Now that it is tough to find a 9500 pro, it seems like the only midrange video card is the 9600. I really would like toupgrade my 8500 but don't want to spend 250$. I really want 150$ to be my limit. Does anyone have any suggestions?
Is the 9600 pro really THAT bad?
- Thread starter Johnbear007
- Start date
Just upgraded two of my kids computers to 9600 Pro's (Built By ATI)
I'm impressed with them, seem to be about as fast as GF4 4400 with no AA or AF enabled in DX8 games.
Which is more than enough speed for any game currently on the market.
The real beauty of these cards is that you can turn on all the visual goodies (AA&AF) with very little performance hit.
Wouldn't take them over 1024X768 in games to keep a decent frame rate with AA&AF.
They over clock real nice too. I didn't get anywhere near what some reviewers got as far as over clocking goes. Some sites were getting 500 core and 350 mem. or something like that. (Golden Sample?)
On the two I've messed around with both hit 440 core and 330 mem with no problems running 3DMark 2001 all night.
Two months earlier, and I would have bought them 9500 Pro's, but I can't say I'm disapointed with the 9600 Pro.
Visual quality is outstanding and Cerebus makes one of the coolest screen savers of all time.
My goal was to get their computers ready for HL2, (DeathMatch YEAH. They're gonna kick my ass) and after reading last weeks BIG NEWS, I'm happier than ever with my invesment.
I'm impressed with them, seem to be about as fast as GF4 4400 with no AA or AF enabled in DX8 games.
Which is more than enough speed for any game currently on the market.
The real beauty of these cards is that you can turn on all the visual goodies (AA&AF) with very little performance hit.
Wouldn't take them over 1024X768 in games to keep a decent frame rate with AA&AF.
They over clock real nice too. I didn't get anywhere near what some reviewers got as far as over clocking goes. Some sites were getting 500 core and 350 mem. or something like that. (Golden Sample?)
On the two I've messed around with both hit 440 core and 330 mem with no problems running 3DMark 2001 all night.
Two months earlier, and I would have bought them 9500 Pro's, but I can't say I'm disapointed with the 9600 Pro.
Visual quality is outstanding and Cerebus makes one of the coolest screen savers of all time.
My goal was to get their computers ready for HL2, (DeathMatch YEAH. They're gonna kick my ass) and after reading last weeks BIG NEWS, I'm happier than ever with my invesment.
I suppose that is a good way to look at it. It wont be a huge performance increase, but all the goodies can be turned on. Also HL 2 performance is all well and good, but I would like to see some doom 3 performance on these things.....
what fps did these suckers get? I read earlier in some other thread that the 9800 got 60 FPS.. and someone called that (unplayable) I wish I had HIS budget if he thinks that is unplayable
60fps unplayable? Damn we're spoiled. The last 4 years in the graphics industry have been amazing.
I remember feeling like a big shot playing HL1 at 800x600 on a 8meg VooDoo2. It got a littler choppy occasionally, but going from a 233 MMX to a 350P2 and 64 meg ram fixed that.
Seriously though, we've been spoiled by the incredably advances made in the last few years. The revolutionary GeForce series (credit where it's due folks) allowed us to crank the resulotion so high and still have astronomical frame rates, it's become unthinkable now to play at a sissy rez of 800X600.
I really thought the resolution VS AA argument was settled. XBox games look great at low rez because they're using AA. Blame the Radeon 9700Pro. It allowed us to crank up the rez AND pump up the AA.
Right now, me and my guys are playing Serious Sam SE co-op, mental of course. We like Mechwarrior 4 Mercs(the mech lab is half the fun), C&C Generals and one of my guys is really into Ever Quest. Picked up the latest Unreal, but it didn't really grab us.
As far as FPS goes they all play completly smooth, don't have exact numbers, but I've not noticed any slow downs on their machines. They have AXPs 2400+ , 512 meg on KT33 boards. (Hmmmm, that's not bad. DAMN !! Daddy's gotta upgrade his rig soon)
I also told them not to change any of the settings I configured in the driver, 4XAA and 8XAF. They play everything at 1024X768.
AnyHoo, as far as HL2 goes, that really otta do it. If it's gotta be 800X600 with 2XAA , then so be it.
I remember feeling like a big shot playing HL1 at 800x600 on a 8meg VooDoo2. It got a littler choppy occasionally, but going from a 233 MMX to a 350P2 and 64 meg ram fixed that.
Seriously though, we've been spoiled by the incredably advances made in the last few years. The revolutionary GeForce series (credit where it's due folks) allowed us to crank the resulotion so high and still have astronomical frame rates, it's become unthinkable now to play at a sissy rez of 800X600.
I really thought the resolution VS AA argument was settled. XBox games look great at low rez because they're using AA. Blame the Radeon 9700Pro. It allowed us to crank up the rez AND pump up the AA.
Right now, me and my guys are playing Serious Sam SE co-op, mental of course. We like Mechwarrior 4 Mercs(the mech lab is half the fun), C&C Generals and one of my guys is really into Ever Quest. Picked up the latest Unreal, but it didn't really grab us.
As far as FPS goes they all play completly smooth, don't have exact numbers, but I've not noticed any slow downs on their machines. They have AXPs 2400+ , 512 meg on KT33 boards. (Hmmmm, that's not bad. DAMN !! Daddy's gotta upgrade his rig soon)
I also told them not to change any of the settings I configured in the driver, 4XAA and 8XAF. They play everything at 1024X768.
AnyHoo, as far as HL2 goes, that really otta do it. If it's gotta be 800X600 with 2XAA , then so be it.
xSkyDrAx
Diamond Member
- Sep 14, 2003
- 7,706
- 1
- 0
The Radeon 9600 Pro is not that bad. Of course i was a bit skeptical about it when i heard it had 4 pipelines but i read some reviews and it is pretty good. Even more so when i saw the HL2 benchmarks. Sector Zero is right. We are spoiled. Does anyone really see a difference between say 50 fps and 200fps? Nah, but it sure sounds nice to say "hey, im getting 200fps in such and such game with 8xAA and 16xAF" I believe its a very good buy. I even heard rumors of enabling the 4 disabled pipelines on the 9600 pro.
-I say 9600 pro...win-win in cost/performance
-I say 9600 pro...win-win in cost/performance
Yeah the 9600 Pro really is pretty decent, especially if you can overclock your core/mem like nuts (which most can). Then it should be significantly higher than what the 9600 gets in those benchmarks.
Personally, I decided I was going to either upgrade to a 9800 or wait, there's too much of a difference between that and the midrange. Remember when the difference was just choosing between a GeForce 2 GTS or Ultra, or a Radeon 32MB DDR or 64DDR VIVO... Now, it's all so convoluted by so many factors.
All in all the 9600 is a great card. I wouldn't spend $200 US on one, but it's a great card for under $150 (or in that neighborhood anyways).
Personally, I decided I was going to either upgrade to a 9800 or wait, there's too much of a difference between that and the midrange. Remember when the difference was just choosing between a GeForce 2 GTS or Ultra, or a Radeon 32MB DDR or 64DDR VIVO... Now, it's all so convoluted by so many factors.
All in all the 9600 is a great card. I wouldn't spend $200 US on one, but it's a great card for under $150 (or in that neighborhood anyways).
my bros 9600 pro OCs to 520/720, runs everything beautifully. you cant ask for much more for $160
Yeah, but the price differene is TOO big.
What bothers me is that it used to be for 150 at any time you could get a great card. I used to hover at 99$
now you cant. do get a good card you need to spend 220$ and thats retarded. I cant afford 220$
I will NEVER be able to afford 220$ there will always be too many other things to pay for... well maybe not never but not in the short term...
anyway... the 9600 gets beat by a ti 4600 and that is lame. I dont want to pay 160 for a card that gets killed by something from last generation. If only the geforce 4 were a direct x 9 part
Where does the 5600 fit in? I get the feeling that by the time you have paid for a 5600 you are close toa 9700 anyway
What bothers me is that it used to be for 150 at any time you could get a great card. I used to hover at 99$
now you cant. do get a good card you need to spend 220$ and thats retarded. I cant afford 220$
I will NEVER be able to afford 220$ there will always be too many other things to pay for... well maybe not never but not in the short term...
anyway... the 9600 gets beat by a ti 4600 and that is lame. I dont want to pay 160 for a card that gets killed by something from last generation. If only the geforce 4 were a direct x 9 part
Where does the 5600 fit in? I get the feeling that by the time you have paid for a 5600 you are close toa 9700 anyway
xSkyDrAx
Diamond Member
- Sep 14, 2003
- 7,706
- 1
- 0
the only problem with that is the 9700 has 8 pixel pipelines but if your just talking about core/mem speeds, sure. Of course the 9700 is using the R300 and the 9600 is using the R350 core...that is something to consider. I have yet to see a HL2 benchmark with something from the R300 core. It was one of the reasons i decided to get a 9600 pro, that and 256mb, sure its not going to be any diff than a 128, but hey, 5 bucks more for 128mb of ram, i'll take it.
JohnBear, the performance jump from an 8500 to a 9600pro is substantial. Not even counting the overclocking potential of the 9600pro. As Sector Zero has said, the 9600 pro has equivalent power to a GeForce4Ti 4400 without AA/AF. Blows it away with AA/AF on. Your 8500 is probably equivalent to a GeForce 2 Ti or Ultra. Maybe even the GF3 Ti200 but thats pushing it.
I would also agree that if you can manage it, and you want to upgrade now for the most power and a little bit of future proofing, try to get the 9700np. I know you can find one for about 200. The 50 bucks is definately worth the longer life span of the card compared to a 9600pro. When I say life span, I mean how much longer you can go without having to upgrade again down the road.
I myself have the 9700np and a GeForceFX 5900non ultra. Both cards are monsters and will last for a long time.
GM
I would also agree that if you can manage it, and you want to upgrade now for the most power and a little bit of future proofing, try to get the 9700np. I know you can find one for about 200. The 50 bucks is definately worth the longer life span of the card compared to a 9600pro. When I say life span, I mean how much longer you can go without having to upgrade again down the road.
I myself have the 9700np and a GeForceFX 5900non ultra. Both cards are monsters and will last for a long time.
GM
As far as the 9600Pro getting beat by the 4600, well, as I recall the GF3 was getting beat by the GF2 Ultra. That is untill you cranked up the rez and turned on AA.
Both the 9600Pro and the 4600 are excelent DX8 cards, way more power then is necessary for any game on the market.
Take another look at the HL2 benchmark though, the 9600 Pro clearly wins over the 4600.
For your budget the 9600Pro is exactly what you're looking for.
End of story.
Both the 9600Pro and the 4600 are excelent DX8 cards, way more power then is necessary for any game on the market.
Take another look at the HL2 benchmark though, the 9600 Pro clearly wins over the 4600.
For your budget the 9600Pro is exactly what you're looking for.
End of story.
Sunny129
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2000
- 4,823
- 6
- 81
you are right that an extra $5 for and extra 128MB RAM is a great deal, but let me ask you this. do you plan on OCing you video card? if so, the only thing you'll be OCing is the core and not the memory w/ one of those 256MB cards. they all use slower memory than most 128MB cards. what i mean is that you can find 128MB cards w/ 2.8ns or 3.0ns RAM. but i think the fastest memory on a 256MB card these days is 3.3ns, and that memory doesn't OC for beans...
The 8500 is not comparable to a Geforce 2, its more of a geforece 3 gen card, and in some benchs beat out the ti4200
Alot of people remember it from it's early driver phases, but take a look at some benches with mature drivers, it stacks up well against a 4200 especially with AF.
Saying it is Geforce 2 level is just misinformed
Alot of people remember it from it's early driver phases, but take a look at some benches with mature drivers, it stacks up well against a 4200 especially with AF.
Saying it is Geforce 2 level is just misinformed
i'm currently getting a score of 4200 in 3dmark2003 with a 9500non pro. got a axp 2600+, 512Mb of ram. not a bad score for the card and price thereof huh??
A retail 8500 will eat a GF2 for lunch. Using the latest catalyst drivers its performance is on par with that of a 4200.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 18K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter