• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

9700 pro or 9600 TX?

E

EvilAngel

Gawd
Joined
Jan 9, 2002
Messages
597
Ok, ive read a few reviews on the 9600 TX and they seem to have mixed results..

Some of them say its a great overclocker, some say it doesnt overclock that well.

For example in the "Average Joe's Buying Decision.. Thread For All Sorts of Buying Decisions" Thread the author say the 9600 TX is a great overclocker.

The thing is, i already have a 9700 pro BBA that is in the way to RMA, and i was thinking of selling it and getting a 9600 TX, but pricewise the 9600 TX is about the same priceof a 9700 pro, so... it would not be cheaper to get this card. The 9700 pros and even the 9800 NP can be pruchase for ~200 (ebay, the FS forum, etc).

So i need some input from people who has used both cards, because i dont know who to belive from the results of the reviews.

Does it perform better (overclocked)? If not, why in gods name would someone buy a 9600 TX instead of a 9700 or 9800?

Thanks,

E.A.
 
I would get a 9800 over a 9600XT. Better card overall.
 
Even when overclocked to its maximum stable settings, the 9600 TX is still slower than a stock-speed 9700 pro.
 
teh 9600 xt is teh sickest my friend! although the 9700 pro benchmarked higher than the 9600 xt
 
Personally, I would never give up the extra 4 pipelines just for some overclockability. The 9700Pro is a faster card overall, only about 10%-15% slower than the 9800 from what I hear. It's a great card, I would stick with it.
 
9700pro is better than 9600xt.

9700Pro: 8 pixel piplines 256bit memory bus
9600XT: 4 pixel piplines 128bit memory bus

Only thing the 9600XT has on the 9700Pro is a faster core.

I'd go w/a 9700pro over a 9600XT, but thats just me. ;)
 
So.... Why would someone buy a 9600 XT if they can get a 9700 for about the same price..?
 
Originally posted by EvilAngel
So.... Why would someone buy a 9600 XT if they can get a 9700 for about the same price..?
Click to expand...

if you can get the 9700 ... then go ahead ... I believe ATI is not producing the 9700 anymore ...
 
Originally posted by EvilAngel
So.... Why would someone buy a 9600 XT if they can get a 9700 for about the same price..?
Click to expand...

Only for the HL2 voucher, or the fact that 9600XTs are more common now.
 
I would've opted for a 9700series but my wife bought the 9600xt for me instead. And I can't complain either way though, since the card I got was a Sapphire Atlantis, and she only paid $147 shipped. See the sig for my o/c I got on it. Runs everything I play great with full detail and at 1280x1024 with 4xAA/16xAF.

No HL2 coupon, but then again...I don't care about that game.
 
Originally posted by E4g1e
Even when overclocked to its maximum stable settings, the 9600 TX is still slower than a stock-speed 9700 pro.
Click to expand...

I just got a 4772 on 3dmark03 with my 9600xt (600core/746ddr). When looking at the ORB, with the same system specs as I have except for the vid card, I'm on par with and beating many of the 9700np's and in the "less than average" in the 9700pro's grouping (page 4 of 6 to be exact).

although, my 9600xt is oc'd far above it's stock specs(500/600)...compare the speeds of my 9600xt to that of a 9700np. mine are 600/746...the 9700pro's are 324/310...and the 9700np's are like 275/275?


if I still had the choice...I'd go with a 9700/9800 though. you get much higher gains when overclocking it than I do with my 9600xt. But I can't complain about the performance I've gotten for the price ($147).

EDIT: Compare URL if you care:
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2095189
 
ya you might get close to scores of a 9700 or 9800 in 3dmark at that shitty low 1024x768 with all the aa/af turned off but trust me you crak it up to say 1280x960 or 1600x1200 and turn on aa/af and then benchmark it and you will say uh dam this 9600 sucks!!! lol
 
Originally posted by Shane
ya you might get close to scores of a 9700 or 9800 in 3dmark at that shitty low 1024x768 with all the aa/af turned off but trust me you crak it up to say 1280x960 or 1600x1200 and turn on aa/af and then benchmark it and you will say uh dam this 9600 sucks!!! lol
Click to expand...

funny, I play all my games at 1280x1024 with AA/AF and they play just fine (in case you're wondering, those games are COD, DFBHD & Team Sabre, RTCW, NFS: HP2, NFSU, Raven Shield, etc). And 1024x768 isn't a "shitty" res. below that I would agree, but most of the people I know play at that res or 1280...even if they have a 9800pro/xt.

If you're looking for playability, then you wouldn't be saying that. But since I think you're going for the "jiz factor" then yes.

I was simply posting to show it can be done, but it has to be o/c'd like mad to do it...I'm not posting because I have an elitest attitude and think that anything less than 1600x1200 with 8xaa/16xaf and all options on high is crap.
 
1024x768 isn't shitty. Most of the mainstream cards (5700, 9600XT) are designed to run 1024x768 with some AA/AF and those cards aren't considered shitty by most people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top