Just how useless are ATI-9200 cards?

[zybch]

I've just come back from a customer's place (bit of tuition) where he has a nice shiny new HP computer. P4-2800, 512, 120Gb, and radeon 9200.
I'm wondering just how crappy the 9200 actually is as a couple of the games I showed him ran like a three legged ant covered in treacle.
Not just badly but dreadfully badly.
Is the 9200 some sort of equivalent to a Geforce FX5200?
All I know is that this guy got well and truly ripped off. He went into the local PC place and asked for the best computer they could get for $X and ended up with this HP with 17"LCD, DVD+R burner (useless in my opinion for the moment) and this dreadful gfx card.

[Yoshi]

It's meant for SOHO users or low-end users who still want a bit of a performance leap from onboard graphics, also they have a 9200SE

[zybch]

Ah the good old "lets stick a 'SE' after the name and halve the speed" thing.

I'd hate to see a 9200SE card. Does the manual say you have to get out and push?!

[Rugor]

It probably is the 9200SE, but even if it isn't, any 9200 is just a downclocked 9000 with an AGP 8x interface. The SE adds a 64 bit memory interface to the mix.

[PacNW CE]

SE=Sucks Eggs

[Peter M]

9000 and 9200 (no suffixes) run at the exact same speed. No downclocking there.

9200pro are rare though, and are actually a tad faster than 9000pro.

9200SE, with the RAM bandwidth halved from plain 9200, isn't made for 3D gaming, of course. It's an ultra-budget solution for people who just want some kind of display but want to stay a step above chipset-integrated VGA.

Whatever the flavor, just don't run 3D in too high resolutions with them. They run quite decently when you step down a bit. What do you expect from a card in the $40 to $80 price range?

[Bogg]

Come on guys

Worthless? Ey, I run a GF2 MX400, and I'm quite happy with the "performance" I get, I can play THPS3/CS/THPS4/GTA3 and to some extent GTA:VC (Not in a resolution of 1600x1200 precisely, rather half of that)..

Come on, 9200 can't be "worthless" for 3D applications, just not enough for newer games...

Worthless would mean it couldn't be used at all for 3D Games, wouldn't it?

Hey, if even my card can stand up to many of the games that came out 6-8 month ago, surely a 9200 would be able to play quite well on those too?

[zybch]

I guess I consider the 9200 worthless because the guy who was sold it was told that it was a fantastic card able to play all the current and upcomming games.
I supose thats what you get when you get a PC from one of the big manufacturers rather than a clone with 50% more grunt for the same price.

[PacNW CE]

Originally posted by Bogg
Come on guys

Worthless? Ey, I run a GF2 MX400, and I'm quite happy with the "performance" I get, I can play THPS3/CS/THPS4/GTA3 and to some extent GTA:VC (Not in a resolution of 1600x1200 precisely, rather half of that)..

Come on, 9200 can't be "worthless" for 3D applications, just not enough for newer games...

Worthless would mean it couldn't be used at all for 3D Games, wouldn't it?

Hey, if even my card can stand up to many of the games that came out 6-8 month ago, surely a 9200 would be able to play quite well on those too?

A buddy of mine has a 2 year old compaq with integrated Intel Graphics. I saw he had RTCW on his box, so I fired it up to see how the resolution looked. I think I drew prettier pictures when I was in preschool, but that is still debateable.

Sure a 9200 could sort of run 3d games, but likely at 640x480 with no AA for 15fps. I don't think it's too much of a reach for me to say that 15fps is worthless....

[Rugor]

Oddly enough a friend of mine online went from Intel Extreme Graphics to a Radeon 9200 and was more than happy. Yes it's slow for a real game card, but it beats the Extreme Slideshow all hollow.

The RV280 was a perfectly capable core for its day.