Is the 9600 SE really that bad??

[Oifish]

I have heard a lot of people saying that the 9600 SE is crap. I was just wondering if there is anyone that owns it and has their own comments?

 

[MadRat]

If you enjoy resolutions above 800x600 then it is not a decent performer. If you want old games and sub-800x600 graphics then this one will rock.

 

[InlineFive]

Originally posted by: MadRat
If you enjoy resolutions above 800x600 then it is not a decent performer. If you want old games and sub-800x600 graphics then this one will rock.

 

[Oifish]

Alright then, whats the best video card that I can buy for around $150?

 

[Oifish]

 

[MadRat]

NVidia's 5600 and ATI's 9600Pro are what you'd probably be happy with.

 

[Oifish]

That's what I've heard. Thanks

 

[ViRGE]

Newegg has 9600Pros in that price range, so that's what you'd want to look at.

Edit: Damn, too late

 

[dexvx]

Are they really that bad?

Yes

ATI is playing the name game. 9600SE doesnt seem that far off, numbers wise, from the 9800's. In reality, you'd get the performance less than a GeForceFX 5200.

 

[Sid59]

Originally posted by: dexvx
Are they really that bad?

Yes

ATI is playing the name game. 9600SE doesnt seem that far off, numbers wise, from the 9800's. In reality, you'd get the performance less than a GeForceFX 5200.

lol .. performs worse than the 8500

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Sid59

Originally posted by: dexvx
Are they really that bad?

Yes

ATI is playing the name game. 9600SE doesnt seem that far off, numbers wise, from the 9800's. In reality, you'd get the performance less than a GeForceFX 5200.

lol .. performs worse than the 8500

Contrary to popular opinion, the 8500 is quite powerful. The 8X AGP version is rebadged as the Radeon 9100.

The Radeon 9000 is just a Radeon 8500LE with 1/2 its texture units disabled. The Radeon 9200 is just a 8X AGP version of the Radeon 9000. The original 128MB Radeon 8500, should be about 9400, in terms of performance and the 8500LE about a Radeon 9300.

 

[randumb]

9600SE is a bad performer, but IMO has good value. It's ~$100, but comes with a free HL2 voucher. If you were going to pick up HL2 anyways, that's a $50 value. So it's like paying $50 for a 9600SE, which will beat any similarily priced low end card.

 

[Ionizer86]

You may also get a 9600XT for about $150 to $160.

On a side note, my Radeon 9100 isn't 8x AGP, but that's ok. The biggest problem is that some of them are sold with a 64 bit memory controller, but there is no such thing as a Radeon 9100SE to distinguish that issue.

 

[Sid59]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: Sid59

Originally posted by: dexvx
Are they really that bad?

Yes

ATI is playing the name game. 9600SE doesnt seem that far off, numbers wise, from the 9800's. In reality, you'd get the performance less than a GeForceFX 5200.

lol .. performs worse than the 8500

Contrary to popular opinion, the 8500 is quite powerful. The 8X AGP version is rebadged as the Radeon 9100.

The Radeon 9000 is just a Radeon 8500LE with 1/2 its texture units disabled. The Radeon 9200 is just a 8X AGP version of the Radeon 9000. The original 128MB Radeon 8500, should be about 9400, in terms of performance and the 8500LE about a Radeon 9300.

that's why i mentioend that. don't believe the hype. the 8500 was an awesome card.

 

[MadRat]

I have to defend the 9000 being called a 8500LE. The 9000 series is mucho cooler running then the 8500 beasts.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: MadRat
I have to defend the 9000 being called a 8500LE. The 9000 series is mucho cooler running then the 8500 beasts.

A Radeon9000 = Radeon 8500 LE - 2 texture units.

It runs cooler because half the texture units are disabled.

 

[Vernor]

Contrary to popular opinion, the 8500 is quite powerful. The 8X AGP version is rebadged as the Radeon 9100 .

Except that you'd expect anything called 9600 to beat out a 2+ year-old card.


It's the G4 MX all over again, only much worse.

 

[jjyiz28]

a 9600SE runs slower than a 9200/9000. i believe cuz its also 64bits

 

[Dug]

Originally posted by: Vernor

Contrary to popular opinion, the 8500 is quite powerful. The 8X AGP version is rebadged as the Radeon 9100 .

Except that you'd expect anything called 9600 to beat out a 2+ year-old card.


It's the G4 MX all over again, only much worse.

Just as bad as Geforce FX 5200.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: dexvx
A Radeon9000 = Radeon 8500 LE - 2 texture units.

It runs cooler because half the texture units are disabled.

No, it runs cooler because its core is made on a smaller process.

 

[Mingon]

Originally posted by: Dug

Originally posted by: Vernor

Contrary to popular opinion, the 8500 is quite powerful. The 8X AGP version is rebadged as the Radeon 9100 .

Except that you'd expect anything called 9600 to beat out a 2+ year-old card.


It's the G4 MX all over again, only much worse.

Just as bad as Geforce FX 5200.

I think it worse - at least you know by the naming scheme its bottom of the pile. whereas the 9600se is in a wierd void between the 9000 and the 9600.

 

[McMadman]

Personally I hate all this naming and rebadging that both ati and nvidia are doing, most of the time if there are any suffixes in the card name it's bad (usually LITE/SE) but then you have "PRO" and "XT" to add into the mix, good luck telling anyone EXACTLY what would be their best purchase, they might go to the store and see the pro or xt card sitting right next to a se card which is a good deal cheaper and of course, go for the cheaper card becuase they'd assume the card is basically the same becuase of the base product name.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Personally I hate all this naming and rebadging that both ati and nvidia are doing, most of the time if there are any suffixes in the card name it's bad (usually LITE/SE)

The nVidia SE boards are actually quite nice. The 5900SE runs all over anything in the mid range with ease and is quite competitive with the higher end parts(for $188 with Call of Duty). A good deal of people that follow the vid card market see the 5900SE as this generations Ti4200(best bang for the buck part).

they might go to the store and see the pro or xt card sitting right next to a se card which is a good deal cheaper and of course, go for the cheaper card becuase they'd assume the card is basically the same becuase of the base product name.

For nV's parts, they would have made a wise choice. Getting ~90%-95% of the performance for ~70%-80% of the cost isn't a bad thing.

 

[Leonsteward]

Id just like to say thats it is not crap at all i recently built a new pc put that card in and i can play games like max payne 2 totaly fine, my friend lent me UT2003 to test out and i can run that maxed out and get no FPS probs at all. If people experience problems it must be their other hardware. And other new games ive had no problems i can run them all at high/highest settings more examples: XIII, Call of Duty, Hidden and Dangerous 2.

I have an Athlon XP 2600+ and 512mb of ram with that so maybe that helps it along as well.

The only problem was the crashing but thats easy to fix if it occurs change AGP apperture to 4x and not 8x and sometimes turning of VPU recover off helps. However after updating drivers i no longer receive this problem.

 

[wetcat007]

Yes.