Gigabyte ati radeon 9200 se drivers. Price. Owners' opinion

A driver is essentially a link between the operating system, that is software and hardware, that is, physical devices such as video cards, printers, processors, etc. The operating system may contain basic drivers for the most necessary devices- mouse, keyboard, but for everything else you will need fresh drivers.

How to install the driver?

1. The easiest way, if there is an installation file, then you just need to run it and follow the installer’s instructions.
2.If there is no installer available, and there are only files with the extensions *.inf, *.dll, *.vxt, *.sys, *.drv., then the algorithm of actions should be approximately as follows:

a) First you need to select the icon ( My computer) and right-click on it, select ( Properties).

b) Now go to the tab ( Equipment) and presses the button ( device Manager).

c) Now you need to select the device for which the driver will be installed/updated. On the line with the device, you need to right-click and select ( Properties), or you can simply double-click on it to go to the desired settings.

d) Go to the tab ( Driver), select the button ( Update).

e) In the dialog box that appears, select the item ( No, not this time) and go to ( Further).

f) At this stage there are two options. You can try to install the drivers in automatic mode, then the OS itself will try to find drivers suitable for the device and install them, for this we select ( Automatic installation(recommended)) , if the attempt fails, then you need to move on to the second point ( Installation from a specified location) and select ( Further).

g) This menu item implies a choice between searching for a driver on removable media and the option to specify the folder with the driver yourself. Therefore, if you have a disk with drivers, you need to insert the disk into the CD-rom and select the option ( Search on removable media (floppy disks, CDs...)) and go ( Further).

If the driver is found and downloaded on the Internet yourself, then you need to manually specify the path to the folder in which the installation data for the driver is located as follows. Select the item ( Include the following search location:) and go to ( Review), now select the folder with the driver from the list and click on the button ( OK). Now we boldly move on ( Further), if everything is done correctly, the installation of the necessary driver will begin.

Connect3D RADEON 9800 PRO 256MB, Connect3D RADEON 9600 PRO 128MB, Connect3D RADEON 9600 128MB, Connect3D RADEON 9200 128MB

Summer is coming to an end, top 3D accelerators have reached the peak of their sales... But do you like the fact that ATI and NVIDIA are going to announce something new in September-October? One can only sympathize with the unfortunate video card manufacturers... However, users are also not in the best position, especially those who just bought a super-expensive accelerator at an exorbitant price. And not only High-End, because new products from the Middle-End class will also be announced.

But this is all in the future, but for now we continue to look at the latest generation video cards. The most popular from the ATI sector are RADEON 9500 (already becoming a thing of the past), RADEON 9600 (new), RADEON 9800 (top product). And of course, low-end RADEON 9200, although it does not support DirectX 9.0. All the details about what each of these products are are in our reviews:

Theoretical and analytical materials and reviews of video cards, which discuss the functional features of the ATI RADEON 9500/9700/9800 GPU

• Analytical material on the features of the RADEON 9700 architecture and Microsoft DirectX 9.0
• Review of Gigabyte MAYA II R9700Pro 128MB performance on the new bench based on Pentium 4 2.53 GHz, as well as competition with the new 40.41 driver from NVIDIA
• Review of Hercules 3D Prophet 9700 Pro 128MB performance of the new CATALYST 2.3 driver in 3DMark2001 SE, Unreal Tournament 2003 DEMO final release benchmarks
• Review of PowerColor Evil Commando2 RADEON 9700 Pro 128MB continued research into the performance of the new CATALYST 2.3 driver based on game tests, issues of 3D graphics quality
• Extreme overclocking of Hercules 3D Prophet 9700 Pro based on ATI RADEON 9700 Pro
• Sapphire Atlantis RADEON 9500 128MB as well as testing video cards in DOOM III v.0.02
• Review of Gigabyte MAYA II RADEON 9500 PRO and Hercules 3D Prophet 9500 PRO more detailed study of anisotropic filtering in the RADEON 9700
• Review of RADEON 7500, 8500, 9000/Pro, 9700 Pro from Sapphire Technology, anisotropy quality issues for the RADEON 9700
• Review of HIS Excalibur RADEON 9700 PRO Testing in DirectX 9.0 RC0
• Summary testing of ATI RADEON 9500 64MB, 9500 128MB, 9500 PRO, 9700 and 9700 PRO in DirectX 9.0: Part 2 Testing in DirectX 9.0 synthetic tests from RightMark 3D
• Review of Sapphire Atlantis RADEON 9700 and RADEON 9700 PRO Ultimate Edition, option in poetic form
• Review of video cards based on ATI products produced by Connect3D
• ATI RADEON 9600 PRO 128MB review: Part 1 gaming tests and performance
• Review of Hercules 3D Prophet 9800 PRO 128MB and Hercules 3D Prophet 7500 128MB, as well as “debriefing” in light of the scandal around 3DMark03
• Review of Hercules 3D Prophet 9800 PRO 128MB and Hercules 3D Prophet 7500 128MB (one page)
• Review of video cards based on ATI RADEON 9200/9600/9600PRO/9800PRO manufactured by Sapphire Technologies
• Review of video cards based on ATI RADEON 9800 PRO from Connect3D, Gigabyte and CP.Technology
• Review of video cards based on ATI RADEON 9600/9600 PRO from Gigabyte, Hercules and Sapphire
• Review of Sapphire Atlantis RADEON 9800 PRO 256MB Ultimate Edition based on ATI RADEON 9800 PRO- issues of graphics quality in UT2003/Unreal II and other games, fraud with anisotropy

Today we will continue to review the products of Connect3D, a new company for the Russian market, and in particular, 4 video cards based on RADEON 9200/9600/9600 PRO/9800 PRO. We have already talked about this company earlier, I will repeat that this is a European company with headquarters in the UK. But the production base is located in China (as is the case with 95% of companies associated with the IT business). However, Connect3D's production control is at the European level, so you can be confident in the decent quality of the products.

Let's get back to the products.
Boards

Connect3D RADEON 9600 128MB
Connect3D RADEON 9200 128MB

All cards have an AGP x8/x4/x2 interface, 128 MB of DDR SDRAM (except for Connect3D RADEON 9800 PRO 256MB), located in 8 chips on the front and back sides of the PCB (Connect3D RADEON 9800 PRO 256MB 16 chips).
Connect3D RADEON 9800 PRO 256MB
DDR-II memory chips manufactured by Samsung. The access time of memory chips is 2.2 ns, which corresponds to an operating frequency of approximately 454 (908) MHz, while the memory operates at a frequency of 350 (700) MHz. GPU operating frequency 380 MHz. Memory exchange interface 256 bit.
Connect3D RADEON 9600 PRO 128MB
Microcircuits Samsung memory. The access time for memory chips is 3.3 ns, which corresponds to an operating frequency of 300 (600) MHz, the memory operates at this frequency. GPU operating frequency 400 MHz.
Connect3D RADEON 9600 128MB, Connect3D RADEON 9200 128MB
Samsung memory chips. The access time of memory chips is 4 ns, which corresponds to an operating frequency of 250 (500) MHz, while the memory operates at a frequency of 200 (400) MHz. GPU operating frequency 325 MHz for RADEON 9600 and 250 MHz for RADEON 9200.

Comparison with reference design, front view
Connect3D RADEON 9800 PRO 256MB
Connect3D RADEON 9600 PRO 128MB
Connect3D RADEON 9600 128MB
Connect3D RADEON 9200 128MB

Comparison with reference design, rear view
Connect3D RADEON 9800 PRO 256MB	Reference card ATI RADEON 9800 PRO
Connect3D RADEON 9600 PRO 128MB	Reference card ATI RADEON 9600 PRO
Connect3D RADEON 9600 128MB	Reference card ATI RADEON 9600
Connect3D RADEON 9200 128MB	Reference card ATI RADEON 9200

As for the RADEON 9800 PRO 256MB, this is not just a copy of the reference design, but a reference card itself, and, judging by the sticker, it was produced for ATI itself. For now, all such cards are produced at the same factory, and therefore, when buying them from one or another ATI partner, be sure that they will be the same boards.

RADEON 9600 PRO from Connect3D is also made according to the reference design. But the RADEON 9600/9200 is of its own design from Connect3D.

I believe that there is no point in repeatedly considering coolers, which are the same for almost all video cards from ATI partners. I will only note that the RADEON 9600/9200 uses a passive radiator, while the RADEON 9800/9600 PRO has coolers with fans.

Let's look at the packages:

All video cards are supplied in conventional retail packaging (I can’t even bring myself to call THIS normal packaging).

This concludes our consideration of the card features.

Installation and drivers

Test bench configurations:

• Computer based on Pentium 4 3200 MHz:
  • Intel processor Pentium 4 3200 MHz;
  • DFI LANParty Pro875 (i875P) motherboard;
  • RAM 1024 MB DDR SDRAM;
  • Seagate Barracuda IV 40GB hard drive;
  • operating room Windows system XP SP1; DirectX 9.0a;
  • monitors ViewSonic P810 (21") and ViewSonic P817 (21").
  • ATI drivers version 6.368.

VSync is disabled S3TC technology DISABLED in applications.

For comparative analysis The results of video cards are shown:

• Leadtek WinFast A310 Ultra (GeForce FX 5600 Ultra, frequencies 350/350 (700) MHz, 128 MB, driver 45.20);
• MSI FX5600-VTD128 (GeForce FX 5600, 325/275 (550) MHz, 128 MB, driver 45.20);
• ASUS V9950 Ultra (GeForce FX 5900 Ultra, frequencies 450/425 (850) MHz, 256 MB, driver 45.20).

I'll explain why we took the FX 5600 Ultra for comparison at 350 MHz and not 400 MHz. The fact is that there are almost no 400 MHz cards on sale, and where they are, their price is much higher than that of the RADEON 9600 PRO.

Test results

Before briefly assessing the quality in 2D, I will once again clarify that on currently There is NO complete methodology for objective assessment of this parameter the following reasons:

1. For almost all modern 3D accelerators, the 2D quality can greatly depend on the specific instance, and it is physically impossible to track all cards;
2. 2D quality depends not only on the video card, but also on the monitor and connecting cable;
3. Recently, this parameter has been greatly influenced by combinations: monitor-card, that is, there are monitors that are not “friendly” with certain video cards.

Concerning tested copies, then together with ViewSonic P817 and BNC Bargo cable The boards demonstrated excellent quality in the following resolutions and frequencies:

Test results: comparison of performance of the tested cards

We used the following tools:

• Return to Castle Wolfenstein (MultiPlayer) (id Software/Activision) OpenGL, multitexturing, ixbt0703-demo, testing settings everything at the highest possible level, S3TC OFF, configurations can be
• Serious Sam: The Second Encounter v.1.05 (Croteam/GodGames) OpenGL, multitexturing, ixbt0703-demo, testing settings: quality, S3TC OFF
• Quake3 Arena v.1.17 (id Software/Activision) OpenGL, multitexturing, ixbt0703-demo, testing settings are all at the maximum level: detail level High, texture detail level No. 4, S3TC OFF, the smoothness of curved surfaces is dramatically increased using variables r_subdivisions "1" and r_lodCurveError "30000" (I emphasize that the default r_lodCurveError is "250" !), configurations can be
• Unreal Tournament 2003 v.2225 (Digital Extreme/Epic Games) Direct3D, Vertex Shaders, Hardware T&L, Dot3, cube texturing, default quality
• Code Creatures Benchmark Pro (CodeCult) gaming test, demonstrating the operation of the board in DirectX 8.1, Shaders, HW T&L.
• Unreal II: The Awakening (Legend Ent./Epic Games) Direct3D, Vertex Shaders, Hardware T&L, Dot3, cube texturing, default quality
• RightMark 3D v.0.4 (one of the game scenes) DirectX 8.1, Dot3, cube texturing, shadow buffers, vertex and pixel shaders (1.1, 1.4).

If anyone wants to get demo benchmarks that we use, then write to my e-mail.

Quake3 Arena

The RADEON 9800 PRO 256MB lost to its rival GeForce FX 5900 Ultra in almost all complex tests, except for anisotropy comparisons in Quality mode. Without AA and anisotropy, the cards are equal. The picture is approximately the same for the RADEON 9600 PRO and GeForce FX 5600 Ultra.

As for the RADEON 9600/9200, we see a complete loss of these cards.

Serious Sam: The Second Encounter

But here the picture is a little different. In the High-End sector there is approximate parity, with a slight lag behind the RADEON 9800 PRO 256MB in heavy modes. In the Midde-End sector, the RADEON 9600 PRO does better, although heavy modes make this card lose too. The RADEON 9600 is more inferior to its opponent in heavy modes.

RADEON 9200 wins in Low-End!

Return to Castle Wolfenstein (Multiplayer)

In this test we see almost a victory for the RADEON 9800 PRO in the High-End sector (with the exception of two modes). The RADEON 9600 PRO turned out to be the winner in its sector, just like the RADEON 9600 (with the exception of one mode).

And again a big victory for the RADEON 9200 over the FX 5200.

Code Creatures

Don't forget that in this test there may be some bugs in the NVIDIA drivers, so I won't comment on it. Look at the percentages for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

At the time of their appearance on sale in 2004, Radeon 9200 graphics accelerators from a company that was still Canadian at that timeATIbelonged to the segment of entry-level developments. Their performance was quite sufficient to solve the most common problems at that time,and even most of the toys ran on this adapter. Now this video card is inferior in performance to integrated graphics solutions. It is its characteristics and capabilities that will be discussed in this material.

Which segment of the graphics market is the adapter aimed at?

In 2004, the graphics accelerator market was dominated by only two manufacturers: Nvidia and ATI. And if before the release of the Radeon 9XXX series products, the leading positions were occupied by the solutions of the first manufacturer, then after that the situation changed dramatically, and adapters from the second developer took first place in terms of performance and speed. The discrete graphics market itself was divided into 3 large segments:

Video cards entry level. Minimum performance and very, very affordable cost. In most system units personal computers At that time, you can find just such adapters. NVidia positioned the GeForce 4 MX 4 XX and GeForce FX-5200 series products for this part of the market. In turn, ATI opposed them with only one product - the Radeon 9200. If we compare these accelerators in terms of productivity, then the hero of this review was faster than the MX 4XX, but worse than FX-5200. But there was no fundamental advantage in anyone’s favor in terms of performance and speed in this part of the graphics solutions market. For the most part, the choice was based on the price of the accelerator and personal preferences.

Mid-class graphics adapters in 2004 included NVidia FX-5600 and FX-5700, and ATI Radeon 9500 and Radeon 9600. In this case, the total advantage was already entirely on the side of the Canadian manufacturer. The computing power of its 9600 adapter was almost identical to the then flagship from NVidia - the GeForce FX-5900 video card.

The niche of the most productive discrete graphics accelerators was occupied by the previously mentioned FX-5900 and Radeon 9800 from ATI. Moreover, the latter demonstrated outstanding performance at that time and made it possible to solve almost any problem for quite a long time.

This is exactly how the video card market was divided in 2004.

Technical Specifications

The parameters of the video processor discussed in this material were as follows:

RV code designation is 25.

Semiconductor crystal production technology - 150 nm.

The operating frequency of the video chip is 250 MHz.

There were only 4 pixel pipelines, and each of them accounted for 1 TMU block.

The slot type for installation is AGP version 8X.

There was also a more advanced modification of this graphics product - Radeon 9200 Pro. The difference between them was that in the second case, the frequencies of the graphics chip were increased to 275 MHz, and its RAM operated at 500 MHz versus 400 for a conventional accelerator.Also releasedand its characteristics were identical.

Video memory

was equipped with a 128-bit RAM bus. The type of video buffer used in this case isDDRwith an operating frequency of 400 MHz.The amount of RAM in this accelerator could be 64, 128 or even 256 MB. In the latter case, the level of performance increased significantly, but the cost of such accelerators was significantly higher. As a result, they were not to be found very often.

Cooling system

This graphic solution, as noted earlier, is a budget-class product and certainly cannot boast of an impressive thermal package. As a result, such accelerators were often equipped with a passive cooling system consisting of only a compact radiator. But active cooling systems with small-sized coolers were also often encountered. In the first case, it was recommended to use the accelerator only in nominal mode, and in the second, it was even possible to carry out a slight overclocking. There was also a similar video chip for a laptop, which was equipped only active system cooling.

Analogues at the time of release

Radeon 9200 video card, as noted earlier, competed immediately with two families of NVidia products - MX 4XX and GeForce FX-5200. The first of them was released much earlier than the hero of this article, and was significantly inferior in terms of performance to its direct competitor from the ATI camp. But in the case of using the GeForce FX-5200, it was possible to get a slight increase in performance in some applications, while parity was maintained in most software.

Features of driver settings for this video card

At the software level, this graphic solution complied with Direct specifications X 8.1. But the later version 9.0 of this software package did not support Radeon 9200. Windows 7 can fully reveal its capabilities on the latest versionDirectX.And the 9200 did not have a full set of drivers for this operating system. But in practice, it was possible to install the latest drivers for XP and make this accelerator work with a newer operating system. The algorithm for installing them is as follows:

Installing drivers onWindows 7for XP under rights system administrator and in XP/2000 compatibility mode.

We launch the drivers in the same mode and with the same rights.

We do not allow the computer system to reboot.

Moving from the catalogWindows\Systemfile ati2dvag.dll to any convenient place, for example, on the “Desktop”.

We log out and log in.

We return the ati2dvag.dll file to its original location.

We reboot the PC. After this, the driver should function normally and fully.

Price. Owners' opinion

Well, a lot of time has passed since the video chip was released. As a result, even its warehouse stocks are sold out, and it is no longer possible to buy it in new condition. But you can still find used oneson various trading platforms on the global web. Their price is very affordable and ranges from 240 to 500 rubles, depending on the condition of the adapter. It is not worth considering such an accelerator as the basis for assembling a new system unit, even if it is made from outdated components. In this regard, it is more correct to pay attention to the graphics adapters of the series, which are aimed at installation in a more recent slotPCI-E, this will allow such a system to be upgraded in the future if necessary. The only case where buying a hero is truly justified this review- this is the need to restore the functionality of an old PC with minimal costs in case of video card failure. This is exactly what reviews on most sites on this topic indicate.

Results

In terms of both price and performance, the ideal entry-level graphics product in 2004 was the Radeon 9200 . And such video subsystems were relevant for a long time. It can also be noted that later products were developed based on video cards of the 9XXX series, which were called

Yeah... Where are the good old days, when everything was simple and clear regarding video cards: GeForce 3 was better than GeForce 2 - more numbers meant more performance. Or, for example, 7000 and 8500. Today, due to marketing gimmicks, it is very difficult for a less informed consumer to choose the necessary video card. Perhaps the most famous video card naming fiasco was the GeForce4 MX. This product, despite the number 4, was only at the level of the High-End version of the GeForce 2 in terms of performance. However, the name "GeForce4" sounded much more promising, even despite the letters MX (budget series). Naturally, this had a negative impact both on sales of the more powerful and expensive GeForce4 Ti (when people did not understand why they should overpay twice the price), and on consumer opinion about the brand in general.

Actually, what am I talking about? Moreover, ATI has behaved no better since the introduction of the RADEON 9000. Suffice it to recall the biggest mistake we described in the review of RADEON 8500 vs. RADEON 9100, where it was said that ATI urgently had to rename the 8500 to 9100, since the new RADEON 9000 was inferior in performance to its predecessor RADEON 8500. Now a new “numbers game” has begun: the recently appeared RADEON 9200, 9600 and 9800 must compete with the products NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200, 5600 and 5800 respectively. These new RADEON cards are intended to replace the existing RADEON 9000, 9500 and 9700.

In this review, we will examine the new RADEON 9200 for changes compared to previous models and test its performance. The test subject will be: Gigabyte MAYA II RADEON 9200 VIVO 128MB.

Comparative parameters of video cards

GPU	RADEON 9200 PRO	RADEON 9200	RADEON 9000 PRO	RADEON 9000	Radeon 9100	Radeon 8500
Core	RV280		RV250		R200
Those. process	0.15 microns		0.15 microns		0.15 microns
Core frequency	275MHz	250MHz	275MHz	250MHz	250MHz	275MHz
Rendering pipelines	4	4	4	4	4	4
	1,100	1,000	1,100	1,000	1,000	1,100
Texturing blocks	1	1	1	1	2	2
Max Fill Rate (MTexels/sec)	1,100	1,000	1,100	1,000	2,000	2,200
Memory frequency	275MHz (550MHz DDR)	200MHz (400MHz DDR)	275MHz (550MHz DDR)	200MHz (400MHz DDR)	200MHz (400MHz DDR)	275MHz (550MHz DDR)
DDR Memory bus	128-bit	128-bit	128-bit	128-bit	128-bit	128-bit
Memory Bandwidth	8.8GB/s	6.4GB/s	8.8GB/s	6.4GB/s	6.4GB/s	8.8GB/s
Possibilities	SMARTSHADER 1.0 SMOOTHVISION 1.0 HYPER Z II TRUFORM 1.0 FULLSTREAM VIDEO IMMERSION II HYDRAVISION		SMARTSHADER 1.0 SMOOTHVISION 1.0 HYPER Z II TRUFORM 1.0 FULLSTREAM VIDEO IMMERSION II HYDRAVISION		SMARTSHADER 1.0 SMOOTHVISION 1.0 HYPER Z II TRUFORM 1.0 VIDEO IMMERSION II HYDRAVISION FULLSTREAM (R9100 only)
Pixel shaders	1.4		1.4		1.4
Vertex shaders	1.1		1.1		1.1
DirectX support	DirectX 8.1		DirectX 8.1		DirectX 8.1
FSAA mode	Super Sampling		Super Sampling		Super Sampling
Other options			Dual integrated 400 MHz DAC 10-bit per channel Integrated 165 MHz TMDS (DVI 1.0 compatible) Integrated TV output supporting resolutions up to 1024x768		Integrated 400 MHz DAC (possibility of using external RAMDAC) DVI optional (via ATI Rage Theater) TV-out optional (via ATI Rage Theater)
AGP	8x		4x		4x
AGP bus version	AGP 3.0, 2.0 and 1.0		AGP 2.0 and 1.0		AGP 2.0 and 1.0

And this is what we have: RADEON 9200 is nothing more than RADEON 9000 with AGP 8x support. Also, the 9200 PRO is equivalent to the RADEON 9000 PRO, but also has AGP 8x support. Operating frequencies, capabilities, etc. identical to the parameters of the RADEON 9000 series cards. However, the increased bandwidth of the AGP bus may be needed only in those moments when you need to transfer a huge amount of data. Therefore, performance in existing applications depends more on the capabilities of the graphics core, and not on the throughput of the AGP bus.

If you think about how the RADEON 9000 was born, it is not difficult to understand that the essence of the RADEON 9000 and 9200 is largely borrowed from the classic RADEON 8500. The above table proves their close relationship. In fact, the RADEON 9000 PRO was intended to be a cheap replacement for the RADEON 8500.

To make the RADEON 9000 a profitable purchase, we had to use the 4x1 option (one texturing unit per four conveyors) instead of the 4x2 architecture used in the RADEON 8500. The geometry engine for the 9000 series was taken from the RADEON 9700 (R300), which should serve as a kind of compensation for the stripped-down the above-mentioned method of architecture. Not all games require a second texturing bolt in each of the 4 pipelines, thus making them a negligible performance impact in most cases. In general, it seems that this is a rather thoughtful and correct step on the part of ATI.

As for the R200, this core is returning to us in the form of the RADEON 9100. ATI decided to return it for a number of reasons. If we consider, for example, the Sapphire RADEON 9100, we can see that its clock speeds are lower than those of the full-fledged RADEON 8500 and are 250 MHz, like the RADEON 8500LE, but the memory bandwidth has been cut to 400 MHz. The core and memory frequencies correspond to the frequencies of the RADEON 9000 and RADEON 9200, so it was also included in the review, and, presumably, as a video card of an even higher class than the 9200.

Now you can compare the RADEON 9200 with other GPUs of the same class:

GPU/VPU	RADEON 9200	SiS Xabre 400	GeForce FX 5200	GeForce4 MX440-8x
Core	RV280	Xabre 400	NV34	NV18
Those. process	0.15	0.15	0.15	0.15
Core frequency	250MHz	250MHz	250MHz	275MHz
Conveyors rendering	4	4	4 or (2)	2
Pixel Fill Rate (MPix/sec)	1,000	1,000	1,000 (500)	550
Blocks textured	1	2	1 or 2)	2
MAX filling speed (MTex./sec.)	1,000	2,000	1,000	1,100
Vertex shaders	2	Emul. drive.	2	N.A.
Frequency memory	200MHz (400MHz DDR)	250MHz (500MHz DDR)	200MHz (400MHz DDR)	260MHz (520MHz DDR)
DDR Memory bus	128-bit	128-bit	128-bit	128-bit
Passport ability	6.4GB/s	8.0GB/s	6.4GB/s	8.32GB/s
Possibilities	SMARTSHADER 1.0 SMOOTHVISION 1.0 HYPER Z II TRUFORM 1.0 FULLSTREAM VIDEO IMMERSION II HYDRAVISION	MotionFixing™ VPU Double Scene Technology MPEG 2/1 video decoder Memory error monitoring	LMA II CineFX Engine NView DVC 3.0	LMA II Accuview AA NView
Pixel shaders	1.4	1.3	2.0+	None
Vertex shaders	1.1	1.1 (emulated drive)	2.0+	None
Support DirectX	DirectX 8.1	DirectX 8.1	DirectX 9.0	DirectX 7.1
FSAA mode	Super Sampling	Super Sampling	Multi Sampling	Multi Sampling
Other possibilities	Double integrated 400 MHz DAC 10-bit per channel Integr. 165 MHz TMDS (DVI 1.0 compatible) Integr. TV output supporting resolutions up to 1024x768	Integr. 375 MHz DAC For TV output and DVI connector, a SIS301 chip is required.	Double integrated 350 MHz DAC Integr. TV output supports resolution up to 1024x768 & TMDS signal source Improved programmability. Cg	Double integrated 350 MHz DAC 8 bits per channel Double integrated TMDS Integr. TV-out.
AGP	8x	8x	8x	8x
AGP bus	AGP 3.0, 2.0 and 1.0	AGP 3.0, 2.0 and 1.0	AGP 3.0, 2.0 and 1.0	AGP 3.0, 2.0 and 1.0

Design and Specifications

Gigabyte MAYA II RADEON 9200 VIVO Specifications

Graphics engine	ATI RADEON 9200 GPU 128-bit DDR memory AGP 2x/4x/8x CHARISMA ENGINE™ II 4 parallel rendering pipelines processing up to 1.1 billion pixels per second Transform, clip and light SMARTSHADER™ Programmable pixel and vertex shaders Pixel shaders version 1.4 provides support for up to 6 textures in a single pass Vertex shaders version 1.1 support up to 128 instructions DirectX 8.1 support and full OpenGL capabilities SMOOTHVISION™ HYPER Z™ II Lossless Z-compression Quickly clearing the Z-buffer reduces the load on throughput memory by up to 25% TRUFORM™ VIDEO IMMERSION™ II Dual monitor support Dual cache architecture Superscalar rendering Single pass multitexturing Full color rendering Advanced geometry engine Texture cache Bilinear/Trilinear filtering Smoothing lines and corners Full Screen Anti-Aliasing (FSAA) Texture compositing Texture decompression Support reflected light display Axonometric correction of texture mapping Mip-Mapping Z-buffering and double buffering Terrain Display Systems, Dot Product 3 and Environment Changes Display of spherical, double parabolic and cubic environments Fog effect, texture lighting, video textures, reflections, shadows, lights, motion and texture morphing
Video memory	128MB DDR SDRAM (Hynix 4.0ns)
RAMDAC	Dual integrated 400 MHz DAC 10 bits per channel Integrated 165 MHz TMDS signal source (DVI 1.0 compatible) Integrated TV output supporting resolutions up to 1024x768
Connectors	15-pin D-sub VGA(supports up to 2048x1536 @ 85Hz) 1x DVI-I 1x S-Video for TV-out / Video-in
Drivers and software	Drivers for Windows 98SE/Me/2000/XP CyberLink PowerDVD XP 4.0 CyberLink PowerDirector 2.5 ME CyberLink Medi@Show SE Serious Sam: The First Encounter Need For Speed: High Stakes
Other information	AGP 2.0/3.0 slot required 1 IRQ required for PCI

The GV-R9200VIVO card is equipped with a large memory capacity of 128 MB, despite the fact that the RADEON 9200 belongs to the category of entry-level video cards. And that's right, because some latest games, for example, C&C: Generals is very demanding on the amount of memory and a large amount allows you to avoid problems with texturing, since the AGP bus and video memory will be used directly, and not system memory.

Another interesting fact is that the entry-level video card provides video capture capabilities. Be that as it may, this feature increased the price of the product, since it was necessary to add an ATI Rage Theater chip. This chip provides the ability to use a TV output, play MPEG-2 using a video card, and has a DVI signal source. However, all these functions remain unclaimed, since the GPU already provides these capabilities.

It's time to move on to the tests...

Performance testing

A little about test configuration and the testing process: to test the Gigabyte MAYA II RADEON 9200 VIVO 128MB, we collected other similar video cards, such as RADEON 9100 128MB, RADEON 9000 Pro 64MB, NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 440-8x 64MB and SiS Xabre 400 64MB.

IN test system included: Pentium 4 2.53 GHz at motherboard with SiS 648 chipset with 512 MB Kingston DDR400 memory. Operating system was Windows XP Professional.

3DMark 2001SE

Note that the RADEON 9100 uses the R200 core, which has a more advanced 4x2 architecture, while the RADEON 9200 and 9000 use 4x1. That's why the RADEON 9100 outperforms the RADEON 9200 by an average of 10%. But there are cases when the RADEON 9200 (and 9100), thanks to its advanced geometry engine, overtakes the RADEON 9100. In general, in this competition, leadership very much depends on the specific situation, as you will see further.

SiS Xabre 400 has different performance values ​​depending on whether Full Screen Anti-Aliasing (FSAA) is enabled and whether it is running in 2x or 4x mode. The slightly outdated architecture of the GeForce 4 MX440 caused it to lose in the mode with FSAA turned off, but it advanced as far as the RADEON 9200 (if not further) in the test with FSAA, since its Multi-Sampling FSAA algorithm is more efficient than Super Sampling , used in RADEONs.

OpenGL gaming tests

RADEON graphics cards have similar results in all tests, except, perhaps, Serious Sam in a resolution of 1600x1200 - here the GV-R9200VIVO outperformed the RADEON 9100.

The Codecreatures test shows that the tested video cards not capable cope with several dozen frames when using advanced pixel and vertex shaders. This is especially true given that new games will actively use such technologies.

Overclocking

Gigabyte's V-Tuner utility was not updated for these video cards and the kit included an old version, so it was not possible to adjust operating frequencies using it. Using Powerstrip it was not possible to obtain more than 260 MHz and 420 MHz. If you increase the frequency even a little more, the system immediately reboots the moment it switches to 3D mode. Of course, I would like more: for V-Tuner to allow overclocking of the video card, and for the card to “drive” faster. Wait and see...

Bottom line

RADEON 9200 is a replacement for the existing RADEON 9000, the only difference being AGP 8x support. As a result, no significant performance gains were noticed during testing. Perhaps some new applications will work a little more efficiently with AGP 8x, but this is in the future. 128 MB of memory allows any complex game to easily load all textures into the video card memory, avoiding problems that may arise when accessing system memory("brakes" if you prefer) :).

I would also like to note that the RADEON 9200 fully supports DirectX 8.1, while the GeForce FX 5200 is already compatible with DirectX 9. But there is no need to worry too much about this, since thanks to its “budget” nature, the FX 5200 does not have enough power to run DirectX 9 , as they say, “to the fullest.”

Don't forget that when you buy a VIVO card, you pay more solely for the ability to digitize video. So, if you don’t need such a function, then look for the regular option. Since the card is starting to go beyond the budget sector of the market. The performance of this video card is sufficient for old/current games and is still acceptable for new ones, albeit in initial resolutions, i.e. no higher than 1024x768. A big NO to full-screen anti-aliasing, though modern games and they look pretty decent.