• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Well, the Radeon 9600 Non-Pro came in today

formulav8

formulav8

Diamond Member
I got the Radeon 9600 Non-Pro today. Made a post a few days ago about using it to replace my Radeon 8500. The 9600 came with crappy 5ns memory. I was really wanting to get at least close to pro speeds with it. I definitely wasn't expecting much after I saw the memory. I ran 3DMark2001 to compare it to the 8500. Lowered my OC on my cpu and mb so when I tried to get the max oc it would rule out any other possibilitys hindering it.

Epox 8RDA+
AMD Athlon XP 2500+ @ 2800+ (12.5x166)
Kingston HyperX 4000 - 1024megs (3,3,3,8 timings)

(Original Video Card) -
Radeon 8500LE - 275/275
10,102 3DMark2001 score

First Test - Stock Settings = 324/202
8,779 - 3DMark2001 score

Second Test - 398/236
10,171 - 3DMark2001 score

Third Test - 405-250
10,426 - 3DMark2001 score

Fourth Test - 452/256 (or 512 DDR)
10,990 - 3DMark2001 score

I was very surprised as to how high I was able to get the memory. At the next memory setting 263mhz I would start to get alittle video artifacting in 3DMark. Maybe a fan blowing on the memory will help. Also, how do I get the mhz value's between 263mhz and 256mhz? It makes that big of a jump. Same with the core. There are no values in-between that I can select.

The 256mhz memory setting would run 3DMark and the Omega Artifact tester at the hardest setting with no artifacting at all. I am very happy at how high the memory got too. Still short of getting close to the Pro memory speed levels that I wanted though.

So, should I keep the 8500 or the 9600?? I would keep the 9600 oc'ed to the 452/256 speeds if I kept it. Also, I haven't checked to see how far the core will get yet. Even though I doubt the overall speed will increase any since the memory is definitely the bottleneck. Even one have any comments or thought? Thanks for reading.


Jason


 
Looks like your going to have to keep running that card pretty damn hard to get to where you were with the 8500. I would keep the 8500 and save up for something better than a 9600 non pro. Just my opinion. You cant say you want to keep the card for its DX9 capabilities. Because it has DX9 compliance, but no capability in that area. Very weak card, but we get what we pay for these days don't we.

Send it back and save your pennies for something worthwhile.
 
I agree. I was disappointed with the performance of the 9600NP as well and sold it in favor of a faster card that was only a little more money.
 
Argg. OK, Thanks for the comments.

BTW, I am getting a Abit 128meg ti4200 video card tomorrow. Should I keep it and get rid of the Radeon or get rid of the 4200 also? Thanks for the info.

Edit: I upped the core to 486mhz and it raised the 3DMark score to 11,200. Kinda surprised it raised the score with just upping the core without the memory being increased.


Jason
 
Lowered my OC on my cpu and mb so when I tried to get the max oc it would rule out any other possibilitys hindering it.
Click to expand...
3Dmark 2001 is very CPU/memory limited so the lower scores for the 9600 have a lot to do with the lower CPU and memory speeds.
 
Hi, the posted score for the the 8500 and 9600 was at the same motherboard and cpu speed.

The 9600 should definitely be faster with the AA and AF stuff turned on right?


Jason
 
Originally posted by: formulav8
Hi, the posted score for the the 8500 and 9600 was at the same motherboard and cpu speed.

The 9600 should definitely be faster with the AA and AF stuff turned on right?


Jason
Click to expand...

There is NO way a 9600 np is going to run anything wwell with aa/af on sorry.

I would get rid of the 9600 and ti4200 and put whatever money you get from them in an envelope and apply it toward the next gen

I have a 9800 pro, but I still have a radeon 850 128MB LE (flashed to retail speeds) in my wifes machine that runs everything just fine.

The 8500 is a really solid card even today.
 
I wouldn't base any decisions on 3DMark.

If you ran 3DMark03, you'd obviously get different results.

Play some games you like in order to decide.
 
Originally posted by: LTC8K6
I wouldn't base any decisions on 3DMark.

If you ran 3DMark03, you'd obviously get different results.

Play some games you like in order to decide.
Click to expand...

3dmark 03 is terribly misleading to the graphics card sheep. e.g. a FX5200 128bit would score the same as a Ti4200 in 3Dmark 03.

9600NP from 8500? Not worthwhile at all...
 
BTW, I am getting a Abit 128meg ti4200 video card tomorrow. Should I keep it and get rid of the Radeon or get rid of the 4200 also? Thanks for the info.
Click to expand...

The ti4200 is a great card and is noticably faster than the R8500 (I have both), however be very careful of the 128mb version. The older version (4x only) uses slower memory and is actually slower than the 64mb ti4200. The newer ti4200s that advertise 8x AGP are clocked much higher and is the better buy.
 
Well i82lazyboy, wouldn't the 9600 beat the 4200 and 8500 in 3DMark03 due to the DX9 tests? The 8500 and 4200 can't do the tests at all. A 5200 should win against them too, since it can at least run the tests, although slowly.

Anyway, I think we are both on the same page. Don't rely on 3DMark too much, it's not a very good game.
 
IIRC the Ti4200 is faster than the 8500. I would say keep whichever one you think plays better (or doesn't have issues w/ your system). They are close at stock speeds - you may be able to get a big oc out of the ti4200 depending on which one you are getting.
 
I played KOTOR and Unreal 2004 Demo at 1024x768 and it was as smooth if not smoother than my 8500. Still deciding though.


Jason
 
Dont know if your thinking this way, but just because a model number is higher, or because a card is newer, does not always mean its better.
 
Originally posted by: formulav8
The 9600 should definitely be faster with the AA and AF stuff turned on right?


Jason
Click to expand...

Yes, compared to the 8500 it will be. I have a 9500np in my second comp at home, and with 4xFSAA and 8xAF it plays games quite well @1027x768. But it is the "L" shaped 256bit vers, so it would give it an advantage over a 128bit card.

 
Why does everyone hate the 9600 series so much? I have no problem running *any* of my games with at least 2xAA & 8xAF without any sacrifice in gameplay (read: all games playable with high levels of detail/quality). I score right at 4000 in 3dmark2k3 on my 9600 AIW Pro. Granted the AIW variant of the 9600 Pro does have faster memory than the others, which explains my 740-760MHz (effective) memory speed (I use a "safe" setting in 2d of 740MHz and switch to 760 for 3d) 😎 😉 The core also clocks to 450MHz easily, and I've pushed it as high as 470MHz before without any artifacting.
Maybe I'm just one of the lucky few that got a 9600 The Way it Should Have Been ? 😉
 
my 2 cents...

the ti4200 has the potential to be faster than a 9600 non-pro/pro/xt assuming you have a nice cpu/mem/mobo

the highest score obtained in 3dmark2k1 on a 9600 series card is about 19k.

the highest score obtained in 3dmark2k1 on a ti4200 is about 21k.

i know that 3dmark2k1 isn't a good measure of how good a gpu is but... i think it still says something about the card.

HOWEVER in 3dmark2k3, the 9600 wipes the floor with the ti4200.

so it's quite strange...

for a 9600... i don't think it was worth it upgrading from that 8500.

liek someone else said... return the card and wait for the r420 to come out which is rumored to come in sometime in april.

that will drop the price of the 9800 pro to sub $200 and i'd probably just pick one of those up.

but if you REALLY want a decent card right now, i'd just buy a 9700 pro!

i got mine pimped out with vmods and everything and it can do 428/352 which isn't the greatest but i can score 22.9k on 3dmark2k1 🙂
 
Benchmark actual games with the card and then keep whichever runs them the best.
Why does everyone hate the 9600 series so much?
Click to expand...
I think the main gripe here is that it doesn't make sense to get a 9600 when he already has an 8500. The difference is going to be very small, and therefore it's not worth the money. Plus I believe most comments were aimed soley at the 9600 np, not the whole 9600 line of cards.
 
Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
Why does everyone hate the 9600 series so much? I have no problem running *any* of my games with at least 2xAA & 8xAF without any sacrifice in gameplay (read: all games playable with high levels of detail/quality). I score right at 4000 in 3dmark2k3 on my 9600 AIW Pro. Granted the AIW variant of the 9600 Pro does have faster memory than the others, which explains my 740-760MHz (effective) memory speed (I use a "safe" setting in 2d of 740MHz and switch to 760 for 3d) 😎 😉 The core also clocks to 450MHz easily, and I've pushed it as high as 470MHz before without any artifacting.
Maybe I'm just one of the lucky few that got a 9600 The Way it Should Have Been ? 😉
Click to expand...

I dunno I have a 9600NP but the jump from a GF3 was a bit more for me. Plus I got mine for $69 after rebate (i did get the rebate) People like like to b1+c4 and moan a lot. especially on internet forums.
 
My gigabyte 9600 pro has been serving me well for the last month and runs unreal tourney 2004 beautifully and for the price of admission at about $135 I think it was a great deal.
 
Thanks for all of the info. The only reason I went for the 9600 NonPro is because I was going to take the chance at OCing it to a 9600 Pro. But when I saw the memory it came with, I knew it would not go that far. Even though it came with 5ns Hynix chips, it really surprised me at how high it got too. 512mhz out of 400mhz memory it not bad at all.

Also, I just put a Blue Orb on the core of the Video card. I am not sure if it will help anything or not. I just put it on for when I sell it and to help the card maintain stability at the 486mhz core speed. I am going to try and get 500mhz out of it in alittle bit. Just to see if it will go there and be stable. I am impressed as to how high I got the core so far, and the crappy memory at that.

Stock core = 325mhz
OC core = 486mhz

Stock 5ns Memory = 200mhz (400mhz DDR)
OC Memory = 256mhz (512mhz DDR)

So, all in all its not a crappy card when it is OC. Its not considered high end by any means. But its not on the lowend scale either. All in all I am fairly impressed with what it OC's too, considering the memory chips it came with.

BTW: Here is a picture of the card with the blue orb on it. In case anyone gives a hoot.

Link to the picture of the video card with the ThermalTake Blue Orb attached. It is 56k friendly (I think, I do not have 56k to check and see. It is 29KB)


Jason
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top