Notebookcheck Logo

ATI Mobility Radeon 9800 vs ATI Mobility Radeon 9550 vs ATI Mobility Radeon 9600

ATI Mobility Radeon 9800

► remove from comparison ATI Mobility Radeon 9800

ATI Mobility Radeon 9800 is a slim X800 for AGP with energy saving functions and needs a lot of current. Therefore the performance of this card is correspondingly well, but it was rarely used (in a Dell 17" notebook). Nowadays (2008) the performance can be compared to middle class graphics cards.

The videoShader HD technology offers MPEG 1/2/4 decoding acceleration.

ATI Mobility Radeon 9550

► remove from comparison

The ATI Mobility Radeon 9550 was a middle class graphics card for laptops. Technically it is a ATI Mobility Radeon 9600 featuring only a 64 Bit wide memory bus (instead of 128 Bit). Therefore, the performance was noticable slower.

ATI Mobility Radeon 9600

► remove from comparison ATI Mobility Radeon 9600

The predecessor version of the ATI Radeon 9700 Mobility differs by its low clock speed and the worse Z-compression (was improved with 9700). In the beginning it was the fastest graphic card, which was available for notebooks, but nowadays it is part of the lower performance segment.

Beware of versions with 32 MB memory, in most cases they only have a 64 bit memory bus, which deterioriates the speed severely.

ATI Mobility Radeon 9600 Pro was a higher clocked version with 350 MHz core- and memory clock (compared with the 300 MHz in the standard version). Further only a version with 128 MB was allowed to get this name.

ATI Mobility Radeon 9800ATI Mobility Radeon 9550ATI Mobility Radeon 9600
Mobility Radeon 9x00 Series
Mobility Radeon 9800 8/4 cores @ 0.35 GHz256 Bit @ 300 MHz
Mobility Radeon 9700 4/2 cores @ 0.45 GHz128 / 64 Bit @ 275 MHz
Mobility Radeon 9600 4/2 cores @ 0.3 GHz128 / 64 Bit @ 300 MHz
Mobility Radeon 9550 4/2 cores @ 0.21 GHz64 Bit @ 183 MHz
Mobility Radeon 9800 8/4 cores @ 0.35 GHz256 Bit @ 300 MHz
Mobility Radeon 9700 4/2 cores @ 0.45 GHz128 / 64 Bit @ 275 MHz
Mobility Radeon 9600 4/2 cores @ 0.3 GHz128 / 64 Bit @ 300 MHz
Mobility Radeon 9550 4/2 cores @ 0.21 GHz64 Bit @ 183 MHz
Mobility Radeon 9800 8/4 cores @ 0.35 GHz256 Bit @ 300 MHz
Mobility Radeon 9700 4/2 cores @ 0.45 GHz128 / 64 Bit @ 275 MHz
Mobility Radeon 9600 4/2 cores @ 0.3 GHz128 / 64 Bit @ 300 MHz
Mobility Radeon 9550 4/2 cores @ 0.21 GHz64 Bit @ 183 MHz
CodenameM18M12M10
Pipelines8 / 4 Pixel- / Vertexshader4 / 2 Pixel- / Vertexshader4 / 2 Pixel- / Vertexshader
Core Speed350 MHz210 MHz300 MHz
Memory Speed300 MHz183 MHz300 MHz
Memory Bus Width256 Bit64 Bit128 / 64 Bit
Memory TypeDDR2 / DDR3DDRDDR
Max. Amount of Memory256 MB128 MB128 MB
Shared Memorynonono
APIDirectX 9, Shader 2.0DirectX 9, Shader 2.0DirectX 9, Shader 2.0
Transistors110 Million
technology130 nm130 nm130 nm
Features130nm low-k, PowerplayPowerplay 4.0, Hyper-Z II, SmartShader 2.0, 840 MT/s Füllrate, 130nmPowerplay 4.0, Hyper-Z II, SmartShader 2.0
Notebook Sizelargemedium sizedmedium sized
Date of Announcement01.07.2004 01.06.2004 01.06.2004
Information110 Mio Transistoren, 130nm9600 Pro mit 350 / 350 MHz Taktraten und 128 MB Speicher
Link to Manufacturer Pagehttp://www.ati.com/products/mobilityrade...http://www.ati.com/products/mobilityrade...http://www.ati.com/products/mobilityrade...

Benchmarks

3DMark 2001SE - 3DMark 2001 - Standard
17800 Points (18%)
min: 7780     avg: 8490     median: 8490 (9%)     max: 9200 Points
3DMark 03 - 3DMark 03 - Standard
6500 Points (3%)
2500 Points (1%)
3DMark 05 - 3DMark 05 - Standard
2800 Points (4%)
3DMark 06 3DMark 06 - Score Unknown Settings + ATI Mobility Radeon 9800
3DMark 06
860 Points (1%)

Average Benchmarks ATI Mobility Radeon 9800 → NAN% n=

Average Benchmarks ATI Mobility Radeon 9600 → NAN% n=

- Range of benchmark values for this graphics card
- Average benchmark values for this graphics card
* Smaller numbers mean a higher performance
1 This benchmark is not used for the average calculation

For more games that might be playable and a list of all games and graphics cards visit our Gaming List

v1.17
log 20. 01:38:19

#0 checking url part for id 14 +0s ... 0s

#1 checking url part for id 64 +0s ... 0s

#2 checking url part for id 44 +0s ... 0s

#3 not redirecting to Ajax server +0s ... 0s

#4 did not recreate cache, as it is less than 5 days old! Created at Thu, 18 Aug 2022 17:26:37 +0200 +0s ... 0s

#5 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.056s ... 0.057s

#6 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.057s

#7 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.058s

#8 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.058s

#9 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.058s

#10 composed specs +0s ... 0.058s

#11 did output specs +0s ... 0.058s

#12 start showIntegratedCPUs +0s ... 0.058s

#13 getting avg benchmarks for device 14 +0.039s ... 0.098s

#14 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.098s

#15 got single benchmarks 14 +0.005s ... 0.103s

#16 getting avg benchmarks for device 64 +0s ... 0.103s

#17 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.103s

#18 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.103s

#19 got single benchmarks 64 +0.004s ... 0.107s

#20 getting avg benchmarks for device 44 +0s ... 0.107s

#21 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.108s

#22 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.108s

#23 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.109s

#24 got single benchmarks 44 +0.004s ... 0.112s

#25 got avg benchmarks for devices +0s ... 0.112s

#26 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s ... 0.114s

#27 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.114s

#28 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.114s

#29 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.114s

#30 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.115s

#31 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.115s

#32 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.115s

#33 min, max, avg, median took s +0s ... 0.116s

#34 before gaming benchmark output +0s ... 0.116s

#35 Got 0 rows for game benchmarks. +0.001s ... 0.117s

#36 return log +0.001s ... 0.118s

Please share our article, every link counts!
.170
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Benchmarks / Tech > Graphics Card Comparison - Head 2 Head
Redaktion, 2017-09- 8 (Update: 2017-09-11)