|
|
iBook Graphics: Radeon 9200 vs Radeon 9550
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Stoneham, MA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
My current ibook has a 9200 and my next ibook will have the 9550. What is the difference, performance wise. Each has 32 MB of VRAM. I read that the 9200 doesn't support core image? Is this true, and more importantly, does the 9550? Anything else I should know?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status:
Offline
|
|
The 9550 supports Core Image, while the 9200 does not. There shouldn't be much difference other than that, though, because they're both severely held back by their 32 MB of VRAM. Without more VRAM, the 9550 really won't give you much more performance over the 9200.
|
"That's Mama Luigi to you, Mario!" *wheeze*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Norway (I eat whales)
Status:
Offline
|
|
For what it's worth, the 9550 is simply a down clocked 9600/9700. According to these benches it seems to do significant better than the 5200 in pixel shader 2.0 related tasks. 9200 doesn't even have pixel shader 2.0 support.
It's not an dramatically upgrade but it is most definitive progress from the 9200. I suspect it's a better GPU than the GeForce FX Go5200 in the 12" PB at least in pixel shader 2.0 tasks (though it isn't much of a contest really).
(
Last edited by sniffer; Jul 28, 2005 at 08:05 AM.
)
|
Sniffer gone old-school sig
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status:
Offline
|
|
It depends on the game... middle-aged games like Quake III will do better on the 12" PowerBook, because 32 MB isn't enough VRAM for all the textures when you run it at full quality. Even the pedantic FX5200 is fast enough to run Quake III smoothly, and you won't have a case of the stutters as the GPU steals system RAM as a backup display buffer (as it does on a 32 MB video card when running at max texture quality). Older games that don't even fill 32 MB might run a little better on the iBook, though I doubt there would be a noticeable difference if you're using such old games. Newer games might be a mixed bag... if you turn down the texture quality but leave the rest of the settings at medium, I bet the iBook would win in a few cases, but most computer games need at least 64 MB (a few need 128 MB, and almost none need more than that). So despite the FX5200's abysmal performance, it should still beat the 9550 most of the time by virtue of its extra VRAM.
|
"That's Mama Luigi to you, Mario!" *wheeze*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Does the screen spanning hack still work with the new 9550 graphics iBooks?
|
It'll be much easier if you just comply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
xlr8yourmac.com has posted a report from a contact at ATI comparing a Radeon 9200 on a 1.2Ghz iBook vs. a Radeon 9550 on a 1.2Ghz iBook.
I *still* can't decide if I want one of these to upgrade from my TiBook...
Voch
(
Last edited by Voch; Jul 29, 2005 at 03:37 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|