Feeble 9600XT even stomped by old 9500Pro!

[VIAN]

I think that a bunch of websites should get together and sort of make a union and make base systems to test video cards in and other parts. This way most will have the same benchmark or at least very similar. Unlike a website giving completely opposite benches than another, that is too far fetched, I don't see how it's happening.

 

[dguy6789]

Aggreed.

 

[nRollo]

Dguy:

what i am saying is, if games were designed to take full advantage of the 9600, then it would run better then on a 9500

This may be the strangest attempt ever to refute one of my arguments. This boils down to: Games could be coded to run faster on a 9600.

 

[MichaelZ]

too right. how can you not consider the optimizations for 9600 series in the newer ATI drivers to try and get it performing similar to 9500 series? keep the benchmarks, if someone offered you either a 9500 series card or a 9600 series card, quite obviously the 9500 is the better choice.

 

[dguy6789]

are you speaking of non pro or pro? a 9600 non pro is faster then a 9500 non pro. what im saying is, if the 2 same games, had 2 versions. one coded for 9500 pro as best they could, and one coded for 9600 pro as best they could, the 9600 pro would be faster.

See, the 9600 pro has a unique problem: Fillrate. Once that is overcomed, the 9600 pro is a good deal faster then the 9500 pro in every other way. and i can guarentee almost that the 9600 pro will run doom 3 faster then the 9500 pro. and quake 4.

 

[nRollo]

See, the 9600 pro has a unique problem: Fillrate. Once that is overcomed, the 9600 pro is a good deal faster then the 9500 pro in every other way. and i can guarentee almost that the 9600 pro will run doom 3 faster then the 9500 pro. and quake 4.

Of course, as fillrate is about the most important aspect of a video card, this "unique problem" will never be "overcomed". The 9600XT will be a VERY slow Doom3/Quake 4 card.

9600P spanked and sent home, per usual

while the Radeon 9600 made a rather disappointing showing. Even the Ti4200 was faster than the Radeon 9600, albeit admittedly only with decreased detail quality.

Shameful

 

[MichaelZ]

doom 3, quake 4 are all open GL. that's nvid territory rollo.

hmm, as far as continuing this thread is concerned, don't bother. it seems dguy refuses to give in on his beloved 9600. see here for reference.

 

[CraigRT]

it's well known that the 9500 is better than the 9600... at least I thought it was.

 

[chsh1ca]

Man, what a waste of time reading this thread was. The truth of the matter is, the 9600XT is just as good as the 5700U on an overall basis. Some games it will be worse, some better. Does any of this petty trolling and arguing accomplish anything rollo?

 

[Richdog]

What a waste of time this thread is. Rollo's basically complaining that the 9600PRO isn't some super-card that is twice as fast as the 9500PRO. He got the answer earlier in the thread when someone said that the 9500 series were a temporary and more expensive solution than the 9600's, and were therefore replaced when appropriate. For all your idiotic complaining the 9600PRO and XT is still EXACTLY what it claims to be, a good, fast mid-range video card that is faster than their equivalent Nvidia offerings.

If you want the next leap in performance over a 9500/9600 , get a 9700/9800. Otherwise, stop wasting all of our time with completely childish and uninformed threads that nearly always seem to lose their direction after a few posts. The 9500 and 9600 series, while in the same performance bracket, are different cards with different architectures, each with it's own strengths and weaknesses. I honestly can't see what the point of your argument is. When Evan, or maybe the odd occasion Anand, ever take time to browse the forums, they really must wonder and laugh their heads off at the crap like this that gets posted here.:beer:

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Richdog
What a waste of time this thread is. Rollo's basically complaining that the 9600PRO isn't some super-card that is twice as fast as the 9500PRO. He got the answer earlier in the thread when someone said that the 9500 series were a temporary and more expensive solution than the 9600's, and were therefore replaced when appropriate. For all your idiotic complaining the 9600PRO and XT is still EXACTLY what it claims to be, a good, fast mid-range video card that is faster than their equivalent Nvidia offerings.

If you want the next leap in performance over a 9500/9600 , get a 9700/9800. Otherwise, stop wasting all of our time with completely childish and uninformed threads that nearly always seem to lose their direction after a few posts. The 9500 and 9600 series, while in the same performance bracket, are different cards with different architectures, each with it's own strengths and weaknesses. I honestly can't see what the point of your argument is. When Evan, or maybe the odd occasion Anand, ever take time to browse the forums, they really must wonder and laugh their heads off at the crap like this that gets posted here.:beer:

:beer:

Sitting fine and dandy with my ASUS 9600XT

 

[Corporate Thug]

well, it seems that the people who dont like the 9600 pro argue that it was released a year latter than the 9500 pro and has worse performance

nothing like ever happened @ nvidia right?

looks like we are forgetting about the fx5200 that was released YEARS after the geforce 4 mx and matches the performance and gets pwnd by the aging 4200

 

[cm123]

Originally posted by: 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.

... Its a terrible shame people feel this way, if my favorite isn't the best, well then make it the best.... but wait if the other guy (company) I don't like does this, well its cheating and dam them to hell and beyond...

Lets test the cards how the games are meant to be played, no matter if ATI, Nvidia or whoever! If a company writes a driver better/faster to play the display how it was meant to be played, then fine, if some other way, its a waste... means next to nothing in the real world.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: i82lazyboy
doom 3, quake 4 are all open GL. that's nvid territory rollo.

hmm, as far as continuing this thread is concerned, don't bother. it seems dguy refuses to give in on his beloved 9600. see here for reference.

in that thread, i already proved the 9600 is a faster card then a 4600 in games like half life 2, your point is invalid.

And rollo, fillrate is not the most important, it is a combination of fillrate, memory bandwith, and the power of the shaders which determine a cards speed. fillrate is about half of what makes a card good, while the 9600 has more bandwith and more powerful shaders.

 

[dguy6789]

oops double post, first time ever

 

[Pete]

See, the 9600 pro has a unique problem: Fillrate. Once that is overcomed, the 9600 pro is a good deal faster then the 9500 pro in every other way. and i can guarentee almost that the 9600 pro will run doom 3 faster then the 9500 pro. and quake 4.

Wha...? The 9500P has twice the vertex shaders, twice the pixel shaders, twice the pixel pipes, and more Hyper Z features. The only leg up the 9600P has on the 9500P is that its vertex shaders are slightly faster, clock for clock--but it has only two to the 9500P's four. Where are you getting that a 9600P is faster, let alone a good deal faster, than a 9500P? What benchmarks back up this assertion?

As for a game being "built around" a 9600P instead of a 9500P--you realize both are basically the same architecture?

I'm also not sure about a 9600 being faster than a 9500. Beyond3D's initial 9600/P review also included a 9500, and the 9500 bested the 9600 fairly consistently because of its extra vertex shaders and memory bandwidth. I'd imagine the 256-bit 9500 would be faster still.

I'm not sure that the 9600 will come out on top of a 4600 once AF is disabled (remember, AF turns the GF4Ti from a 4x2 to a 4x1 architecture). A "win" at 30fps is pretty weak, anyway. I'd turn of AF on both of those cards before evaluating performance. Not to mention we're debating scores from a leaked beta....

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Richdog
What a waste of time this thread is. Rollo's basically complaining that the 9600PRO isn't some super-card that is twice as fast as the 9500PRO.

Is that what I was saying? No, if you read my original post, I guess not. Over and over and over we've seen "The 9600Pro is the choice for future games! It's even faster than a 5900Ultra!"
Think I'm lieing Richdog? Since you're rich, do you want to Paypal me $5 for every link I can provide to this? (I want to be rich too!)

He got the answer earlier in the thread when someone said that the 9500 series were a temporary and more expensive solution than the 9600's, and were therefore replaced when appropriate. For all your idiotic complaining the 9600PRO and XT is still EXACTLY what it claims to be, a good, fast mid-range video card that is faster than their equivalent Nvidia offerings.

I came across an article that said a. the feeble 9600s are slower than the card they replace at DX9 games b. in general are good for ATI, bad for you Sue me. Who made you the bbs police?

[/quote]If you want the next leap in performance over a 9500/9600 , get a 9700/9800. [/quote]
I have a 9800Pro. I had a 9700Pro before that. I don't waste my time with crippled crap, like say "SE" versions.

Otherwise, stop wasting all of our time with completely childish and uninformed threads that nearly always seem to lose their direction after a few posts. The 9500 and 9600 series, while in the same performance bracket, are different cards with different architectures, each with it's own strengths and weaknesses. I honestly can't see what the point of your argument is. When Evan, or maybe the odd occasion Anand, ever take time to browse the forums, they really must wonder and laugh their heads off at the crap like this that gets posted here.:beer:

[/quote]
Yeah, it must be a total mystery to them that people debate the merits of video cards in their video card forum. I have never heard of such an experiment, so I thought I'd give it a try Richdog. I bet you can't find any threads like this on any forum anywhere on the net.