Feeble 9600XT even stomped by old 9500Pro!

[nRollo]

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTU2LDM=
Ouch. Some "card for the future games" It's 10% slower at Halo than it's year old predecessor.

Here's some "stellar" PS2 DX9 performance
This time 20% slower than the 9500Pro. Thank you ATI for giving us this cheap junk instead of it's more powerful predecessor.

Just as we have seen in the last two games oddly enough the Radeon 9500Pro is pulling in with slightly better performance compared to the 9600XT. Still, these cards are very slow at even 2XAA/4XAF at 1024x768. To get smooth performance you will wind up turning AA off completely and just leaving 4XAA or 8XAA on with these cards.

Yep these will be great for HL2!

 

[bunnyfubbles]

1. the 9500 Pro with it's 8 pipes vs the 9600's 4, you need the 9600 to be clocked nearly twice as fast (for the 9500 Pro that would mean 550MHz, pretty steep) in order to be confident that it will outperform its predecessor in every instance.

2. those games are not Hl2 so you have no idea exactly how well they will perform not to mention a GF4 Ti can and did play HL2 acording to early sneek peeks on websites such AT. Anyone buying a 9500/9600 with hopes to run HL2 with high or any levels of AA/AF was certainly foolish but it sure as hell will be able to play the game

3. go put yourself in timeout for all your negativity

 

[TerryMathews]

Every time this type of post is brought up, the fact that the 9600 series has effectively double the number of shaders the 9500/9700/9800 does is overlooked/glossed over.

The 9500/9700/9800 has 1:2 Shaders to Pipelines. Meaning, in the case of the 9500 Pro, 9700 series, and 9800 series excluding SE, there are four shaders.

The 9600 series is 1:1 on shaders to pipelines. Combine that with the higher clock rate of the core and you have the ability to do many more shaders on a given frame without bogging down.

In layman's terms, you'll have the ability to cram more special effects into a given frame although you may not have as many frames.

Someone should write a benchmark that runs better on the 9600, just to show it can be done.

 

[MichaelZ]

actually... i agree with rollo. 9600 sucks. everything else doesn't matter, the fact it's slower than its predecessor makes it a unworthy sucessor.

doesn't matter how technical the 9600 fanboys get, it will still be slower than the 9500 at the end of the day.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: i82lazyboy
actually... i agree with rollo. 9600 sucks. everything else doesn't matter, the fact it's slower than its predecessor makes it a unworthy sucessor.

doesn't matter how technical the 9600 fanboys get, it will still be slower than the 9500 at the end of the day.

Slower but not by enough to actually care about if you're a gamer on a budget, both will still be able to play those games they supposedly do so horribly in (just because they aren't smooth with AA/AF or some BS) and will be able to play HL2 as well (unless you think anything below 2048x1536 6xAA/16xAF and 100fps is unplayable). That's not the point though these cards can play future games and they can play older ones often times with AA and/or AF at higher resolutions as well.

Although those that frequent these forums would often be reminded that a 5900nu or 9700/9800np can be had for quite a deal and we shouldn't have to worry about the slotted budget cards because to the enthusiast who does their homework the true "midrange" cards are the 5900nus and 9700/9800nps

 

[cindy22]

"Just as we have seen in the last two games oddly enough the Radeon 9500Pro is pulling in with slightly better performance compared to the 9600XT. Still, these cards are very slow at even 2XAA/4XAF at 1024x768. To get smooth performance you will wind up turning AA off completely and just leaving 4XAA or 8XAA on with these cards."

Rolo I have to admit you are right about this one even though there's not that much difference in scores between the 9500 pro and 9600 xt . I agree I think the 9500 pro is still a good deal if you can find one.

but then can you imagine how much slower a nvidia 5700xt will be with half life 2 and directx 9 games compared to 9600xt?

this article review was dated on oct.23,2003 using nvidia's drivers without disabling cheats or optimizing in them using more recent directx 9 and directx 8 games

in newer directx 9 games 9600xt stomps nvidia 5700fx ultra in most test and by up to double the scores in some using aa and af

but 5700 ultra did fairly well in older directx 8.1 games and benchmark with aa and af winning some and loosing some

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/fx5700ultra-9600xt_16.html

 

[Atlantean]

Its not the best card but it is a good card for people with a budget

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: i82lazyboy
actually... i agree with rollo. 9600 sucks. everything else doesn't matter, the fact it's slower than its predecessor makes it a unworthy sucessor.

doesn't matter how technical the 9600 fanboys get, it will still be slower than the 9500 at the end of the day.

I think when some real DX9 shader-intensive games roll out (IE not Halo), the tables will be turned. Only time will tell, of course.

The 9600 Pro had a very strong showing with the HL2 beta benchmark.

 

[VIAN]

Wow, there must be something about the hardware or software because specs are very similar and theoretically would produce very similar results.

 

[Corporate Thug]

ummm, the 9600 XT beat the 9500 pro is 6/8 benchmarks

more exaggerated propogada from rollo. i hardly think winning 75% of the benchies is getting "stomped on"

i find it very hypocritical of you to say "who cares about TRAOD" in threads where nvidia was criticized and now you bring it up as your shining example?

the irony here is that the 5700 ultra couldnt even run the damn thing! from anand's article:

Unfortunately, none of the 128MB NVIDIA solutions we have tried can run TRAOD at 1024x768 under patch v49. Of course, we don't know whether this is a software issue, a driver issue, or a combination of the two. This obviously isn't something we expect from a "The way its meant to be played" game, but we hope NVIDIA and EIDOS will be able to work together to solve this problem, even if we are unable to benchmark with the game as a result.

if you are going to criticize Ati's 9600 Xt for poor performance, you got to look at the nvidia offering as well

also, the 9600 XT beats the 9500 pro in max payne II, NFS, COD, flight sim, and XIII, all of them being DX9 (except for maybe flight sim, not really sure if its DX9)


all the hard article proves is that the 9600 XT is overall a better card than the 9500 pro

 

[VIAN]

I was too lazy to look at the rest of the article. Thanks for clarifying.

Shame, shame, shame, shame Rollo, how could you just point those out, do you have a 9500 Pro.

 

[Viper96720]

LOL some of those benchmark scores are so close.

 

[Blastman]

The 9600 Pro had a very strong showing with the HL2 beta benchmark.

I agree. Got to like the numbers posted by the 9600pro/XT in the HL2 coast demo, especially when you consider it is a midrange card ? digitlife

 

[nRollo]

Shame, shame, shame, shame Rollo, how could you just point those out, do you have a 9500 Pro.

Not likely. I have a 9800Pro.
My point here was that I happened upon this review and was amazed to see the 9600XT, often proposed here as the "midrange solution for future DX9 games " losing by 10-20% on the 2 DX 9 games tested and HardOCP saying something I've said all along about this "good for ATI/bad for you" 9500Pro successor. ("Still, these cards are very slow at even 2XAA/4XAF at 1024x768.")
The 9600XT had no convincing victories on the other benchmarks it won. ATI replaced a good midrange card with a fair midrange card.

Wow Cindy has agreed with me twice now, and offered opinions that didn't sound like ATI ads.
<retracts assertion Cindy is Rogo and offers apology>

 

[MichaelZ]

Originally posted by: shady06all the hard article proves is that the 9600 XT is overall a better card than the 9500 pro

yes, well... how old is a 9500 Pro and how young is a 9600XT? Not to mention the 9600XT is just a overclocked 9600 Pro. I might add the 9600 Pro is definatly not faster than a 9500 Pro in any way. If there was a overclocked 9500 Pro called XT, it'll be better than a 9600XT wouldn't it now?

The good for ATI and bad for you comment is very true indeed. Sure it's still a good mid range card, but come on... usually you would expect a replacement product to be better than the fade out model it's replacing. It's fair enough to be critical of the 9600 purely on those grounds.

Nvidia's done even worse in the last 6 months. Their replacment for the GF4 Ti series, FX line (spare the 5900 range) has been bitterly dissapointing as well.

 

[nick1985]

5900NU > 9600xt

 

[rbV5]

yes, well... how old is a 9500 Pro and how young is a 9600XT? Not to mention the 9600XT is just a overclocked 9600 Pro.

And, of course the 9500pro is just a 9700pro with half the memory bus. Obviously, unless you saturate the memory bus, its as fast as a 9700pro in every situation. The news with the 9600 is the .13u process and reduced production costs, not that its slower than the cores that didn't pass for the last premium part.

 

[GreatDaleness]

Originally posted by: rbV5

yes, well... how old is a 9500 Pro and how young is a 9600XT? Not to mention the 9600XT is just a overclocked 9600 Pro.

And, of course the 9500pro is just a 9700pro with half the memory bus. Obviously, unless you saturate the memory bus, its as fast as a 9700pro in every situation. The news with the 9600 is the .13u process and reduced production costs, not that its slower than the cores that didn't pass for the last premium part.

Not to mention the 9600pro is MUCH cooler and uses less power than the 9500pro. Hell, I've even seen 9600np cards that have one tiny heatsink and no fan!

 

[nRollo]

Their replacment for the GF4 Ti series, FX line (spare the 5900 range) has been bitterly dissapointing as well.

With the possible exception of the 5700Ultra, which appears to be a $50 overpriced good low midrange card.

Not to mention the 9600pro is MUCH cooler and uses less power than the 9500pro. Hell, I've even seen 9600np cards that have one tiny heatsink and no fan!

Er, woot? So what? Unless you have one of those minicube cases, is vid card heat an issue? Does anyone actually use low watt psus anymore?

The only real advantages of the 9600s are to ATI. (lower production cost)

 

[VIAN]

Well, the 9600 XT is supposed to replace and deliver similar performance while being cheaper for them to produce. The fillrate and bandwidth differences are small, with 9500 Pro excelling in fill and 9600 XT excelling in bandwidth. Anyway, the 9600 XT is available and the 9500 Pro is harder to find and sometimes more expensive making it not worth it.

Stop bashing on nVidia cards.

 

[Matthias99]

The only real advantages of the 9600s are to ATI. (lower production cost)

Which means it costs less to the consumer, too. The 9500Pro is about $190 on Pricewatch (and only available at 2 stores!), while the 9600XT can be found as low as $165-170 now. 9600Pro cards, which are marginally slower, are down around $150.

 

[rbV5]

Er, woot? So what? Unless you have one of those minicube cases, is vid card heat an issue?

Sure heat can be an issue, ever hear of overclocking? SFF rigs are more popular all the time also, and sound is definately an issue in a HTPC environment.

 

[VirginiaDonkey]

I totally agree with rollo. I have a 9500np and used to own a 9600pro. I sold the 9600p because the 9500np was faster in 3dm2k1 by 600 points and slower in 3dm2k3 by 240 points. In real games I could not tell a difference so it had to be pretty close in FPS

I do think the 256 bit bus on my 9500np helped quite a bit, but anyway there is a reason the 9500pro was discontinued....ATI did not make enough money on the card because the core was so expensive to make, so it was superceded by a cheaper to make card

9500/9700 series cards were awesome a year ago and still are great cards to have.

 

[VIAN]

You should have kept the 9600 Pro over the 9500 because it is better. Test score differences like that could be variations and would be neglegible. The 9500 comes with 4 pipes and 128bit, not 256.

 

[lazybum131]

gotey has the earlier 9500np's built on the 9700 pcb (L-shaped memory config), these have the 256-bit memory bus.
These were also the cards that could be hard and softmodded to 9700np depending on the core and its pipelines.