Ati radeon 9100: ATI Radeon 9100 Specs | TechPowerUp GPU Database

16 апреля, 2023

ATI Radeon 9250 vs ATI Radeon 9100


Comparative analysis of ATI Radeon 9250 and ATI Radeon 9100 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory.
Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark — G3D Mark, PassMark — G2D Mark.

ATI Radeon 9250

Buy on Amazon


vs

ATI Radeon 9100

Buy on Amazon

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the ATI Radeon 9250

  • Videocard is newer: launch date 11 month(s) later
  • 480x more texture fill rate: 960 MTexel / s vs 2 GTexel / s



Launch date 1 March 2004 vs 1 April 2003
Texture fill rate 960 MTexel / s vs 2 GTexel / s

Reasons to consider the ATI Radeon 9100

  • Around 4% higher core clock speed: 250 MHz vs 240 MHz
  • Around 25% higher memory clock speed: 500 MHz vs 400 MHz
  • 2x better performance in PassMark — G3D Mark: 6 vs 3
  • Around 28% better performance in PassMark — G2D Mark: 163 vs 127





Core clock speed 250 MHz vs 240 MHz
Memory clock speed 500 MHz vs 400 MHz
PassMark — G3D Mark 6 vs 3
PassMark — G2D Mark 163 vs 127

Compare benchmarks


GPU 1: ATI Radeon 9250
GPU 2: ATI Radeon 9100



PassMark — G3D Mark

GPU 1
GPU 2


PassMark — G2D Mark

GPU 1
GPU 2





Name ATI Radeon 9250 ATI Radeon 9100
PassMark — G3D Mark 3 6
PassMark — G2D Mark 127 163

Compare specifications (specs)






















ATI Radeon 9250 ATI Radeon 9100
Architecture Rage 7 Rage 7
Code name RV280 R200
Launch date 1 March 2004 1 April 2003
Place in performance rating 1090 911
Type Desktop Desktop
Core clock speed 240 MHz 250 MHz
Manufacturing process technology 150 nm 150 nm
Texture fill rate 960 MTexel / s 2 GTexel / s
Transistor count 36 million 60 million
Thermal Design Power (TDP)

28 Watt
Display Connectors 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video No outputs
Interface AGP 8x AGP 4x
Supplementary power connectors None None
DirectX 8. 1 8.1
OpenGL 1.4 1.4
Maximum RAM amount 64 MB 64 MB
Memory bandwidth 3.2 GB / s 8 GB / s
Memory bus width 64 Bit 128 Bit
Memory clock speed 400 MHz 500 MHz
Memory type DDR DDR

Navigation

Choose a GPU

Compare videocards

Compare ATI Radeon 9250 with others




ATI
Radeon 9250



vs



ATI
Radeon HD 5750




ATI
Radeon 9250



vs



ATI
Mobility Radeon HD 5870




ATI
Radeon 9250



vs



NVIDIA
GeForce GTS 450 Rev. 2




ATI
Radeon 9250



vs



NVIDIA
Quadro K2000




ATI
Radeon 9250



vs



AMD
Radeon R5 235 OEM




ATI
Radeon 9250



vs



AMD
Radeon R7 M460

Sapphire Radeon 9100 Atlantis Review

Sapphire Radeon 9100 Atlantis


Written by Bart Skinner on 3/6/2003 for
PC  


More On:

Sapphire Radeon 9100 Atlantis


Late last year, I took a look at a Radeon 9700 Pro from Sapphire. A power gamer’s card, the Sapphire Atlantis 9700 Pro is the top of the line video card currently but it’s also one expensive purchase. Not all of us can spend $300 on a card to play games. To meet the demand for a value card, ATI has improved the Radeon 8500 and made it the 9100. Today we look at Sapphire’s version of the card, the Radeon 9100 Atlantis..

The Sapphire Radeon 9100 Atlantis is equipped with 128MB of DDR memory and features 4 rendering pipelines, 128bit memory bus, and clocked at 250MHz core speed with a 200MHz or 400DDR memory speed. The 128MB of DDR memory is comprised of eight 16MB memory chips rated at 5ns on both sides of the card by AData. As far as AGP specifications are concerned, the card supports up to AGP4X.

Compared to a Radeon 9700, the card has half the memory bus width and the memory speed is a quite a bit slower. With the 9700 Pro, the Radeon 9100 falls short in the same category along with being clocked slower. The clock on a 9700 Pro runs at 325MHz and the memory is at 310MHz or 620DDR. Price wise, the 9100 Pro runs around $80 and the 9700 Pro comes in at a $300.

Video output comes in three flavors: DVI, S-Video, and VGA. The card does support dual display utilizing Hydravision technology. Since I work with Hydravision at work, I can say that the implementation of dual display with it is pretty good. Rather than get into all the features that Hydravision has, I will just say that for dual monitor work the software does a great job.

Bundled with the card is just the driver CD and a Component to S-Video adapter. I would’ve liked to see a game or two thrown in there but seeing as this is a value card, they wanted to keep costs down.

My test system consisted of:

AMD XP 2400+
1024MB PC2100 Muskin High Perf. Memory 2-2-2
Windows XP w/ DirectX 9.0
MSI KT3 Ultra2 Motherboard
M-Audio Revolution 7.1
120GB WD 7200rpm 8MB cache
For drivers, I opted for the latest Catalyst version, which is version 3.1, which were posted February 10, 2003. You can pick up the drivers here. For comparison, I threw in the results from my Radeon 9700. Even though these cards are in two different market segments, it’ll be nice to see how much extra you get for the price premium of a power card like the 9700pro. Let’s start off with the tried and true 3DMark2001 SE from Futuremark.

Try not to be too down on the 9100 as it is going against a 9700 pro. For an $80 card, it does pretty good as long as No AA is on.Now let’s see how the two cards compare with Unreal Tournament 2003 which utilizes DirectX. Thanks to HardOCP for making a benching utility for this game that makes reviewers’ lives easier. This first chart is low quality with no anti-aliasing.

As you can see, UT2K3 is totally playable at 1024×768 on this card. The difference between LQ and HQ isn’t all that noticeable when you have 4 rockets are coming at your face.

Here is low quality with 2x anti-aliasing on.

As you can see, this card isn’t really made to be used with AA on, even at the 2x level. You could probably play on some smaller maps with 2x on, but not the large ones.The next benchmark is Comanche 4 demo from Novalogic. It has scripting ability in which you can programmatically run many benchmarks in a batch. Yet another tool nice for reviewers.

Here we see in this test that there is some kind of other system bottleneck at lower resolutions, but looking at the higher resolutions, the 9100 drops off as 4-5 fps in this benchmark is pretty huge.

The last benchmark today is VulpineGL. This benchmark utilizes OpenGL. ATI is notorious for having bad OpenGL implementation in their drivers. The latest set fixed a stutter bug in OpenGL games so let’s see how it does now.

Here we see at 800×600 that the video card isn’t the bottleneck, but the 9100 starts to taper off even at 1024.

In conclusion, the Sapphire 9100 Pro is a decent card for the gamer on an extremely low budget that doesn’t play too many fast action games. Just don’t expect to play at any higher resolutions either. At the price point of $80, it’s the best card you’re going to get at that price range, but if you want to play any recent games such as Battlefield 1942 or Freelancer, I would recommend shoveling snow in some more driveways and saving for the Sapphire Atlantis 9500 Pro. I give this card an 8. It’s a decent card, but I don’t think it will last the gamer very long with upcoming games. There is also no DX9 hardware support, so I think a 9500 Pro would last much longer.


While the card is showing it’s age, its still a good buy for the budget consumer. At lower resolutions it still delivers some decent speed but don’t expect to play the latest and greatest at good speeds.

Rating: 8 Good

* The product in this article was sent to us by the developer/company.

About Author

I’ve been playing games ever since Atari 2600. I play mostly FPS games now. I used to play just about all types. I went to CPL in Winter 2001 to play Aliens vs Predator 2 and placed 11th. The free Geforce3 TI500 was nice. Despite being jealous of Fata1ty, he’s actually a nice guy.

I’m also a computer hardware addict. I’m one of those people that have to update my machine for the sake of having the best out of the people I know. Still cheaper than being married 🙂 It gives me an opportunity to review some of the latest and greatest hardware. I’m currently playing Battlefield 1942 in a top clan, Medal of Honor Allied Assault sometimes, Unreal Tournament 2003 occasionally, and trying various other games when given the time. Still waiting patiently for Planetside. View Profile

Radeon 9100? Seeing for the first time…

When the opportunity arose to test the Radeon 9100 video card, I first decided to prepare theoretically and find out what these boards are. Naturally, in search of information, the first thing I went to the manufacturer’s website, but was severely disappointed. In addition to general phrases about «four parallel, fully optimized pixel pipelines and two microprocessor-based geometry engines,» there is nothing useful there, and in a small text only half a page
nine0003 o most of the words are parasitic: magnificent, incomparable, unprecedented, exceptional, advanced and unsurpassed, occasionally interspersed with phrases about advanced performance and visual quality
. According to the company, such an advertising campaign should have immediately ripped me off in search of a wonderful video card, but in fact it caused irritation and a desire to find some flaws in it. It would be much more amusing to say that «our pixel pipelines are not yet fully optimized, and our drivers are buggy…»
.
nine0005

I got a lot more useful information by running a search in the news column of our website. It turned out that the Radeon 9100 does not differ much from the Radeon 8500, and there is an assumption that this is the same chip, but with a different marking. Let’s take a closer look at the Sapphire Radeon 9100 128 MB video card.

Indeed, the board is very similar to the 8500 and indirect evidence is the CD from Sapphire version 10-011 with drivers, which says «Only for Radeon 8500/9100». During installation, the installer reported that it installed Catalyst 02.2 and installed driver version 6.13.10.6218. However, you can get more tangible evidence from ATI, this is information about the video adapter:


As you can see, the R200 chip, which once again confirms the identity of the Radeon 9100 and 8500. The video card has 128 MB of memory manufactured by A-Data. This is the first time I’ve come across memory from this manufacturer on video cards, but that’s not important, the main thing is that the access time for these modules is as much as 5 ns, which immediately indicates the frequency at which the memory operates — only 400 MHz. The core ran at 250 MHz. In other words, the frequencies of this video card are even lower than those of the Radeon 8500LE cards, which were running at 250/500 MHz core/memory. nine0005

Taking into account the traditionally poor overclockability of ATI video cards, we can say that our test subject performed very well, we managed to overclock it to 290 MHz in the core and 500 MHz in memory. Although we outperformed the Radeon 8500, which has nominal frequencies of 275/550 MHz, in terms of core overclocking, we could not even come close to the Radeon 8500LE in terms of memory. Nothing can be done, the memory is slow, and miracles happen, but rarely. Let’s see how the card will show itself in real work.

I started testing on a stand with the following configuration:

  • Mother — Abit KD7, BIOS version CY
  • Memory — 512 MB PC2700 DDR SDRAM CL2.5 Samsung
  • Video — Sapphire Radeon 9100 128MB
  • Hard – IBM DTLA 305020
  • Processor — AMD Athlon XP 1700+@2800+ (2250MHz)
  • Cooler -Thermaltake Volcano 7
  • Thermal grease — KPT-8
  • Operating system — Windows XP SP1 (driver version 6. 13.10.6218)

We ran three 3DMark 2001SE benchmarks in a row with default settings at two resolutions: 1600×1200 and 1024×768. In Unreal Tournament 2003 the card was tested at 1024×768 resolution, all quality settings were set to [Normal], and the starting coefficient was equal to [18578]. nine0005

recommendations


Yes, with such a processor even the Sapphire Radeon 9100 128 MB graphics card looks decent. Seriously, it cannot compete with video cards based on NVIDIA GeForce 4 Ti4200 chips, but any cut-down GeForce MX will have a hard time. The Radeon 9100 shows about the same speed, but it is not limited by anything (except for slow memory) and fully supports DirectX 8.1 specifications. Given that the cost of such cards is already in the range of $100, then the purchase of such a board is quite possible, along with the discussion of the acquisition of Radeon 9000 Pro or Radeon 8500.