ATI vs. NVIDIA Once Again: 4670 vs 9500 GT & 9600 GSO

Now we get into the real competition. We're looking at AMD's newest mainstream card vs. NVIDIA's two latest entries into the sub $100 market. The 9600 GSO is just an 8800 GS. Though we didn't compare it here, the 9600 GT is priced right around $100 and offers performance a little better than the 9600 GSO. While we are comparing with the 9500 GT here, it will become quickly apparent that the card doesn't even come close to competing with the 4670.

For our medium quality Crysis test, the 4670 seems framelimited at about 60 here, while the 9600 GSO seems to push past the 60 fps barrier. At 1280x1024 and above, the 4670 leads the pack by a small margin in this benchmark.

Enemy Territory with 4xAA enabled shows a huge advantage for the 4670 over NVIDIA's more expensive 9600 GSO. Even so, the NVIDIA cards remain playable at 1280x1024, so the practical advantage is a little decreased until we get to 1680x1050.

Once again Oblivion offers us a role reversal when AA is enabled. Without AA, the 4670 falls behind above 1024x768, while it pulls a little ahead when 4xAA is enabled. Again, the 4670 and 9600 GSO are playable at 1280x1024 with AA, and might both be passable at 1680x1050 as well (Oblivion is a game that still offers a good experience at anything above 25 fps).

 

The 9600 GSO maintains a steady ~10% lead over the 4670 in Age of Conan. This is quite an interesting benchmark for NVIDIA to lead considering how handily they are clobbered at higher price points by the 4850 and 4870.

Performance in GRID is nearly identical between the 4670 and 9600 GSO.

 

Throw AA in there and we see a little separation trying to happen, but the 9600 GSO actually does keep up at lower resolutions with AA.

For The Witcher, while the 4670 leads at lower resolutions, performance converges at higher res. Both are playable at 1280x1024. We wanted to test AA in this one, but it is sort of difficult as the game limits the ability to enable AA based on framebuffer sizes; thus we couldn't enable 4xAA past 1024x768 on the 9600 GSO.

When we hit high quality Crysis, the 4670 leads.

And the lead just gets bigger if we look at medium quality (high quality shaders) with 4xAA enabled. The 4670 is borderline playable in this situation at 1280x1024 while the 9600 GSO falls way short.

Radeon HD 4670 vs. Last Year's $200 Offerings: The 3870/3850 Revisited What You Get for Your Money: 4870 vs 4850 vs 4670
POST A COMMENT

90 Comments

View All Comments

  • FishTankX - Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - link

    I think this is the only article i've ever seen that uses the term 'Epic fail' in the conclusion. Reply
  • piroroadkill - Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - link

    Eh, don't be so elitist and stuffy, if the article is good - and it is - then it doesn't really matter. Reply
  • n00bxqb - Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - link

    Same here ... I approve of this term :)

    As for the HD 4670, keep in mind that this WILL make its way into MAINSTREAM computers (i.e. Dells and HPs), which is a very good thing. The 9600 GSO and 9600 GT probably won't find a home in these PCs because, let's face it, those cards at the $100 price-point aren't high margin and Nvidia and their partners aren't going to be able to offer the kind of substantial discount to OEMs like they can on items like the HD 4670 and 9500 GT.

    Also, given the low power consumption, I could see this making its way into laptops soon as well in the $700-$1000 price range.

    This will be good not only for your uneducated mainstream computer buyer, but it will also be good for AMD, which really needs it right now, and the PC gaming industry, which also really needs increased demand right now, too.
    Reply
  • fri2219 - Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - link

    Not to mention "loose" in place of the word lose...

    Terrible review, even worse writing.

    This isn't up to Anandtech standards.
    Reply
  • Megaknight - Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - link

    Why is it a terrible review? Beacause it shows Nvidia sells old technology like it was new and screws the less informed people? Reply
  • regnez - Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - link

    Well, we certainly look forward to your review of this card in the very near future, then. Or at the very least, some constructive criticism. If you cannot provide either of those, how about you just STFU?

    Also, I would not be surprised to see this card in an iMac refresh, courtesy of its low-power/decent performance. Certainly it would be an improvement over the 2400/2600 GPUs they have now, at least for the baseline models.
    Reply
  • fri2219 - Thursday, September 11, 2008 - link

    Does your daddy's dick still taste like your shit?

    I look forward to your review of all the penises you've licked the shit off in the future.

    Until then, shut the fuck up/
    Reply
  • xeutonmojukai - Thursday, September 11, 2008 - link

    Petty bickering makes one look petty, nothing more.

    Besides that, I have an interest in your expert assessment of your own experience licking feces off of male genitalia, since I'm sure it would be riveting compared to your new rival's most likely empty repertoire of anecdotes.

    Back on-topic, I found this review to be great, and I also find that spelling is about as relevant to the quality of a person's writing of a review as an incoherent username is to the inherent coolness of the user on a reply thread.
    Reply
  • Gristy - Wednesday, December 22, 2010 - link

    I recent upgraded to the agp version of the 4670 my pc is pretty average, i have a 2.8 amd athlon 1.5 GB of ram and im currently running ARMA2 on high graphics with my resolution at 1024 x 768 and the game runs perfectly smooth with absolute fantastic graphics, i HIGHLY reccomend this budget card :D Reply
  • dellprecision380 - Saturday, July 09, 2011 - link

    4670 will work in x16 pci slot and 375watt psu?mother board intel 955xcs and pentium d 3.2ghz Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now