ATI chipset evolution/progression?

Off topic chat and stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere.
Post Reply
User avatar
His Royal Majesty King V
Veteran K6'er
Posts: 444
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2001 4:06 pm
Location: New Jersey

ATI chipset evolution/progression?

Post by His Royal Majesty King V »

All,<br><br>Well, since I've had success with the Xpert 2000 Pro (Rage 128 Pro chipset) on my system with the K6-III, I figure once I get moved into my house, my system with the K6-2+ should probably also get improved graphics!<br><br>Now, of course, despite the fact that the MVP3 chipset can work with various more modern Nvidia cards, the FIC PA-2013 is the exception, and simply barfs on them. Thus I go with ATI.<br><br>Now I've gotten decent, but not mind-blowing, performance out of my card. However, I'm trying to figure out if maybe I should try the next-gen graphics chipset from ATI after the Rage 128 Pro.<br><br>That's where I stumble into a problem. I can't quite figure out what the next chip is....<br><br>Looking through some older articles, I find that the order was definitely older stuff (Mach32 then Mach64 chipsets and variants, my 3D Rage Pro Turbo was essentially Mach64 based), then Rage 128, and Rage 128 Pro . . .<br><br>And then it gets confusing.<br><br>I was thinking Rage Fury and Rage Fury Pro, except that from what I can tell, these seem to be using the Rage 128/128Pro chipsets as well, though I did find an obscure reference to a Rage 128 GL chipset (or 128Pro GL?)<br><br>I don't want to go with the Rage Fury MAXX....<br><br>The only definitive step after the muddle of Rage128 and its very close siblings is the original Radeon. Available in 32MB SDR, 32MB DDR, and 64MB DDR varieties.<br><br>Ideally I'd like something that's a very distinct step up from the Rage128/128Pro chips, rather than a tweaked version of them. Ideally as well, I'd prefer something that lets me get away with passive cooling (heatsink and no fan) if at all possible. Hey, I figure if someone could do that with a 9700Pro, they could do it more easily with an earlier chipset!<br><br>Suggestions/thoughts? Anyone have a convenient "Evolutionary chart of ATI graphics" handy?<br><br>Thanks in advance..... <p>--------------------<br>FIC PA-2013 2.0 E-O036, K6-2+ 450 @ 500 1.9V<br><br>FIC PA-2013 2.0 E-O036, K6-III 450AFX @ 500 2.2V<br><br>Acer Quasi-proprietary Mid-Tower with P-II 266</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub70.ezboard.com/bk6plus67153.s ... ykingv>His Royal Majesty King V</A> at: 1/30/03 3:39:25 pm<br></i>
FIC PA-2103 E-O036, K6-2+ 450 2.0V @ 500 1.9V
FIC PA-2013 E-O036, K6-III 450 2.2V @ 500
Acer quasi-proprietary Mid-tower, P-II 266
georgep1
Veteran K6'er
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 6:09 pm

Re: ATI chipset evolution/progression?

Post by georgep1 »

Don't need a chart, you got it down in what you wrote. <br><br>A few of the Radeon's had no fan on them, but they are the low end ones that might not be much better than the Rage128. The RadeonLE's which were clocked slower and had some of the hyperZ features disabled, and the Radeon VE which had no hardware transform and lighting. However, the LE's could be flashed with the Radeon DDR OEM BIOS giving it good performance. Still, the Radeon's drivers work better in Win2K/XP for games. <br><br>So, both ATI and Nvidia have their driver performance issues with Super7 systems. <p> Epox MVP3G5, K6-3+450@618, 256MB SDRAM, CL GF2 GTS, IBM 60GXP 20GB, Fortissimo II Sound<BR><br>ASUS TX97-XE, K6-3+450@500, 256MB SDRAM, Voodoo4 4500 PCI, WD 40GB, SB AWE64 Sound <BR><br>ASUS A7N8X Dlx, Athlon XP 2400+, 512 Crucial DDR, Radeon 8500, WD 80GB SE, onboard sound/LAN</p><i></i>
E-Machines T6000 (AMD64 3200+) (Don't laugh! It absolutely rocks!)
GigaByte K7N400 Pro2, 3200+, 1 GB DDR, 80 GB WD SE
Epox MVPG5, K6-III+@550, 384 SDRAM, 80 GB WD SE
TX97-XE, K6-III+@400, 256 SDRAM, 40 GB WD HD
User avatar
His Royal Majesty King V
Veteran K6'er
Posts: 444
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2001 4:06 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: ATI chipset evolution/progression?

Post by His Royal Majesty King V »

Ah . . so there's no "missing link" so to speak between use of the Rage 128/128 Pro and the Radeon. Cool..... somehow it seemed there might've been something in between the Rage128 and the Radeon.<br><br>Now to the question of "which Radeon is which"<br><br>So, erm, is the listing of products in order of chipset a listing of most recent to most ancient, and thus most to least powerful, from <a href="http://mirror.ati.com/products/builtdes ... tml">ATI's Product Info Site</a> more or less correct? That is, in order of most modern and powerful to least:<br><ul><br><li>Radeon 9700<br><li>Radeon 9500<br><li>Radeon 9000<br><li>Radeon 8500<br><li>Radeon 7500<br><li>Radeon 7200<br><li>Radeon 7000<br><li>Radeon<br></ul><br><br>Each of which may have a "pro" version as well.<br><br>The bummer is that ATI doesn't seem to list memory and cpu clocks or fabrication size to compare them against each other so I don't have to ask this darn question in the first place!<br><br>As for driver issues . . I'll live with "little quirks" that I may get with ATI. I just can't use the Nvidia videocards at all in this FIC board, or I get hard lockups.<br><br>Is there someplace I can get more of the specs about the various Radeons throughout history, without asking you to type up all that info? ATI's site is more like advertising blurbs . . I didn't know about the hyper-Z being partially disabled in the Radeon LE, or the VE not having hardware T&L. <br><br>In any case, whatever I do isn't happening until April, when I move to a house and unpack my K6-2+ system. I just want to see if I can get the most graphics power possible given my CPU and motherboard. I think currently the Rage128 Pro, (in my K6-III system), while a huge improvement for me, is still the limiting factor. <p>--------------------<br>FIC PA-2013 2.0 E-O036, K6-2+ 450 @ 500 1.9V<br><br>FIC PA-2013 2.0 E-O036, K6-III 450AFX @ 500 2.2V<br><br>Acer Quasi-proprietary Mid-Tower with P-II 266</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub70.ezboard.com/bk6plus67153.s ... ykingv>His Royal Majesty King V</A> at: 1/31/03 12:21:33 am<br></i>
FIC PA-2103 E-O036, K6-2+ 450 2.0V @ 500 1.9V
FIC PA-2013 E-O036, K6-III 450 2.2V @ 500
Acer quasi-proprietary Mid-tower, P-II 266
User avatar
fafurion
K6'er
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 10:31 am

about that list

Post by fafurion »

theres a few mistakes in that list. 9000 aint faster that radeon 8500 thats why ATI changed the name to 9100, and thers pro versions only for 9000, 9500 and 9700 i think. <p></p><i></i>
athlonXP1600+@1700
GA-7dxe
256mb ddr 2100
radeon9000Pro128Mb
seagate 40Gb 5400rpm
c-media 8768 6channels
acteck 5.1 speakers
17` LG studioworks
26 dot pitch
32x10x40 lg cdburner
LG 52x cdrom
User avatar
blue
Site Admin
Posts: 1047
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 2:37 pm
Location: Sacramento
Contact:

Re: about that list

Post by blue »

the nect chip after the 128 is the radeon SDR(VE,DDR,7000-7700), then 8500(8800,8700,9000,9100) then 9500(9700)<br><br> <p>vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvVVVVVVVVVVVV <br>Athlon XP 1600+@1.82ghz(9x202) V Duron 1.1ghz V pentium 2 350@490<br>Crucial PC2700 Cas2.5 fastest settings v 384mb pc133 ram V 256mb pc133<br>Epox 8k9a2+(kt400) V iwill KK266+ V Asus P2B<br>Radeon 8500@280/340 V matrox g400 V matrox G400<br>Sound Blaster Live V 20gigs V IBM 13gb<br>2xWD 20gb 7200 RPM raid 0 setup V 16x10x32 Samsung V Windows XP<br>1xWD 20gb 7200 RPM V windows XP V No sound<br>16x10x40 Yamaha burner V 5.1 onboard soundV 32x cd rom<br>52x Asus CD-ROM V 3com NIC V 3com NIC<br>vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvVVVVVVVVVVVV </p><i></i>
p3 1ghz laptop
geforce2 go
256mb ram
io333
K6'er Elite
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2001 11:11 am

list not right

Post by io333 »

The Radeon 7000 was just the RadeonVE renamed. Other than the name, the cards are *identical*.<br><br><br>The plain Radeon is more powerful than the Radeon7000/VE because it has hardware T&L.<br><br><br>The Radeon7000/VE is the lowest powered card to carry the Radeon designation.<br><br><br>I think something similar might be going on with the Radeon 7/8/9 series. Like a Radeon 8500 might give better overall performance than a Radeon 9000. I'm not sure. You're really going to have to dig for such info.<br><br><br>Also, I'm almost, but not quite positive that the Radeon 7200 is the renaming of the plain original "Radeon". <br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
blue
Site Admin
Posts: 1047
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 2:37 pm
Location: Sacramento
Contact:

Re: list not right

Post by blue »

8500s are faster then 9000s, in fact ATI renamed them to 9100 and started selling them again <p>vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvVVVVVVVVVVVV <br>Athlon XP 1600+@1.82ghz(9x202) V Duron 1.1ghz V pentium 2 350@490<br>Crucial PC2700 Cas2.5 fastest settings v 384mb pc133 ram V 256mb pc133<br>Epox 8k9a2+(kt400) V iwill KK266+ V Asus P2B<br>Radeon 8500@280/340 V matrox g400 V matrox G400<br>Sound Blaster Live V 20gigs V IBM 13gb<br>2xWD 20gb 7200 RPM raid 0 setup V 16x10x32 Samsung V Windows XP<br>1xWD 20gb 7200 RPM V windows XP V No sound<br>16x10x40 Yamaha burner V 5.1 onboard soundV 32x cd rom<br>52x Asus CD-ROM V 3com NIC V 3com NIC<br>vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvVVVVVVVVVVVV </p><i></i>
p3 1ghz laptop
geforce2 go
256mb ram
User avatar
jsc1973
Veteran K6'er
Posts: 394
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2001 11:55 am
Contact:

...

Post by jsc1973 »

The 9000 and 9000 Pro do have some enhancements that the 8500/9100 doesn't have, but the latter has an extra texture management unit that makes it clearly the faster of the two.<br><br>When the new cards came out, demand for the 8500 was still strong, so ATI renamed it 9100 to reflect its performance in relation to the 9000 and 9500, and thus it lives on.<br><br>The LE/7000 was a POS no matter what ATI called it. It was ATI's answer to the GayFarce2 MX200. The VE was just a Radeon DDR with a GPU that didn't quite pass quality control at the rated speed of a regular Radeon DDR, but did at a slightly lower speed. <p></p><i></i>
FIC VA-503+, Rev. 1.2, AMD K6-III+ 450@550MHz, 80GB Seagate ATA-100, 3dfx Voodoo3 3500 TV, TB Montego II Quadzilla, Win98se, 384MB PC100

Compaq Presario 1273, AMD K6-III+ 450@400MHz 1.8v, 40GB Samsung 5400RPM, extremely hacked Win98SE, 288 (yes, 288!) MB RAM
(Also an AMD FX-8350, which does the heavy lifting these days...)
User avatar
jsc1973
Veteran K6'er
Posts: 394
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2001 11:55 am
Contact:

...

Post by jsc1973 »

Sorry about that. The VE/7000 was the POS. The LE was the lower-clocked Radeon DDR, which is roughly equivalent to VisionTek's GF2 GTS-V cards. <p></p><i></i>
FIC VA-503+, Rev. 1.2, AMD K6-III+ 450@550MHz, 80GB Seagate ATA-100, 3dfx Voodoo3 3500 TV, TB Montego II Quadzilla, Win98se, 384MB PC100

Compaq Presario 1273, AMD K6-III+ 450@400MHz 1.8v, 40GB Samsung 5400RPM, extremely hacked Win98SE, 288 (yes, 288!) MB RAM
(Also an AMD FX-8350, which does the heavy lifting these days...)
Post Reply