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


View All Comments

  • arturnowp - Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - link

    I really don't like the conclusion. You can always say spend same more. You have a video card for 79$, just add 20$ and get something faster. But how much faster? 20$ it's 25% more. Does 9600GT provide 25% more performance? What's powor consumption of 9600GT. Not to mention this card is simply much bigger. We're at 100$ but why not spend around 125-130$... I'm sure most buyers want add extra money just to have something quicker if it doesn't provide "next level" of performance. Also companies like Dell or even Apple with chose smaller cards for their's computers. Reply
  • neomoco - Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - link

    we all know the problem comments about biased articles on anand
    i haven`t made one yet but the final words on this article are hilarious ...
    my opinion is the final words should have started with something like this :

    wooowww impressive card ... amazing price/performance ... highly recommended at its price ... it decimates everything nvidia offer ... same performance if not > as 9600gso at lower price ...

    whenever they said something good about this card(rarely)they imediatly put brackets and add something negative ex:

    "Unfortunately, that's a more difficult question to answer than it was with the higher end parts." -lol
    "The hardware does outperform the competition at the same price point (though that isn't saying much)" -hmm

    and much more ... i may not know too much but my opinion is this amazing card should have recieved a much better review.

    let me give you an example of a nvidia review article title ... i wont say wich one it was

    "NVIDIA GeForce xxxxx : The Only Card That Matters"
    and an article introduction
    "It's really not often that we have the pleasure to review a product so impressively positioned. The xxxx is a terrific part, and it is hitting the street at a terrific price.Whatever the reason for the xxxxx, we are glad of its existence. This truly is the part to beat in terms of value. "

    i`ve never seen something even close about amd products and they had great products so to me your articles seem a little biased but we already got used to it . maby im imagining things

  • RagingDragon - Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - link

    In this article, the reviewer pans the Nvidia 9500GT and 9600GSO even more severely than the AMD 4670. Also his reviews of the AMD 4850 and 4870 were extremely positive. So I don't think it's fair to say he's biased against AMD or in favour of Nvidia. However, he obviously has a hate on for all current < $100 cards... Nvidia's 9500GT is particularly galling - it's just a re-rehashed 7600GT! And the 9600GSO seems pointless, I just checked prices at a local online store and found EVGA 9600GSO cards costing more than their 9600GT cards.

    But I think the review is too harsh on the AMD 4670, which resoundingly beat everything else in it's price range, and it is a big step in the right direction. These cards don't do what I want (1920x1200 at high details settings), but that doesn't mean they're junk, just that I'm outside the target market. While they offer little value to me, they should appeals to others with different needs/wants.
  • pattycake0147 - Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - link

    Did you read the 4870x2 review? It definitely had and bias against the 4870x2. Reply
  • Loknar - Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - link

    Anandtech is not Pro-Nvidia, if that's what you want to imply.

    I remember the days of the Radeon, when the likes of TomsHardware was still drooling over Geforce2, and Anand chose to painfully explain the issue of image quality - which other reporters were too lazy to attempt. Same goes for the difficult and technicalities detailing the superiority of the Athlon XP over the Pentium 4; Anand took the rough route when other sites found it easier to say "Pentium is awesome, dude".

    You should consider the 'bias' in some articles is in fact "enthousiasm" about the new product/technology - which makes for a more fun-to-read article than blog-like constant bickering.
  • toyota - Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - link

    this is a GREAT card for oem comps. its small and the user can stick with the stock power supply and get a massive increase in fps over integrated graphics. plus these cards will probably be just $50 in a few weeks. Reply
  • drfelip - Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - link

    I performs better than a 3850 and uses less power. When I need to upgrade my 3450 I think I'm going for a 4670. As you can see I don't need much 3D power, though. Reply
  • needystevie - Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - link

    Does this card support hybrid tech? Reply
  • scruffypup - Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - link

    AR, a 3870 can be had for $90-$100 Reply
  • toyota - Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - link

    well the 4670 is only $80 MSRP and will likely be much cheaper in a few days and also likely have rebates or sales. plus the 4670 fits the needs of most oem comp users. its tiny, runs cool, and doesnt need external power. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now