Could you stop talking out of your ass? There is nothing at all true in this whole blurbSoberAnalyst said:hello. i run the RADEON 7500 64MB ... i wish my videocard had 128MB because it does make a huge difference. with more ram, you're able to load more qucker, because of the ram fragmentation issue ... RAM fragmentation is a much larger performance factor than hard drive fragmentation, believe it or not. also, Doom III is said to use 80MB of videocard ram on average. the RADEON 8500 will also soon be renamed as the RADEON 9500 with the same hardware make-up ... why is this? ... it has to do with the fact that the RADEON 9000 is called 9000 because it's DirectX 9 compatible but it's making people think that the videocard is faster than the 8500 ... so they've decided to make the 8500 a larger number because the processor is much more powerful. if you get the LE, the processor is not as powerful but still much more powerful than the 9000. believe me ... 8500LE 128MB is your best bet!!! ... it's what i plan on upgrading to.
Slougi said:Could you stop talking out of your ass? There is nothing at all true in this whole blurb
i write calls for libraries which migrate DirectX functions to a .NET platform ...
i'm not some kid who spends all day posting on forums. just because i'm new, don't think you know anything over me. you're just a forum junky
anyway, i was wrong about the 8500 being turned into the 9500 ... it will be the 9100 under the same framework though. the 9500 will be slightly better. that is all i was wrong about ... i wish i could do that rolling eyes thing, but i'm not a forum junky. i'm a .NET programmer.
That don't impress me much
Up till here your post was acceptable, and somewhat factual.SoberAnalyst said:hello. i run the RADEON 7500 64MB ... i wish my videocard had 128MB because it does make a huge difference. with more ram, you're able to load more qucker, because of the ram fragmentation issue ... RAM fragmentation is a much larger performance factor than hard drive fragmentation, believe it or not.
ROFLMAOalso, Doom III is said to use 80MB of videocard ram on average. the RADEON 8500 will also soon be renamed as the RADEON 9500 with the same hardware make-up ...
Erm, sorry, r9000 is a dx 8.1 card.why is this? ... it has to do with the fact that the RADEON 9000 is called 9000 because it's DirectX 9 compatible but it's making people think that the videocard is faster than the 8500 ...
Not as powerful but still more powerful? Please explain what you mean.so they've decided to make the 8500 a larger number because the processor is much more powerful. if you get the LE, the processor is not as powerful but still much more powerful than the 9000. believe me
Noone in their right mind would get a r9000 now. A r9500 or r9500 pro maybe. Especially if you are a programmer. :saint:... 8500LE 128MB is your best bet!!! ... it's what i plan on upgrading to.
I might be a forum junkie, whatever that is, but I am not known to be harsh to newbies. It is just that you had no single fact right in your first post. The grammar and spelling suggested that the writer is a ~13 year old. If I offended you I am sorry, it just pisses me off when people post stuff like that. And yes, it is true that there are rumours that the r8500 will be called r9100. However I don't think it is feasible for ati. They developed the rv250 to be cost productive, which it is. With the upcoming rv350 and r350 release they will have a very strong product lineup, with or without the r200.SoberAnalyst said:i write calls for libraries which migrate DirectX functions to a .NET platform ... i'm not some kid who spends all day posting on forums. just because i'm new, don't think you know anything over me. you're just a forum junky ... i'm new, it's the weekend and i'm bored ... so i decided to post something ... anyway, i was wrong about the 8500 being turned into the 9500 ... it will be the 9100 under the same framework though. the 9500 will be slightly better. that is all i was wrong about ... i wish i could do that rolling eyes thing, but i'm not a forum junky. i'm a .NET programmer.
I couldn't care less who or what you are. You posted on a forum in which I actively participate, spreading disinformation. I replied to that.SoberAnalyst said:you say i'm not a .NET programmer. you can contact me, my name is Tyler. i own www.webworkfair.com which offers .NET web services and intranet development. you can contact me directly through the Contact page. you can check the registration of the company and that it is under my name and confirm that i'm outsourced by microsoft.
Please do. If the performance difference is higher than ~5% I'll be impressed.if you would like, i could find benchmarks on the 64mb vs. 128mb but i wouldn't want to embarrass 2 gurus (based on the number of postings you guys have done) anymore.
Slougi said:And yes, it is true that there are rumours that the r8500 will be called r9100.
The r9000 is not dx9 compatible It is basically a reworked r8500, with modifications to the shaders and pipelines. It is actually slower in most areas, which is why ati might call the r8500 r9100 in the future. However, both these cards are dx8.1 level cards, and have the same features.SoberAnalyst said:most of the calls i do can be done with a very old card. i can't test my framework on my computer and have my computer act as all cards anyway. yes ... i do believe the 9000 is DX9 compatible and i already said the 8500 would be remained to 9100 ... i corrected myself. my main point anyway was that 8500 128 would preform better than 64mb and i can currectly looking for proof online.
Doomulation said:The 128 mb cards will probably only most likely be needed in the future.