9600 GT 3DMark

Jedikid

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
197
Okay so I brought a 9600 GT today and did ran 3DMARK06. I got a 10727, I got the screen shot on the computer but will post it tonight. It's a nice upgrade from the 8600 GT i had.
 
Not that I dont believe you so please dont take it that way, but lets see some pics of that card!!
 
Just picked one up to play with as well and got right around the same score as you :) Im pretty happy with it, the BFG Runs cooler than what Im seeing in reviews, but I also will say Ive done some things to my case to improve cooling. The heatsink is a better layout overall imo and build quality is better than my rev 1 8800gt i had a few months ago. Yes I know its a step down, im a tech geek and need new hardware to play with everyone once in a while and I no longer had my 8800GT, and wanted an Nvidia card to play with. Anyways my GPU is ideling at 38C tonight which is not too shabby imo. Nice little card overall. I broke 11k earlier this evening, Ill try and get some pics of the card in the am I just dont feel like taking it apart atm.
 
IMG_1618.jpg
9600.jpg



Okay so there;s the pictures to prove my 9600 GT, and my 3dmark,. My system specs are Q6700, 2.66, 2 gigs of OCZ ram, slimline drive, 160 gb NB drive, 9600 GT, case Geek Squad Bug.

The cards not Loud, i have it and it's quite, can;t tell it's running.
 
ahh quad core, thats why its over 10k. still not bad, but your q6700 definitely gives it a big bump in the overall score. i'd like to see how it overclocks, looks like its got a decent sized fan on it.
 
yeah it's a great card, i got over 4000 when upgrading from my 8600 gt 512mb
 
just ran 3dmark again, i was bored and got a better score. i didn't change anything

higher9600.jpg
 
Whether or not you did so purposefully, the resolution of your first 3dmark screen shot is much higher than your latest one above, and I see that you are using the professional edition, so the score increase could easily be because of the drop in resolution

For future reference when posting a 3dmark score, you should always drag the score window away from the info one so everyone can see the settings and specs, regardless nice score
 
The 8800GTS should be faster by a bit. Honestly, they may end up being almost even as the 9600GT matures a bit &. Early test show the 8800 GT , not GTS, performing better at higher resolutions. They are more even at lower resolutions. Wait for more benchmarks though & acrtual user feedback on game performance. 3D Marks don't say much for a graphics card though. So never judge it for that. You can just take a gander at 3D Marks 06 top 20 scores & see how many 2900 Xt rigs are up there. We all know how the HD 2900 XT performed in games =).

-DarkLegacy
 
No I really meant the 8800GTS 320 :).
As I've sold that one for a newer generation cards to use in a HTPC / slight gameable PC.
So I've been waiting since the fifth of January to get a new card.
1.5 month without games in my spare time feels like rehab or something -_-
 
Yeah, I fixed myself before you re posted lol. To tired after this double shift. Not thinking right!

-DarkLegacy
 
hmm s weird.
I thought a G92 core 8800GT was faster than a G80 core 8800GTS 320.
I wasn't talking about a G92 core 8800GTs 512 eh ;)
 
You might want to bump that CPU up to 3.0GHz every Q6600 I've ever tried will do that on stock voltage with the stock cooler. I'd think your Q6700 could too. That will raise your score up a bit more and help in CPU limited situations.
 
If a 3850 512mb is on par with the 8800gts 320 (depending on the benchmark and Catalyst 8.2), the 9600gt should beat the 8800gts 320. The higher core, mem, and shader clocks probably compensate for the lack of SP's.
 
who makes that card and where did you purchase it..... i cant find one anywhere online
 
Like the guy said above. Can you resize the picture?

Also, maybe move your scores out of the way so we can see the System specs in 3dmark.
 
who makes that card and where did you purchase it..... i cant find one anywhere online
It appwrs to only be available at BB ($229.) The word is the release date is teh 20th, and that's when you should see them online.

There's some more threads on this card in the general video card section and in the Nvidia flavor.
 
yeah sorry i didn't mean to change resoutlion i had the frist score at work and i guess it changed it. i'll run it again late to move the boxes.


It's from BB, the BFG one. only thing is i didn't play 230 for it.
 
yeah sorry i didn't mean to change resoutlion i had the frist score at work and i guess it changed it. i'll run it again late to move the boxes.


It's from BB, the BFG one. only thing is i didn't play 230 for it.

you should be a little more suave. a guy got fired last summer for just posting pictures of an unreleased card sitting on the shelf at bb. a high price to pay for showing off a card 1 or 2 days before release.

to the other guy - he cant overclock it. its a store pc.
 
you should be a little more suave. a guy got fired last summer for just posting pictures of an unreleased card sitting on the shelf at bb. a high price to pay for showing off a card 1 or 2 days before release.

to the other guy - he cant overclock it. its a store pc.

Seems pretty clear to me that it's in his own computer.

This looks like a pretty nice card, I might pick up one of these to put in my htpc that occasionally sees some gaming.
 
Seems pretty clear to me that it's in his own computer.

This looks like a pretty nice card, I might pick up one of these to put in my htpc that occasionally sees some gaming.


you may be right, unless thats somebody else's full name on the top left icon.
 
For whatever reason I cant post my score as a public score, however here are the results (This is with the BFG 9600GT), Default Settings:

3DMark Score 11097 3DMarks
SM 2.0 Score 4706
SM 3.0 Score 4404
CPU Score 3878
Graphics Tests
1 - Return to Proxycon 38.14 FPS
2 - Firefly Forest 40.3 FPS
CPU Tests
CPU1 - Red Valley 1.28 FPS
CPU2 - Red Valley 1.88 FPS
HDR Tests
1 - Canyon Flight (SM 3.0) 39.62 FPS
2 - Deep Freeze (SM 3.0) 48.46 FPS

CPU was at 2.7ghz while running these my mobo doesnt like this new bios =( Im going to flash back tonight...
 
For whatever reason I cant post my score as a public score, however here are the results (This is with the BFG 9600GT), Default Settings:

3DMark Score 11097 3DMarks
SM 2.0 Score 4706
SM 3.0 Score 4404
CPU Score 3878
Graphics Tests
1 - Return to Proxycon 38.14 FPS
2 - Firefly Forest 40.3 FPS
CPU Tests
CPU1 - Red Valley 1.28 FPS
CPU2 - Red Valley 1.88 FPS
HDR Tests
1 - Canyon Flight (SM 3.0) 39.62 FPS
2 - Deep Freeze (SM 3.0) 48.46 FPS

CPU was at 2.7ghz while running these my mobo doesnt like this new bios =( Im going to flash back tonight...


Not bad compare to my stock setup. I scored 11725.
 
309600.jpg


OKay i ran it again, moved the boxes "overclocked" the processor. can't rise the resolution. oh yes this is my computer. that's my name.


3DMark Score 13548 3DMarks
SM 2.0 Score 5533
SM 3.0 Score 5746
CPU Score 4437
Graphics Tests
1 - Return to Proxycon 47.694 FPS
2 - Firefly Forest 44.515 FPS
CPU Tests
CPU1 - Red Valley 1.452 FPS
CPU2 - Red Valley 2.170 FPS
HDR Tests
1 - Canyon Flight (SM 3.0) 53.070 FPS
2 - Deep Freeze (SM 3.0) 61.855 FPS
 
its running at 1024x768. everyone else runs it at 1280x1024. use another monitor so you can run it at 1280x1024 instead of posting inflated benchmarks!
 
its running at 1024x768. everyone else runs it at 1280x1024. use another monitor so you can run it at 1280x1024 instead of posting inflated benchmarks!

yes, hence the default setting. for a score to be valid for comparison it has to be at default setting on 3dmark.

if you downloaded the trial version from futuremark you should be able to post it on their site.

all in all you should not heavily base your machine on 3dmark scores.
 
I'm guessing Jedikid lowered his desktop resolution as a way of resizing the image, as several requested, and then 3DMark just ran at that rez.

Jedikid, go ahead and run at 1280x1024, then resize your screen capture smaller with an image editor.
 
Back
Top