 Pro with a 3Ghz P4 and I
    get the following results:

    3dmark01 - 17800
    3dmark03 - 5970
    3dmark05 - 2350
    HL2 - 1024x768 4xAA 8xFF high detail
    Doom3 - 1024x768 0xAA 8xAF high detail
    Far Cry - 1024x768 0xAA very high detail
    Chronicles of Riddick 1024x768 0xAA high detail
    Battlefield 2 demo 1024x768 0xAA medium detail (though I get good
    framerates - enough I think to bump the detail up a bit maybe)

    I can play older games (like Mafia, Medal of Honor AA) at 1280x1024 all
    maxed out with 4xAA no problems as well
    ofn01, Jun 16, 2005
  14. Bobby

    Steve K Guest


    isn't it amazing how Ati fools with people? - no mentioning, even in the
    specs, about neither the gpu clock speed nor the ram bus speed. The specs
    are just basic blabla...
    Steve K, Jun 17, 2005
  15. Bobby

    patrickp Guest

    That's probably because it's a specifications page for the class of
    X700 cards rather than a specific model. Click on the ATI Products
    link at top left, just under Specifications.


    <> - take five to email me...
    patrickp, Jun 17, 2005
  16. Bobby

    Steve K Guest

    I cant find any details about this...must be hidden somewhere ..
    Steve K, Jun 17, 2005
  17. Bobby

    patrickp Guest

    Scroll down to the bottom of the page (it's the X700 Pro page) the
    link takes you to.


    <> - take five to email me...
    patrickp, Jun 18, 2005
  18. Bobby

    Steve K Guest

    no time for this ....
    Steve K, Jun 18, 2005
  19. Bobby

    patrickp Guest

    You have time to post 3 messages apparently looking for a piece of
    information, but not to click a link and scroll to the bottom of a

    Strange priorities!


    <> - take five to email me...
    patrickp, Jun 19, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.