POST A COMMENT

70 Comments

Back to Article

  • BerSerK0 - Friday, January 30, 2004 - link

    I have a 9600XT, and real life FPS on these games are much better :) Reply
  • xxZoDxx - Sunday, December 28, 2003 - link

    My $.02... Constantly listening to the bickering of ATI vs nvidia, it's like Ford vs Chevy, & Pepsi vs Coke. My feelings on this? nvidia has superior hardware. Now before you get your ATI underoos in a bunch, ATI has the superior Drivers/architecture. Look at most openGL benches. Don't they follow the clock, RAM, and bandwidth speeds more closely? nvidia mostly holds all these cards. If they could only get their drivers to work as well with D3D, there wouldn't be a question. Congrats on the latest 50 series but they still have a way to go to get D3D up to snuff. Personally? I have a 5900 that o/c's like mad (well beyond 5950) and I only paid 2 bills for it. ATI... get the pricing down and you could OWN nvidia. Now I wait for the flamers.......... Reply
  • TurtleMan - Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - link

    Hmm FFXi is a main factor for me , and now i have an unopen 9600 xt sitting right here, i began to wonder if i should open it up or buy a 9800 se.. Reply
  • Rustjive - Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - link

    The FFXI benchmark is heavily CPU bound in addition to being GPU bound. Case in point: I ran it on my duallie PIII-733 with the TI4200, and I barely got over 1200 rendered (compared with the 3000+ of Anandtech's results.) Then contrast this to Aquamark 3, in which I got 13.03 FPS as opposed to the ~15FPS of Anand's. (Comparatively, the performance differences are quite drastic.) All I have to say is...blah to FFXI and the world of MMORPGs. Blah. Reply
  • Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - link

    Scores are bullshit, why bench the top of the line ATI 9800 XT against the middle of the road 5600? Thats just retarded. Reply
  • Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - link

    When we will see a test with ATI,s 9800 made by different manufacturers?
    Asus,Hercules,Gigabyte,ATI??
    Thank u!
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Saturday, October 18, 2003 - link

    How come they used diff. settings for every benchmark? Sometimes they used 1024X768 with no AA/AF enabled while other times they used 1024X768 w/ 4XAA/8XAF. Where did the 6XAA settings go? Can't stay consistant thorough out the review so people won't have to worry about the settings for each game benchamarks. Can anyone expalain this? Reply
  • Anonymous User - Friday, October 17, 2003 - link

    Unfortunately this review has missed an important issue: noise levels. Simply put many of the people reading this site will have serious hearing loss by their mid 40s because these systems are too loud for the long daily exposure times people experience with them. Old programmers who were around the old line printers frequently have hearing loss from the high pitched buzzing of the printers. Ditto any other industrial noise exposures. Silent computing is a worthwhile goal! I was very disappointed to discover that the last nVidia-based graphic card I placed in my main system was so noisy. Now I need to find a quieter one that delivers similar performance. These reviews are not much help on that dimension. Sorry. Reply
  • Anonymous User - Friday, October 17, 2003 - link

    Can you PLEASE get rid of the flash ! :(
    Whats wrong with the classic Anandtech graphs
    that everybody loved ?
    It doesnt even look better ..
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Friday, October 17, 2003 - link

    Hey #8, maybe it's because NVIDIA sucks. Even when they do match the performance of ATI, the image quality is lower anyway. Reply
  • Anonymous User - Friday, October 17, 2003 - link

    As an owner of a GeForce2 Ultra (a card that continues to hold its own!), just about *any* card today is going to be a noticeable performance gain. Based on the fact that I can get the 9600 XT for $200 with Half Life 2, and I could get the 9600 Pro for $150 (w/o HL2), I'm gonna run out and grab me an XT.

    btw: I ran the FF XI benchmark last night and scored 1650 on high resolution and 2444 on low resolution (on an Athlon 1.4GHz, 512MB PC2100 DDR RAM, and a GeForce 2 Ultra)... heh, a far cry from the 5000+ generated from the 9600 XT.
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 16, 2003 - link

    It's stupid not to test ALL video cards using the best system possible, otherwise you can't isolate performance differences, in fillrate, etc.

    Duh!
    Reply
  • rms - Thursday, October 16, 2003 - link

    Inquirer says a newer considerably faster 9600XT is coming out:
    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12161

    rms
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 16, 2003 - link

    The packaged benchmark in Halo? I sure wish I could find it....
    Any help would be appreciated.
    Reply
  • AlteX - Thursday, October 16, 2003 - link

    #52, I didn't say AT should test the cards on all the possible systems or on the exact system I intend to buy. I just said that it seems more appropriate to me if they test the mainstream cards on a typical mainstream system and the high-end cards on a typical high-end system.

    It seems weird to me that a dude would shell out say almsot $800 for an Athlon 64 FX just to get crippled by a $200 video card. I think that most "real-world" systems have components that all belong to a similar price/performance range (low-end/mainstream/high-end), and testing a mainstream video card with a high-end CPU won't really show "real-world" performance, even though real games are used.

    What interests me personally (and maybe many other mainstream gamers ;)) is what is the cheapest mainstream gfx card with which I can still get playable framerates at nice IQ settings in the tested games rather than how all these GPUs compare to one another, which is more of an "academic research" than "practical information"... but that's just my very humble opinion... :)
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 16, 2003 - link

    Hey, just curious, I need a PCI only video card. What's reccomended for this type of application?
    IE: A good cheap well rounded video card with PCI?
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 16, 2003 - link

    #51 It is not my monitor. A Radeon 9000 Pro does not show this problem and neither does a GeoForce2 MX or Matrox G200. Another monitor showed the same problem with those two Radeon 9600 Pro cards.

    The moire effect is caused by the monitor, but I was not referring to that.
    Reply
  • Revolutionary - Thursday, October 16, 2003 - link

    Update for 9500 Pro lovers:

    I just checked out HotHarware's review of the 9600XT.

    On Unreal Tournament 2003 Citadel FlyBy, at 1024x 768, "maximized graphical (sic) settings", and no AA/AF, the 9600XT scored 111.38 average FPS.

    On my 9500 Pro, at the same resolution, using HardOCP's High Quality settings (which I am assuming are similar to HotHardware's "maximized" custom INI settings) I get 119.44.

    Its not a lot, and its not as scientific a comparison as I'd like to make, but in UT2K3, anyway, the 9500 Pro seems to still top the 9600 line.
    Reply
  • Revolutionary - Thursday, October 16, 2003 - link

    #37
    The Zalman heatpipes are the way to go. I've got one on my 9500 Pro and its passive (no fan). The fan bracket that comes with it can be used to attach an 80 or 90mm fan easily.

    #48
    I don't think its practical a handful of dudes to try to scale all their tests to a variety of different platforms. They aren't interested in telling you exactly how well it is going to perform in your system based on your systems' specs, and I'm not interested in reading it. They are going to tell you how well it performs objectively, by isolating the GPU and keeping the rest of the system as advanced as possible-- the constant. Any variation is the result of the variable: the GPU. If you want to know precisely the performance you can expect on your system, buy the system and run the tests. AT's methodology is intended to show you what you might expect, not what you should experience.

    #50
    They stated that they couldn't test the OverDrive OC feature because it isn't supported for the 9600XT in the current drivers.

    As for comments, I too wanted to see the 9500 Pro in there. It typically outperforms the 9600 Pro, and for my money, that's where the real challenge for ATI's mainstream products lies: not in besting the 9700 Pro, but in actually besting the previous generation mainstream product. The 9600P didn't do it. Can the 9600XT? Guess I'll have ot buy one to find out.
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 16, 2003 - link

    #47 ... any card will do that, and the higher the res, the worse the problem -- its your monitor.

    Along with the problem you mentioned, it is also very easy to see the moire effect in your line of crap. that's not vid card eithre.

    your welcome, have a nice day
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 16, 2003 - link

    There is something in the review not clear to me. The 9800XT article made much of the dynamic overclocking feature, while one of the benefits touted for the 9600XT was its .13 process, making it run cooler and which should help overclocking.

    Yet the article mentioned neither dynamic overclocking nor made any attempt to overclock. This should have been done!

    rms
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 16, 2003 - link

    #29, get a life. All big web sites use flash, you'd be idiotic not to. This isn't slashdot, where you can bitch and moan about how evil MS is, how great Linux, and how your pimples pop every time you eat too quickly. Reply
  • AlteX - Thursday, October 16, 2003 - link

    I think there's a problem with testing all these cards on the same machine. Of course, this gives a good competitive analysis, but is this what we really want to see?

    I, for one, want to buy a value gaming system in a month or two. Being a value SYSTEM (not a high-end system with just a value Gfx card), it definitely won't include anything near Athlon64 FX or even DDR400. It will most probably include some mid-range Ahtlon XP (2500+ or so), DDR333, etc. A Radeon 9600 class card would be a perfect fit for such a system.

    And what I'd really like to know is not how Radeon 9600XT compares to Radeon 9800XT on a high-end machine, but how it compares to other mainstream cards on a mainstream machine. Also, I'd like to know how each game is playable on each card. Meaning: what are the maximal IQ settings (resolution, AA/AF settings) that I can use to still get MINIMUM framerate of at least 25-30 FPS.

    Thanks.
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 16, 2003 - link

    I have returned 2 different 9600 Pro cards (Club3D and Hercules) because at high resolutions they show a dark shadow to the right of (black on white) text. At 2048x1536@85 it is terrible. A 9000 Pro does not have this problem. I wonder whether the 9600 XT has this same problem, or that it is fixed, maybe because of the new process.

    The problem is most visible using a pattern of alternating black and white pixels, like this:
    ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 16, 2003 - link

    The truth of the matter is that the nvidia cards are more technologically advanced then the ati cards...(btw I originally owned the 5900u sold it when I saw the hl2 benchmarks and bought a 9800p at best buy, returned it 4 days ago and picked up the 9800xt :) )...I have owned the tnt2, geforce2pro, geforce 4 ti4400, and the 5900u over the course of the last 4 years. In the case of the 5900u vs the 9700/9800 series, the 9800 series is a better version of card then the 5900u why? Nvidia dropped the ball, even with a better manufacturing process, higher core and memory speeds they weren't able to match ati's performance due to the fact they render at 32bit instead of 24....basically they render at a higher scale but they are too slow at 32 to help. If they redesign the core of the chipset to have more shaders I think the nv40 will be an awesome card. I'm hoping they do because ATI's customer service is the worst I have ever experienced. Reply
  • Pointwood - Thursday, October 16, 2003 - link

    What about noise? This is more or less the most important info and I didn't find any info about that.

    If the card isn't close to silent, it's worthless to me.
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 16, 2003 - link

    the 5200 provides directx 9 at a low price Reply
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 16, 2003 - link

    #37
    I couldn't agree with you more...I want the same for my 9700.

    I have to agree with #5
    "Telling people to wait on the 5700 Ultra doesn’t make much sense."

    Seems like paid advertisement to me.

    Wait...blah... I heard that a lot when the 9700 came out and people said wait for NV30. Then again when 9800 came out and people said, wait for NV 40.

    If people are going to buy a card you can wait for something... 1-2 weeks maybe, but damn, If I got the money NOW and I plan to buy a solution NOW, why in the world can we get a good recomendation of what is available NOW, or in the inmediate future? I can understand the 9600pro vs XT dilema, but not when the other option is still a ghost without any presence as we speak.
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    I just want to add my vote to include the 9800SE in future benchmarks. This is looking like the card I will buy to play DX8 and DX9 games, and is within my budget (~$170). Actually, I can't find a better performance/price ratio. Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    Not that I want tsteal the topic of the thread, but I was wondering about those high;y promoted cards from XGI with Volari GPU(s). Has anyone had a chance t use them? If so, how do they fare in comparison to the market leaders? Reply
  • PrinceGaz - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    You can infer how a 9500pro would do by considering it a bit like a slightly faster 9600xt in core speed, but with slower memory. That isn't as daft as it sounds.

    The 9600xt is a 4-pipeline 500mhz core while the 9500pro was an 8-pipeline 275mhz core, so the older 9500pro at default core-speed could be thought of as being a 550mhz 9600xt, before the improvements in the RV350 core over the R300 are considered. I doubt a 9600xt is gonna reach 550mhz easily so the 9500pro should have a slight edge in core-horsepower.

    Memory-wise, the 9600xt should be in front both in memory-speed and efficiency which would suggest, so at least in theory the 9600xt should be somewhat faster than the 9500pro in DX8 titles but not so far ahead when DX9 shaders are used intensively.

    I still think including the 9800se in the benchmarks is essential thanks to its high memory-bandwidth, especially when its over $50 cheaper than a 9700non-pro, let alone the even more expensive 9700pro.
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    hmm...so why wasnt the 9500pro used in the review?
    was there any reason that was given ?
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    good review, good conclusion...i totally agree in almost everything. only overclocking performance wouldve been an interesting addition Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    On a side track, can anyone tell me a decent cooler for the ATi brand of cards? Seems like there is a serious lack of good heatsinks and fan combos for these parts. All I have seen are two different heatpipe applications that seem like a step in the wrong direction. Why can't someone produce a good chunk of copper with a good fan for my 9600 Pro???

    Wiley
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    damm i though that 9600 XT would be great. but all i can see is another product from ati that steals your money. i prefer to buy a 9500 pro Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    Beyond3D benchmarked the 9600XT against the 9500 Pro as well as the 9600 Pro Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    #25: $216 at GameVE. Considering the 9600 XT is $199 though, i think Anand has a point.

    http://www.gameve.com/store/gameve_viewitem.asp?id...

    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    It would have been great if Anand and Derek had put a 9500 Pro to the review. I'm curious how it stacks up against 9600 Pro/XT and 5600 Ultra in all these benchmarks. Does anybody know? Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    I was really hoping to see the 9600XT do better, but the scores are still great for the price range. It's amazing that my 9700-pro, which I bought almost a year ago for $300, still keeps up so well.

    I agree with #26 in regards to anonymous posting. I like it, but if it bothers everybody else, please lift the 'no free e-mail address' requirement, or I, the single greatest poster ever, would no longer be able to post, and Anandtech would lose at least 50% of it's reader base. :) Besides, I really don't mind trolls. It shakes things up.
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    #29, you and me both wish =(

    But remember, why use logic when you can use Flash?
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    Anyone notice that the GeForce5600 Ultra beats out the 9600 Pro, and even the 9600 ProXT, in games that dont use DX (namely they use Open GL)? Like in Wolfenstein, Jedi Academy. I also seem to remeber it winning in Quake 3, in some other reviews I read. It also won in Never Winter Nights; is that an Open GL game too?

    Just seems to me that if Nvidia can fix whatever probelms the Geforce line of cards have with DX, they may prove to be very good cards, as open gl seems to suggest. Just a thought.
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    Dear Anand Lal Shimpi & Derek Wilson,

    As I can't see the benchmark graphs I can't extract any useful information from this review. Please don't ever use Flash in your reviews again.

    Thank you.
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    Oh, yeah, thanks for including the Ti4200. Lessthanthree. Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    It was the Radeon 9500 plain that could be modded, not the 9500 Pro, you NITRATE-OXIDIZING FIEND

    The 9500 Pro was quite a buy, though, never mind modding.
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    I've seen 9700 non-pro's going for around $200... Considering the performance hike from overclocking and the ability to just overclock/flash the NP to a Pro, I'd say the 9700 is a better deal than the 9600XT. :)

    Anonymous Posting: As I've said before, I'm unable to procure an email address that isn't blocked under AT's anti-freemail signup requirement, so I'm out of luck in replying to these entries if they lock it to unsubscribed users. :/

    Lastly, I use a Ti4200 and I'm satisfied to see my Ti4200 putting out 28fps in Halo... On the other hand, I'd like to hear from the AT folks after they've played Halo for about an hour or so using 45.23 Dets with a 4200 clock of 265/545, because I've experienced game-ruining artifacting that V-sync can't correct... And no other game has the same error, so it's not the Dets or the clock speeds that's causing it (to my knowledge).
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    i think you can find the 9700pro at a few places for around $220 Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    Have I missed something in the pricing of these cards? "Given the very low price of the Radeon 9700 Pro we'd strongly suggest buying a 9700 Pro over a Radeon 9600 XT". A quick check on pricewatch indicates that very low price to be $249.00. Has the accepted price of a midrange card gone that high? Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    Agreed to 22, this Anonymous posting system does nothing but feed the trolls Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    Yawn.. the article responses have certainly gone to shit ever since this new reply and comment system was added. Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    #20-sorry that you're an idiot Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    Sorry but these scores are rubbish Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    Is there a particular reason why a 9500pro card isn't included in these reviews. It seems at least as worthy as the the Ti4200, or I could be just biased because I have a 9500pro. Either way, if you could include it in future reviews it'd be appreciated. Reply
  • PrinceGaz - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    I agree with #4, the 9800se should be included as it is in the price range. Its widely available and radically different from the 9600pro/xt and fx5600ultra as its got a full 256-bit memory bus. That should certainly help with DX8 titles but its relatively slow four-pipeline (by default) core clocked at 325MHz could be a problem with future shader-intensive DX9 games. Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    Man I love to see how well the 9700 Pro still holds it own after all this time. What a great card! Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    i remember an article where some guy from ATI said that this card would outperform the 9700 pro. i had serious doubts about such claim and kind of laughed about it.

    and i guess that i was right, as it does not outperform the 9700pro.



    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    THANKS FOR USING ALL CAPS #8!!

    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    homeworld 2 ran just fine on my radeon 9500 pro...I'm running the 3.7's though... Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    /me pets my modded 9500np->9700pro Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    Nvidia will be back. Not that I care. As long as I can buy a decent card from someone I don't care who it comes from. Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    Any idiot who "built computers for a living" should know better than to shout. Especially in the presence of his superiors. Check the settings again moron. They often AA/AF on and off, as well as V-sync off etc. If you had time to benchmark your systems with all these variables then you had too much time on your hands. Hence the "built" not build. Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    Before anyone else beats me to it,

    NVIDIA HAS FAILED

    sorry, just had to say it.
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    #8 = Troll Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    I CAN'T UNDERSTAND HOW THEY GOT SUCH LOW SCORES ON THE GEFROCE FX 5600 ULTRA

    I BUILT COMPUTERS FOR A LIVING AND OFTEN BENCHMARK THESE SYSTEMS FOR MYSELF

    TAKE GUNMETAL FOR EXAMPLE
    THE 5600 ULTRA SCORED 14.5FPS

    ON A ATHLON XP 2600 KT400 DDR333 GEFORCE FX 5600 NON-ULTRA I GET 25FPS

    NOT TO MENTION I GET 47FPS ON A 5900

    HOW IS IT THAT WITH SUPERIOR HARDWARE THEY SCORED %40 LOWER?

    WHAT BULLSHIT IS THIS...
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    #4

    If we are talking about <$2.00 burritos, how about including some tacos? Does it make sense? Tacos are cheeper because of the hard, quite unedible shell. However, because a burrito can be warmed, the shell is of soft phsophate.
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    How do you get an FPS rating from WarCraft 3? Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    Enough of the speculation of when NVIDA products will come out. May I point you to a quote from the Radeon 9700 Pro review:
    "NV30 will be out around December"

    The product didn't actually make its way out until March, and even in limited volumes then.

    Telling people to wait on the 5700 Ultra doesn’t make much sense.
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    If we are talking about <$200 cards, how about include the 9800se. It can be had for $170 and it seems like it would be a decent performer, especially if overclocked. Can we also include the 9800se (non-pro) in future reviews?
    thanks
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    As an owner of a Geforce 4 ti4200, I apreciate having it included in the lineup, as it shows me that unless I have the cash to dish out for a 9700+, it's not realy worth it :) Great review! Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    A 100Mhz increase in core clock frequency! The benifit of buying this card becomes apparent in future titles, not current ones. My guess is the gap between 9600XT and 9700 pro will close significantly in Half-Life2 or Doom3 =).

    I also truely hope the GeforceFX 5700 will beable to dish out more damage then the 5600. No fun buying from just one company.

    As for me, I doubt ill find a reason to upgrade my 9500pro for quite some time. Anyone who bought a card with the R3XX on it should not upgrade until DX10 comes out.
    Reply
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link

    bad link:

    page:
    http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1904...
    says:
    Halo Performance but goes to Homeworld 2.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now