is there something wrong with the new 9600gt?

J

JVC

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 24, 2004
Messages
1,280
why is that the new 9600gt is slower than a 8800gt?
 
It isnt, from what I saw it was faster then the 8600GT. and it was right behind the 8800GT from 5-20fps depending on the game. I thinking you was reading the charts wrong.
 
could it be that it has nearly half the shader units and costs a lot less? ;)

given that though, it performs quite well and is the new price/performance king.
 
It wasn't meant to replace the 8800GT. It replaces the 8600 and was meant to go head to head against the HD3850.
AMD's price drop has it against the HD3870 now. Good choices for those looking for cards in that price range.

There's a 9800GT coming to replace the current 8800GT.
 
Blahman said:
could it be that it has nearly half the shader units and costs a lot less? ;)

given that though, it performs quite well and is the new price/performance king.
Click to expand...

I still think the 8800gt is a better price/performance king, considering you can get one around the same price as a 9600gt or for a few more bones.
 
I ordered a 9600 for a friend. He's a WOW player/casual gamer.
The 9600 runs cooler, uses less power, and fits his needs.
 
considering how badly the 8800gt mauls the 320MB GTS I'd think the 9600GT would be more than a match for it too.
 
yeah it's a good deal but still, Galaxy is not a well known brand, support is something I value pretty highly so I would still probably go with an EVGA or BFG 9600GT for the same price.

still, you found an 8800GT for $180 so good job. here's a cookie :)
 
Blahman said:
yeah it's a good deal but still, Galaxy is not a well known brand, support is something I value pretty highly so I would still probably go with an EVGA or BFG 9600GT for the same price.

still, you found an 8800GT for $180 so good job. here's a cookie :)
Click to expand...

Just doing what you asked me to. :D If $180 was my absolute limit, I would too, to be honest. That said, I'd spend the extra $20-$40 to get a better card (of a decent brand) with similar price/performance no question too. ;) Still, nothing wrong with the 9600 GT; not quite as good as the 8800 GT, but not quite as expensive either.

(As for why I got the 8800 GTS 512 MB instead: it was the same price as a 8800 GT + a decent aftermarket cooler at the time, and I wanted both a decent brand and a quiet card. At my resolution, the extra shaders and clock speeds don't hurt either, and I like max settings and AA+AF. ;) )
 
Since when did a mid-range next generation card have the requirement of being better than an old generation high-end (more or less) card?
 
CleanSlate said:
Since when did a mid-range next generation card have the requirement of being better than an old generation high-end (more or less) card?
Click to expand...

It's not the next generation. It's the same generation.

The GeForce 9600 GT continues in the same G90 series vein of the GeForce 8800 GTS 512MB and GeForce 8800 GT. All three GPUs share the same architecture and transistor improvements over the older G80 GPUs
Click to expand...

nVidia has so much overlapping shit out right now, it's crazy.

Maybe Intel should call the new 45nm Core2's Core3's instead. :S
 
JVC said:
why is that the new 9600gt is slower than a 8800gt?
Click to expand...

Because it has half the stream processors! It's not supposed to faster than the 8800GT. But I'd say it's Nvidia's fault that you would think so given the stupid numbering scheme.
 
Spare-Flair said:
Because it has half the stream processors! It's not supposed to faster than the 8800GT. But I'd say it's Nvidia's fault that you would think so given the stupid numbering scheme.
Click to expand...
AMD is using same kind of numbering scheme. First number tells generation and second tells cards position in that generation. What about AMD's HD2000 -> HD3000 transition? HD3000 ain't new generation and HD3670 won't beat HD2900XT even when it has bigger number.
 
9600GT... good card but I wouldn't trade my 3870 for it or buy one over an 8800GT any day of the week for gaming.
 
Blahman said:
yeah it's a good deal but still, Galaxy is not a well known brand, support is something I value pretty highly so I would still probably go with an EVGA or BFG 9600GT for the same price.

still, you found an 8800GT for $180 so good job. here's a cookie :)
Click to expand...

NOW he breaks out the specifics...

Nevertheless if one is able to afford an extra $15-20 again you'd be better off with the 8800gt.
 
jeez is this the king of silly questions or what?

Because it's a mid range card compared to what is a higher end part?

Because it has half of the shaders and yet is nearly identical otherwise?


A better question is why you think it SHOULD be faster.
 
Just wait until the initial demand calms down (just like we saw with the 8800GT), and the street price will fall under $150. This drop will be helped along when ATI drops prices on the 3800 line (sure to come soon).

Right now, the 8800GT is the better deal, but that's because the street has enough supply. Give the 9600GT another month before you complain about too much overlap.
 
Z(+)DIAC said:
I know, but wouldn't it still be better than the 9600gt?
Click to expand...
NO.

There are two versions of old 8800 GTS: 320MB and 640MB... and this 320MB version has same problems as do 8800 GT 256MB: It runs out of memory.

At 1600x1200 4xAA 16xAF,DX9, there's over 21% difference in favor of 9600 GT..but if you use DX10 and have those same AA/AF-settings that difference is 40% over 8800 GTS 320.

Actually thing is that in DX9 8800 GTS 320MB and 640MB are pretty close to each other, but in DX10 this 320MB simply falls behind
 
Niceone said:
NO.

There are two versions of old 8800 GTS: 320MB and 640MB... and this 320MB version has same problems as do 8800 GT 256MB: It runs out of memory.

At 1600x1200 4xAA 16xAF,DX9, there's over 21% difference in favor of 9600 GT..but if you use DX10 and have those same AA/AF-settings that difference is 40% over 8800 GTS 320.

Actually thing is that in DX9 8800 GTS 320MB and 640MB are pretty close to each other, but in DX10 this 320MB simply falls behind
Click to expand...

Thanks, I never knew all of that.
 
Well its a midrange gaming card thats meant to be really affordable and can play the vast majority of games at more modest resolutions. I would think HTPC users would want something with more versatility, smaller form factor, and possibly passive cooling. Gaming with a HTPC (given their usual high resolution screens) is just asking for trouble.
 
Well it's ok :)
I game at 1920*1200 atm and can set quality mostly on high ( Stalker, UT3 if it doesn't crash ) but as you see I don't play Crysis. Although I've got the witcher waiting for me here.
AA is 2x and AF 8x - 16x. And yes, thats a HTPC with a 9600GT @stock. CPU is E2160 @ 2.23Ghz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top