9600 Pro 256MB or 9600 XT 128MB

[Darkhawk28]

They are rougly the same price....

which is better?

 

[McArra]

9600XT by far. 256mg for that card is useless+the memory clocks are much slower.

 

[Darkhawk28]

How much of a difference will I see with the 9600XT versus my Geforce3?

 

[McArra]

A lot with AA/AF enabled, and a lot also in newer games I believe.

 

[Darkhawk28]

I just noticed that the 9600XT's have a 256MB version... is that worth the extra $30?

 

[Darkhawk28]

edit: That was weird.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
They are rougly the same price....

which is better?

The R9600 XT is much better, most of the 256mb R9600 Pro's I've seen have the memory clocked at only 400mhz instead of the usual 600mhz.

 

[nRollo]

How much are these cards you're looking at? A 9700/5900 series card would serve you much better.

 

[Corporate Thug]

9600 XT 128 is a lot better than 9600 pro 256. the extra $30 is not worth the extra $128 as that card cannot take advantage of the 256

 

[Blastman]

9600pro 128MB = 400/300 ?(DDR)
9600pro 256MB = 400/200

9600XT 128MB = 500/300 ?minimum ? a lot are 500/325

Sapphire made some 9600XT?s 256MB that were clocked 500/300 with 3.6 TSOP Samsungs -- people were getting to 340MHz overclocks with that memory but apparently they are now showing up clocked 500/250 which I believe is the standard clocking for a 256MB 9600XT.

If I could get a Sapphire 9600XT 256MB clocked 500/300 for the same price a 128MB, then the extra memory really doesn?t hurt, but if it?s 500/250 then you take a performance hit and since 256MB isn?t needed in a midrange card it?s really not worth it.