Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

wat the fugging....

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 3, 2006 3:35:07 PM

Ok so I ended up getting a 9600xt and happily installed. all is well and games are running better. So now I am telling everybody about my new toy and my friend says that his 6800gt will whoop my 9600xt. I was like nope cause gt=sucks and xt=awesome plus mine runs at 500mhz and his runs at 350mhz. So he said we should have a showdown and so I say sure since I'm sure mine will win. Well long story short, his card DID whoop mine...wtf??? How cood this happen and now my happyness has turned to sadness about my new card. Plz explain how a 350mhz card can win against a 500mhz??? It's like a ford beating a corvette. I need to know, thx guys :cry: 

More about : wat fugging

December 3, 2006 3:35:56 PM

Quote:
Ok so I ended up getting a 9600xt and happily installed. all is well and games are running better. So now I am telling everybody about my new toy and my friend says that his 6800gt will whoop my 9600xt. I was like nope cause gt=sucks and xt=awesome plus mine runs at 500mhz and his runs at 350mhz. So he said we should have a showdown and so I say sure since I'm sure mine will win. Well long story short, his card DID whoop mine...wtf??? How cood this happen and now my happyness has turned to sadness about my new card. Plz explain how a 350mhz card can win against a 500mhz??? It's like a ford beating a corvette. I need to know, thx guys :cry: 


oh plus 9 > 6 so mine should be 3 levels over his, strike three
December 3, 2006 3:46:17 PM

Well,
the 6800s are newer and better technoogy, and generation of cards.

6800GT also has more pipelines, so you cannot compare based on clock speeds.

Anyway, the 6800GT kills a 9600XT.
Related resources
December 3, 2006 4:05:31 PM

Here's the deal:

The 9600XT is built by ATI. The 6800GT is built by nVidia. The numbers do not correspond to performance; same goes for the letter suffixes. The 9600XT is one generation behind the 6800GT. It was designed to compete with the GeForceFX generation of cards. The ATI X series was designed to compete with the GeForce6 series of cards, like the 6800GT. So the 6800GT has better tech, more pixelpipelines, and other stuff over your 9600XT. For the final nail in the coffin for your card, the 9600XT is a mid-range older-tech card, while the 6800GT is a high-end newer tech card. Your 9600XT gets pWned.
December 3, 2006 4:10:55 PM

nicely put... i had a 9600xt... moved to a 6800 ultra... was amazed, even though the ultra now is crap compared to the 8800's... (which isnt is good as a 9600 right? 9600>8800...?)
December 3, 2006 4:33:32 PM

Quote:
Ok so I ended up getting a 9600xt and happily installed. all is well and games are running better. So now I am telling everybody about my new toy and my friend says that his 6800gt will whoop my 9600xt. I was like nope cause gt=sucks and xt=awesome plus mine runs at 500mhz and his runs at 350mhz. So he said we should have a showdown and so I say sure since I'm sure mine will win. Well long story short, his card DID whoop mine...wtf??? How cood this happen and now my happyness has turned to sadness about my new card. Plz explain how a 350mhz card can win against a 500mhz??? It's like a ford beating a corvette. I need to know, thx guys :cry: 

Ok here it goes first of all when we are talking Nvidia and ATi it goes like this
Nvidia= GT -great ; XT- CRAP
ATi + XT- GREAT ; GT- CRAP
its funny cus they insult each other actually and
your ATI 9600xt has for pipelines and a 128bit interface while his
GF 6800GT has a 12( i think correct me if i am wrong) pipelines and a 256bit interface
and even gddr3 memory( correct me again if I'm Wrong)
Also why do you care if you are better.. did you enjoy your card before you found out with was not as good as his? and Was it playing the games you liked before?
If so ... then just forget about it and keep playing :) 
December 3, 2006 4:58:32 PM

Quote:
ATi + XT- GREAT ; GT- CRAP

Shows what you know. :roll:
December 3, 2006 5:25:42 PM

Oh god man. Don't ever go to Wally World and buy a graphics card! Heh :o  They seem to be what you'd call computer illiterate... or outdated :wink:
December 3, 2006 5:32:23 PM

Quote:
ATi + XT- GREAT ; GT- CRAP

Shows what you know. :roll:
Explain yourself please?
December 3, 2006 5:38:05 PM

Quote:
Oh god man. Don't ever go to Wally World and buy a graphics card! Heh :o  They seem to be what you'd call computer illiterate... or outdated :wink:

In fact, don't ever buy ANYTHING from Wally World! :D 
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2006 5:43:19 PM

Quote:
ATi + XT- GREAT ; GT- CRAP

Shows what you know. :roll:
Explain yourself please?

i have two 68gt,s and in say 3dmark05 they score 10000. in sli.
prozacs (single)x1900GT probably scores about the same.
December 3, 2006 5:50:40 PM

Well, that's not exactly apples to apples. melarcky's point is that in ATI terms XT = one of the most powerful cards in the line and GT = not as powerful. In nV terms GT = more powerful card in the line than XT. So the theory is that they are "making fun of eachother" or something.
December 3, 2006 5:57:13 PM

Quote:

Nvidia= GT -great ; XT- CRAP
ATi + XT- GREAT ; GT- CRAP


Translation = Fanboyism :roll: :lol: 
December 3, 2006 6:05:05 PM

Quote:

Nvidia= GT -great ; XT- CRAP
ATi + XT- GREAT ; GT- CRAP


Translation = Fanboyism :roll: :lol: 
omg its not fanboyism its just shows you that .... ATi makes fun of Nvidia's GT line and Nvidia makes fun of ATi's line
How can we forget the GF6800XT its crap
while as the ATI 800XT is good...
Or the Ati 1900gt is a good card but still now as good as its XT series
And the Geforce 7900GT is better than the ati 1900gt last time i checked...
i am not a fan boy at all? I don't get how you understood that.
December 3, 2006 6:08:33 PM

Quote:
Well, that's not exactly apples to apples. melarcky's point is that in ATI terms XT = one of the most powerful cards in the line and GT = not as powerful. In nV terms GT = more powerful card in the line than XT. So the theory is that they are "making fun of eachother" or something.

EXACTLY
at least 1 person gets what I am trying to say
December 3, 2006 6:40:14 PM

I understood what you meant melarcky!

Best,

3Ball
December 3, 2006 6:43:55 PM

Quote:
I understood what you meant melarcky!

Best,

3Ball

cool :)  at least some people do :) 
December 3, 2006 7:15:21 PM

Quote:
cool Smile at least some people do Smile


me too :wink: but is that actually how you spell "melarky?"

anyway, even me, in my general noobisness, saw the big fault in the op's post. it is a forehead-slapper type of predicament. but, in essence, thats what toms is here for: people on this site, and these forums particularly, try to prevent this thing from happening.

moral of the story is, bigger is not always better, and it never hurts to ask someone and hedge your bet.
December 3, 2006 7:24:57 PM

No but i don't care... i have had this Nickname for 2 years in games... and thank god there is Tomshardware because with out THG I wouldn't know the difference from a CPU and a VGA
December 3, 2006 7:33:20 PM

lol yeah, i owe alot to tom's. without you guys, and the main site, i wouldn't be able to make fun of my friend for fuckin' up his c2d build as much as he did! thanks guys! :lol: 

yeah, i was just curious about the name, sorry if i struck a nerve or anything, i was just curious. firefox didnt' like its spelling, but didn't have a better suggestion either. oh well. i'm the kinda guy that makes a new name like twice a week... just to fit the mood.... its fun to be expressive that way, but its also hell when you're trying to meet your pals in-game, and they are looking for your last nickname... lol
December 3, 2006 7:48:25 PM

Quote:
nicely put... i had a 9600xt... moved to a 6800 ultra... was amazed, even though the ultra now is crap compared to the 8800's... (which isnt is good as a 9600 right? 9600>8800...?)



No one seems to have addressed this... Your assumption is WROOONG!

FX 5700 Ultra < 6800 Ultra < 7900 GTX < 8800 GTX
9600 XT < X850 PE/X1800 XT < X1900 XT < R600's

9600 XT corresponds to FX 5700 Ultra, X850 PE and X1800 XT to 6800 ultra, and so forth. Just because the 9600 has a higher number then the 8800 doesn't mean it's better. Also, that logic from before sounds pretty flawed. "6800 ultra owns a 9600 XT, the 8800 owns the 6800 ultra, but the 9600 XT owns the 8800 right?"


Rule of thumb: Pipelines x Clock speed = semi decent idea of GPU's power. In the case before, 9600 XT = 500 MHz * 4 pipes, the 6800 is 350 MHz * 16 pipes. 6800 has more raw power ;) 
December 3, 2006 7:50:44 PM

Very true, very true. Tom's Hardware can be also called a stepping stone for those developing their own hardware and review sites.
December 3, 2006 8:11:21 PM

You also have the problem that the 9600 was a mid level card. 9800 was top of the line. It would better compare to the nVidia 5500-5700 cards.
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2006 8:15:27 PM

LOL, your friend must have been downright laughing himself silly inside. No offense meant, but those cards are not even close to each other.

The 9600XT was a nice midrange card 3 years ago. It's a generation older than the 6800GT, which was a higher end card in it's generation. The architecture is completely different so you can't compare clock speeds. He has 16-pipes and a 256-bit memory interface, while you have 4 pipelines and a 128-bit memory interface. So right off the bat look at 1/4 the pipelines and 1/2 the memory interface bandwidth. Clockspeeds can't even put a dent in that gap. Anyway, even the midrange 6600GT would spank the 9600XT. Matter of fact, the only 128-bit cards that can beat a 6800GT are the 7600GT and X1650XT, which are the current top of the line in their midrange series ( GF 76xx and Radeon X16xx).

For fun just so you can trust the results you saw, look at a couple examples:

Farcry : 42.9fps for the 6800GT 11.4 for the 9600XT.
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/digest3d/0705/itogi...

Doom 3 : 42.6 fps for the 6800GT, 9.1 fps for the 9600XT.
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/digest3d/0705/itogi...

As you can see, at settings that are still playable on the 6800GT, the 6800GT offers 4-5 times the performance of the 9600XT. But at least on the bright side, your friend payed ALOT more for his card than you did for yours.
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2006 8:17:57 PM

Quote:
X850 PE and X1800 XT to 6800 ultra


WTF are you talking about!?!

The X1800XT kills both of those cards and is bette rthan the GF7800GTX it was put up against. Your statement doesn't help the confusion.
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2006 8:22:14 PM

Isn't this what happened to you when you bought your 9600 pro? :tongue:
December 3, 2006 8:40:09 PM

wow, I just checked back in and after reading all of this I feel like I learnd alot. all day i have been installing new drivers and trying to overclock cause i thought i could beat him that way. i now see that's impossible. but now I'm worreyd cause i am getting weird squares in my games and it's slower than before! what did I do? plz help!!!
December 3, 2006 8:47:44 PM

let hope you didnt over clock your vga . put everything back on default and then see if not get an extra fan and just add it to the card for cooling..
wow do you really want to beat this friend of your's sounds more like an enemy
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2006 8:54:12 PM

Yeah, but then again I knew eventually my R9600P would be better than that FX5900U because 9600>5900, and I was right... eventually. :twisted:

Of course I knew there were issues with the R9500 series, but I think in my own heart I won one little victory, although I knew from the start it was never going to replace the R9500P.
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2006 8:56:07 PM

What do the squares look like and when do they appear?

You may have fried your card, but how did you overclock, just slide the sliders up without testing first?
December 3, 2006 9:21:26 PM


omg its not fanboyism[/quote]

Fanboyism on the companies parts. Heh :oops:  Know what you mean. They try to make each others sh*t look bad.
December 3, 2006 10:03:56 PM

The nVidia 5xxx line had problems but I would still guess that a 5900 would beat out the ATI 9600. Go up to a 9800 and then I would put my money on ATI.

Today, a 9600 is under $50 where a 5900 still pulls around $100.
December 3, 2006 10:36:19 PM

i was wondering why this got on the popular topics list...

haha i suppose someone replied to it and realised it's two years old :p  shame on you...
December 3, 2006 11:12:50 PM

Quote:
i was wondering why this got on the popular topics list...

haha i suppose someone replied to it and realised it's two years old :p  shame on you...


Check the dates. It was started today.
December 4, 2006 12:37:01 AM

:roll:
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2006 12:46:49 AM

Quote:
but how did you overclock, just slide the sliders up without testing first?


is that why my computer doesnt work? :lol: 
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2006 1:03:32 AM

Quote:
The nVidia 5xxx line had problems but I would still guess that a 5900 would beat out the ATI 9600. Go up to a 9800 and then I would put my money on ATI.

Today, a 9600 is under $50 where a 5900 still pulls around $100.

The 5900 would easily take DX8 games, but try forcing a FX5900 to run DX9 in HL2, and the 9600XT crushes it : http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2281&p=4
December 4, 2006 1:10:47 AM

Doh, well I'm gonna go curl up in a ball and hide in a corner for a while, gimme a yell if ya need me.
December 4, 2006 1:25:30 AM

i guess what you are trying to say to your friend is that a 9600 is better than a 1900 or 8800 bcuz of the fact that the number is higher. right?
December 4, 2006 3:12:29 AM

I Bought My DVD-Burner (HP DVD640) At Wal-Mart In October 2005 And My DVD-ROM (LG 16x) In August 2002 And There Both Still Chugging Along In My Current PC (Specs Below) At This Very Moment, As I Type This Message, Ones Installing Bothers In Arms - Road To Hill 30 And Im Making A Backup Of My CARS DVD in The DVD-Burner And my Second WD800 In My RAID-0 Array Is Also Form Wal-Mart (My Little Brother Stole It 8O ) But No I Wouldnt Buy A Videocard From Wal-Mart
December 4, 2006 3:42:03 AM

Finding a good (physical) store to buy a GPU from is a pain. BestBuy, Circuit City, and others only seem to carry entry to mid level cards at a high mark up. CC still sels 5200s and only carrys up to 7600gt (@$200 8O ).
December 4, 2006 4:11:27 AM

the R9600pro will destroy any Gf5xxx series card in dx9 no matter what game. I have seen it..
God I hate the 5 series
December 4, 2006 7:08:33 PM

Quote:
the R9600pro will destroy any Gf5xxx series card in dx9 no matter what game. I have seen it..
God I hate the 5 series


Man are you a die hard ATI fan or what?

Both cards are dx9 sm2 and from the same general time period.

I have had a hard time finding performance charts for cards that old but I did find some specs. As you can see if you compare pixel pipes and fill rate the 9600pro is much closer to a 5500 then the 5950.

If you look at the differences within just one comany you will notice the large drop off in performance between the mid end cards and the top of the line ones. Both the 5950 and 9800xt would beat out the next generation's mid level cards like the x600 or 6600, but don't hold a candle to the x850 or 6800.

I game my old 8900pro to a friend because his computer came with some low end but current card that some games wouldn't even load with.

My point is don't try to compare low end cards to the high end ones.

Here is some data from nVidea and ATI webpages.

GeForce FX 5950 Ultra: GeForce FX 5500
Graphics Core 256-bit 256-bit
Memory Interface* 128-bit 128-bit.
Memory Bandwidth* 30.4GB/sec. 6.4 GB/sec.
Fill Rate 3.8 billion texels/sec 1.1 billion texels/sec.
Vertices per Second 356 million 68 million
Memory Data Rate 950 MHz -
Pixels per Clock 8 4
Textures per Pixel 16 16
Dual RAMDACs 400 MHz 350 MHz (not dual???)

Radeon 9600 XT Radeon 9600 PRO Radeon 9600 Radeon 9600 SE
Frame Buffer 128MB DDR 128MB DDR 128MB DDR 128MB DDR
Memory Interface 128-bit 128-bit 128-bit 64-bit
Rendering Pipelines 4 4 4 4
Pixel Fillrate (Gpixels/sec) 2.0 1.6 1.3 1.3
Engine Clock (MHz) 500 400 325 325
Memory Clock (MHz) 300 300 200 200

Radeon 9800 XT Radeon 9800 PRO Radeon 9800 PRO Radeon 9800
Frame Buffer 256MB DDR 256MB GDDR2 128MB DDR 128MB DDR
Memory Interface 256-bit 256-bit 256-bit 256-bit
Rendering Pipelines 8 8 8 8
Pixel Fillrate (Gpixels/sec) 3.3 3.04 3.04 2.6
Engine Clock (MHz) 412 380 380 325
Memory Clock (MHz) 730 700 680 580

EDIT: Well I tabbed everything out into a nice table but it doens't seem to post like that. Have fun trying to read it.
December 4, 2006 7:17:45 PM

Quote:
the R9600pro will destroy any Gf5xxx series card in dx9 no matter what game. I have seen it..
God I hate the 5 series


Man are you a die hard ATI fan or what?

Both cards are dx9 sm2 and from the same general time period.

I have had a hard time finding performance charts for cards that old but I did find some specs. As you can see if you compare pixel pipes and fill rate the 9600pro is much closer to a 5500 then the 5950.

If you look at the differences within just one comany you will notice the large drop off in performance between the mid end cards and the top of the line ones. Both the 5950 and 9800xt would beat out the next generation's mid level cards like the x600 or 6600, but don't hold a candle to the x850 or 6800.

I game my old 8900pro to a friend because his computer came with some low end but current card that some games wouldn't even load with.

My point is don't try to compare low end cards to the high end ones.

Here is some data from nVidea and ATI webpages.

GeForce FX 5950 Ultra: GeForce FX 5500
Graphics Core 256-bit 256-bit
Memory Interface* 128-bit 128-bit.
Memory Bandwidth* 30.4GB/sec. 6.4 GB/sec.
Fill Rate 3.8 billion texels/sec 1.1 billion texels/sec.
Vertices per Second 356 million 68 million
Memory Data Rate 950 MHz -
Pixels per Clock 8 4
Textures per Pixel 16 16
Dual RAMDACs 400 MHz 350 MHz (not dual???)

Radeon 9600 XT Radeon 9600 PRO Radeon 9600 Radeon 9600 SE
Frame Buffer 128MB DDR 128MB DDR 128MB DDR 128MB DDR
Memory Interface 128-bit 128-bit 128-bit 64-bit
Rendering Pipelines 4 4 4 4
Pixel Fillrate (Gpixels/sec) 2.0 1.6 1.3 1.3
Engine Clock (MHz) 500 400 325 325
Memory Clock (MHz) 300 300 200 200

Radeon 9800 XT Radeon 9800 PRO Radeon 9800 PRO Radeon 9800
Frame Buffer 256MB DDR 256MB GDDR2 128MB DDR 128MB DDR
Memory Interface 256-bit 256-bit 256-bit 256-bit
Rendering Pipelines 8 8 8 8
Pixel Fillrate (Gpixels/sec) 3.3 3.04 3.04 2.6
Engine Clock (MHz) 412 380 380 325
Memory Clock (MHz) 730 700 680 580

EDIT: Well I tabbed everything out into a nice table but it doens't seem to post like that. Have fun trying to read it.

ok first of all if I was a DIE HARD ATI fan why would I have a GF6600?
Also don't look at the Specs but more at the Charts look at any GF 5xxx's Card in HL2 with DX9 and you will what I am talking about...
December 4, 2006 7:43:57 PM

I'm sorry, you aren't an ATI fan. I had assumed that your systems specs hadn't been updated in a while.

The bigger questions is who cares? We are talking about five year old equipment.
December 4, 2006 7:46:33 PM

Quote:
I'm sorry, you aren't an ATI fan. I had assumed that your systems specs hadn't been updated in a while.

The bigger questions is who cares? We are talking about five year old equipment.

Don't Sweat it .... And I wouldn't care if we were talking about State of the Art Hardware because its just hardware.
December 4, 2006 7:53:31 PM

Quote:

God I hate the 5 series


Agreed.
December 4, 2006 7:53:40 PM

Quote:

your ATI 9600xt has for pipelines and a 128bit interface while his
GF 6800GT has a 12( i think correct me if i am wrong) pipelines and a 256bit interface


6800 GT actually has 16 pipelines, not 12.

Vs. the poor 4-pipe 9600 XT it isn't even a contest...

A Radeon X800 XL would have been a good match against the 6800 GT.
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2006 8:00:08 PM

Quote:
A Radeon X800 XL would have been a good match against the 6800 GT.


agreed i have one of each. very close competition.
December 4, 2006 8:16:46 PM

Quote:

your ATI 9600xt has for pipelines and a 128bit interface while his
GF 6800GT has a 12( i think correct me if i am wrong) pipelines and a 256bit interface


6800 GT actually has 16 pipelines, not 12.

Vs. the poor 4-pipe 9600 XT it isn't even a contest...

A Radeon X800 XL would have been a good match against the 6800 GT.
I at first thought it was 16 but then rethought it over and thought it was only for the GF6800Ultra's well thanks for the extra info
I wouldn't mind a GF6800GT right now
!