Is it worth upgrading 9600GTS to GTS 250

[blanketyblank]

My current card is the EVGA GeForce 9600 GSO (GPU=G92)
Device ID=10DE-0610
BIOS Version=62.92.42.00.62
Physical Memory=384 MB
Shaders=96 unified
Memory type=GDDR3
Bus Width=192 Bit

I think you have a good chance though if you could check how many memory chips you have on the card that would let you know for sure. However someone else was able to flash an EVGA card with those specs to a 512 MB card (see link).

http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5665482

Also unlike everyone else I don't think the "upgrade" to a GTS 250 is really worth it unless you can get a good deal. 9600 GSO can play most everything the 250 can and though people say 30% faster that really means nothing at this level since the games where you'll have problems your fps would be like 10-20. 30% is like 13-26 and not much of an improvement in my book. I say save an extra $30 and wait for a good price on a 5770.
I've seen 1 gig models sell for $130 after rebate and that will be much faster.

 

[happy medium]

or the Gigabyte GV-N250-1GI for $99 after rebate
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-310-_-Product

Any opinions on the Gigabyte vs the MSI card?

Thats a great card for the price. Grab it and see for yourself thats its a very good upgrade. In modern games it will be like night and day.

I went from a 9600gt to a 8800gt to a gts250 1gb and I was more then satisfied.

 

[toyota]

I wonder how they can call that Gigabyte card a GTS250 when everything on it is clocked quite a bit lower than the reference specs.

 

[happy medium]

I wonder how they can call that Gigabyte card a GTS250 when it everything thing on it it clocked quite a bit lower than the reference specs.

Yea ,I missed that lower clock thing.
Here is a nice gts 250 1gb for 110$ shipped.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814261057

The one I had hit 800 core when I overclocked it.

 

[crisium]

No, even that Palit is severely underclocked. And also 512MB.

Just get the MSI that you linked:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...D=3332167&SID=

You are upgrading for a performance boost. Don't toy around with "Green, energy saving cards" which just mean factory underclocked.=\

 

[happy medium]

No, even that Palit is severely underclocked. And also 512MB.

Just get the MSI that you linked:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...D=3332167&SID=

You are upgrading for a performance boost. Don't toy around with "Green, energy saving cards" which just mean factory underclocked.=\

Jeez I must be tired..your right.....I swear I seen a gts 250 1gb for 105$ shipped.

If your gonna spend that much, get a cheap 5770. They are on sale for 127$ after rebate.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2060144

 

[blanketyblank]

Yeh GTS 250 cards are overpriced for what they offer. The cheap ones which are factory underclocked are probably weak overclockers and will be closer to 9600GT performance. If you're set on an NV card I'd look at 9800GTX+ cards since they should be cheaper, but will offer the same performance as a normal 250. Otherwise there's really nothing close to the 5770 right now in terms of price and performance in the price range over $110.
GTX 260 offers the closest performance, but it costs like 170+ now new and even used it's still over the cost of a new 5770. Old 48xx series cards on the other hand can sometimes be in this range and offer great deals, but they are really hard to find now and not always better.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I just don't see there being enough of a differences between the 96SP and the 112- or 128-SP 250GT cards to warrant dropping $100 on an upgrade. I'm with the "only 33%" crowd. I just don't see the cards doing that much difference, especially in F@H.

 

[happy medium]

I just don't see there being enough of a differences between the 96SP and the 112- or 128-SP 250GT cards to warrant dropping $100 on an upgrade. I'm with the "only 33%" crowd. I just don't see the cards doing that much difference, especially in F@H.

ok lets put this to bed...

The 9600gso with 96 sp's is slower then a 9600gt,gt240 superclocked ddr5 and is = to a pathetic gt240 with ddr3, and gets clobbered by the gts 250.

@1650x1050
................ gts 250 ........ 9600gso

Crysis ..... .... 21.5 fps -- about 10fps? ........ 105% faster
Far Cry 2 ....... 35.7 fps -- 10.8 fps ........ 300% faster
Battlforge....... 31 fps -- .. 8.7 fps ......... 300%+ faster
Hawx ..... ...... 51 fps --.. 23 fps ......... 105% faster
Dawn of war 2.... 41 fps -- 21 fps ......... 99% faster
Resident evil 5.... 65 fps -- 37 fps ........ 85% faster
Batman........... 110 fps -- 61 fps ........ 90% faster
Left 4 dead .... 100 fps -- 60 (9600gt) .......... 90% faster

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3709&p=5

OK the 9600gso 384mb suks.

 

[blanketyblank]

ok lets put this to bed...

The 9600gso with 96 sp's is slower then a 9600gt,gt240 superclocked ddr5 and is = to a pathetic gt240 with ddr3, and gets clobbered by the gts 250.

@1650x1050
................ gts 250 ........ 9600gso

Crysis ..... .... 21.5 fps -- about 10fps? ........ 105% faster
Far Cry 2 ....... 35.7 fps -- 10.8 fps ........ 300% faster
Battlforge....... 31 fps -- .. 8.7 fps ......... 300%+ faster
Hawx ..... ...... 51 fps --.. 23 fps ......... 105% faster
Dawn of war 2.... 41 fps -- 21 fps ......... 99% faster
Resident evil 5.... 65 fps -- 37 fps ........ 85% faster
Batman........... 110 fps -- 61 fps ........ 90% faster
Left 4 dead .... 100 fps -- 60 (9600gt) .......... 90% faster

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3709&p=5

OK the 9600gso 384mb suks.

The card is actually quite fast when it's not held back by the amount of VRAM. 9600GSO has a G92 chip (like the 25) so performance is going to be pretty close to a 250 when it's not being held back (250 is run at different speeds though).

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3709&p=6

Check out the benchmarks for Far Cry 2 at 1280 x 1024 and you'll see it dominates the 9600GT (I think this is a g94?) and GTS 240 ( g94 refresh?).

Which is why if the card can be softmodded it will give very similar performance to a GTS 250 512. Of course the 1 gig model will still have an advantage if that becomes an issue.

 

[happy medium]

The card is actually quite fast when it's not held back by the amount of VRAM. 9600GSO has a G92 chip (like the 25) so performance is going to be pretty close to a 250 when it's not being held back (250 is run at different speeds though).

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3709&p=6

Check out the benchmarks for Far Cry 2 at 1280 x 1024 and you'll see it dominates the 9600GT (I think this is a g94?) and GTS 240 ( g94 refresh?).

Which is why if the card can be softmodded it will give very similar performance to a GTS 250 512. Of course the 1 gig model will still have an advantage if that becomes an issue.

Are you guys fucking with me?

I give up.

 

[blanketyblank]

Are you guys fucking with me?

I give up.

Just saying the card doesn't suck at low resolutions and situations where it's not VRAM limited. Thus if the OP was running games with lower detail or at 1280 x 1024, he actually wouldn't notice a difference between the 9600 GSO and the GTS 250 since they are the same chip. The difference is mainly the amount of VRAM not speed. 9600GSO is actually faster than 240 and 9600GT at the resolutions these cards can actually play at (they were designed for low resolutions).

The benches you are using are a bit unfair in that regards since the resolution and graphics settings were chosen for cards with larger amounts of VRAM. It's like saying a 4850 2GB is faster than a 4870 512 and then using benchmarks with 5000 x 1600+ resolution.

At 1680 x 1050 and high graphcis settings I agree that 384 MBs is no longer enough. However at 1280 x 1024 at high or maybe 1680 x 1050 at medium or low 9600GSO is very close to a GTS 250.

 

[zerocool84]

ok lets put this to bed...

The 9600gso with 96 sp's is slower then a 9600gt,gt240 superclocked ddr5 and is = to a pathetic gt240 with ddr3, and gets clobbered by the gts 250.

@1650x1050
................ gts 250 ........ 9600gso

Crysis ..... .... 21.5 fps -- about 10fps? ........ 105% faster
Far Cry 2 ....... 35.7 fps -- 10.8 fps ........ 300% faster
Battlforge....... 31 fps -- .. 8.7 fps ......... 300%+ faster
Hawx ..... ...... 51 fps --.. 23 fps ......... 105% faster
Dawn of war 2.... 41 fps -- 21 fps ......... 99% faster
Resident evil 5.... 65 fps -- 37 fps ........ 85% faster
Batman........... 110 fps -- 61 fps ........ 90% faster
Left 4 dead .... 100 fps -- 60 (9600gt) .......... 90% faster

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3709&p=5

OK the 9600gso 384mb suks.

Seems about 33% to me.

 

[evolucion8]

GTS 250 is outdated technology, just get an HD 5770 and enjoy your performance boost. Or get an HD 4850, the anti aliasing impact in the GTS 250 is greater compared to other cards like the HD 4850 or HD 5770. Or buy an used GTX 260+ in ebay.

 

[Headfoot]

GTS 250 is outdated technology, just get an HD 5770 and enjoy your performance boost. Or get an HD 4850, the anti aliasing impact in the GTS 250 is greater compared to other cards like the HD 4850 or HD 5770. Or buy an used GTX 260+ in ebay.

Dude you say the GTS 250 is old tech (which it is) then say he should get a 4850???? Thats also old tech...

If you are spending $100, sell your 9600 GSO for $30 on craigslist and get the 5770.

 

[formulav8]

Actually, if your still looking for a GTS250 there is one for $89.99 shipped. Just hit the link below...

The card is 675mhz core and 2000mhz ram. You also get a free copy of Rainbow Six Vegas2 game as a combo purchase.


Click this link to check it out.


Jason

 

[blanketyblank]

Dude you say the GTS 250 is old tech (which it is) then say he should get a 4850???? Thats also old tech...

If you are spending $100, sell your 9600 GSO for $30 on craigslist and get the 5770.

to be fair the tech in the 4850 is less old than the GTS 250 which is based off of the g92 chip in the 512 MB 8800s and is actually in the 9600 GSO. As such I don't really see it as much of an upgrade over a 9600 GSO except in the amount of VRAM.

 

[viperbri]

Thanks guys...you provide great input and debate as usual. It sounds like it may be worth forking out for the 5770 and get the extra boost from that. The 5770 supports DirectX 11 as well right?

Just when I thought I found a good deal too...$90 no rebate, free shipping the this ECS GTS 250 1GB card...but no reviews on it.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-095-_-Product

So you guys think it is worth forking an extra $30-$40 for a 5770?

 

[blanketyblank]

Thanks guys...you provide great input and debate as usual. It sounds like it may be worth forking out for the 5770 and get the extra boost from that. The 5770 supports DirectX 11 as well right?

Just when I thought I found a good deal too...$90 no rebate, free shipping the this ECS GTS 250 1GB card...but no reviews on it.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-095-_-Product

So you guys think it is worth forking an extra $30-$40 for a 5770?

Definitely. 5770 is a good step up in performance from a GTS 250 and adds a lot of nice features like DX 11 and eyefinity. PhysX is worthless on cards like the 250 since the performance hit makes games unplayable. You need two cards or at least a 260 and even then it's pretty bad in some games.

For me to consider the GTS 250 it would have to be below $80 from a decent brand. I don't consider ECS a decent brand since it's basically an OEM and thus not used to customer support. I've got a lot of their products free with a CPU purchase, and they are good for what they are which is a standard not overclockable mobo.

 

[happy medium]

5770 is 15% faster then a gts250 on average.
You should get a better overclock with the 5770 though.

 

[blanketyblank]

5770 is 15% faster then a gts250 on average.
You should get a better overclock with the 5770 though.

I disagree with that estimate. That's more of a mode when only certain games are tested.
Based on this review which tested a lot of games at a lot of resoltuions
5770 is closer to 25% faster on average than a GTS 250.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GeForce_GT_240/30.html

It should also be noted that this review is in November so driver improvements should increase 5770 performance even more.

I should also note the difference between the two is similar to the difference between the 250 and your 9600 GSO in that it changes with the resolution. The higher the resolution you use the greater the difference between the 5770 and the 250. At something high like 2560 x 1600 the 5770 is over 30% faster on average while at something low like 1280 x 1024 it's a little under 25%.

 

[happy medium]

I disagree with that estimate. That's more of a mode when only certain games are tested.
Based on this review which tested a lot of games at a lot of resoltuions
5770 is closer to 25% faster on average than a GTS 250.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GeForce_GT_240/30.html

It should also be noted that this review is in November so driver improvements should increase 5770 performance even more.

4850 is = to a gts 250
So you are saying a 4870 1gb which is = to a 5770, is 25% faster then a 4850 1gb?
No its not. Don't use a 512mb 4850 for comparison.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/gigabyte-radeon-hd-4850-1gb-gvr485oc1gi-review/8

 

[blanketyblank]

4850 is = to a gts 250
So you are saying a 4870 1gb which is = to a 5770, is 25% faster then a 4850 1gb?
No its not. Don't use a 512mb 4850 for comparison.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/gigabyte-radeon-hd-4850-1gb-gvr485oc1gi-review/8

I'm not comparing it to a 4850. I'm comparing the numbers they gave for a 5770 and GTS 250 (both 1 gig models)in terms of their performance relative to a GTS 240.
GTS 250 = 164% relative performance over all resolutions
5770 = 202% relative performance over all resolutions

thus performance of a 5770 relative to a GTS 250:
202 - 164 = 38 / 164 = .2317 which is a little under 25%.

 

[happy medium]

I'm not comparing it to a 4850. I'm comparing the numbers they gave for a 5770 and GTS 250 in terms of performance of a GTS 240.
GTS 250 = 164% relative performance over all resolutions
5770 = 202% relative performance over all resolutions

thus performance of a 5770 relative to a GTS 250:
202 - 164 = 38 / 164 = .2317 which is a little under 25%.

Nice. I was always under the impression that the 5770 = a 4870.
I never remembered a 4870 1gb being faster then a 4850 1gb by 25% though.

If so, I stand corrected.

 

[AzN]

Actually, if your still looking for a GTS250 there is one for $89.99 shipped. Just hit the link below...

The card is 675mhz core and 2000mhz ram. You also get a free copy of Rainbow Six Vegas2 game as a combo purchase.


Click this link to check it out.


Jason

Nice. 5770 might have dx11 GTS has PhysX. GTS is about fast as 5750 in most cases..

For $90 with a free game sounds like a deal.

Ordered one.