Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GeForce 9600GT - HUGE Performance increase!

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 10, 2008 10:12:07 PM

Did anyone check out Fudzilla.com today? They got pictures of the GeForce 9600GT and this card is a Quantum leap in performance over the 8600GT. (unlike the nonexistent increase in performance from the 7600GT to the 8600GT which only offered DX10 capability but no extra fraps in DX9 applications)

The 9600GT will compete directly with the ATI 3850 cards. It will have 384MB of onboard 256 bit ram and the sucker scores over 10k on the 3D Mark06. It is built on a 65nm spin off of the G92 (called G94-300) and it going to be super stiff competition for ATI.

This card is expected to be released in Mid-February.

Even if you have no plans to buy from Nvidia wait until 30 days after the 9600GT has been released before buying a card. That should be enough time to allow AMD to drop their prices on the 3850 series to compete with Nvidia.

Here are the details on the GeForce 9600GT. This card looks BAD A$$! Expect very competitive pricing from Nvidia on this one.

The 9600GT story on Fudzilla.com:
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...

Pictures of the Geforce 9600GT:
http://en.expreview.com/?p=184

Oh, also the 8800GS cards are coming out also. I imagine they will compete with the 3870 cards.
January 10, 2008 10:47:40 PM

The 9600GT is looking to be a decent enough card. It will likely debut at the price point of the current HD 3850 and be on par with performance. However, I see no real reason to buy this over an HD 3850, especially seeing that the HD 3850 will scale better in CF.
January 10, 2008 11:03:42 PM

Gotta Love the Naming.
Just something else to confuse Everybody.

The new 9xxx Series card is now About 6th in Performance.

8800GTX>8800GTS 512mb>8800GT 512mb>8800GTS 640MB>8800GT 256MB>8800GTS 320MB>9600GT

Hey, this is nice that NVIDIA is getting a new card in there, but my god I think they are using a random number generator for naming their new cards.
Related resources
January 10, 2008 11:12:38 PM

The 9600GT is looking great. thanks for the information
January 10, 2008 11:20:59 PM

I think the release of the GeForce 9600GT is real exciting news. The standard for Mid-range cards will now be raised dramatically.

Dell offers a lot of computers with the 8600GT as one of their top graphic options for midrange computers (The $800 to $1,400 price range). Now with the 9600GT coming out this is really going to provide the general public (non-PC builders) with a very strong video cards.

This is great news for the PC gaming community. With dramatically stronger video cards being infused in to the general public this will likely influence game developers to re-invest in to PC gaming and keep the graphics of PC games on the same level of consoles or even better.

Example: Madden 2008 is L-O-N-G overdue for a graphics overhaul on the PC. I am hoping that Madden 2009 for the PC will finally be constructed on the XBOX360 engine. The fact that Peter Moore (formerly of XBOX360 and Games for Windows) is now the big man at EA Sports that may very well happen this year.

January 10, 2008 11:26:45 PM

zenmaster said:
Gotta Love the Naming.
Just something else to confuse Everybody.

The new 9xxx Series card is now About 6th in Performance.

8800GTX>8800GTS 512mb>8800GT 512mb>8800GTS 640MB>8800GT 256MB>8800GTS 320MB>9600GT

Hey, this is nice that NVIDIA is getting a new card in there, but my god I think they are using a random number generator for naming their new cards.
I agree with you Zen Master.

Nvidia's new numbering system has ZERO LOGIC!

Why did they do a remake of the 8800GTS on the G92 chip? Tell me that isn't confusing as h3ll for someone who is not as experienced as us. It would had made a world of more sense to had named it the 8850GTS or the 8900GTS.

And what happened to the 8900 Series cards? Nvidia just leaped right over them and went straight to the 9800 Cards.

Yet the new G92 dual chip card (which is basically two 8800GTs) is going to be called the 9800GX2.

What are they thinking?
January 10, 2008 11:27:43 PM

Just reminds me of my ATI radeon 9600 I used to run, still have it too somewhere, lol.
January 10, 2008 11:31:47 PM

I don't see how this is dramatic. ATi already has cards at the same performance and price. Sure, prices may drop a little with nVidia's 9600GT, but it won't be huge and it certainly won't be dramatic. As far as OEM builders... they will replace those 8600GT's with 9400GT's, mark my words.

And exactly what does this launch have to do with Madden 2008/9?
January 10, 2008 11:48:08 PM

SEALBoy said:
I don't see how this is dramatic. ATi already has cards at the same performance and price. Sure, prices may drop a little with nVidia's 9600GT, but it won't be huge and it certainly won't be dramatic. As far as OEM builders... they will replace those 8600GT's with 9400GT's, mark my words.

And exactly what does this launch have to do with Madden 2008/9?
Personally I like ATI. I think their Color Quality is better along with their price/performance ratio. But for some reason the Big Guys (like Dell) seem to gear their entire line up towards Nvidia. Nvidia is currently the industry leader and most of the big brands like Dell, HP, Gateway almost buy Nvidia exclusively.

Walk in to a Best Buy, or a Circuit City or Sam's Club and try to find a OEM computer with an ATI card in it. There are almost NONE! Out of 20 computers there may be 1 or 2 with ATI cards. Even on computers with AMD processors.

Now that Both Nvidia and ATI have cards at the same performance level I think potenial exists that the quality of PC gaming is going to increase. (Not that it is bad right now)

The launch is not directly tied in to Madden '09. It was just an example I was trying to illustrate.

I can understand your logic in the OEMs replacing the 8600GTs with the 9400GTs but not totally sold that it is going to happen. A leap in graphical technology is going to happen for midrange computers at one point or another and I think there is a good chance it may happen this go around or in Fall 2008.

You know when Nvidia has their meetings with the OEMs in March/April that they are going to try to UPSELL and talk them in to replacing the 8600GTs in their line up with their successors the 9600GTs. That is the Marketing Machine of Nvidia. They did not get named Forbes 2007 Company of the Year for nothin.
January 10, 2008 11:59:35 PM

Another mid range card that is supposed to be 256 bit, i hope it's true this time, the 7600gt and 8600gts were supposed to be 256 bit too, also isnt the 8800gs only 192 bit, me thinks this is gonna be a 128 bit card.
a b Î Nvidia
January 11, 2008 12:09:16 AM

zenmaster said:
Gotta Love the Naming.
Just something else to confuse Everybody.



Yeah, based on the naming convention my 5 year old Radeon 9600XT should rock the up coming GeForce 9600GT.

:pt1cable:  :pt1cable:  :pt1cable: 
January 11, 2008 12:12:22 AM

reconviperone1 said:
Another mid range card that is supposed to be 256 bit, i hope it's true this time, the 7600gt and 8600gts were supposed to be 256 bit too, also isnt the 8800gs only 192 bit, me thinks this is gonna be a 128 bit card.
I don't think it is going to be a 128bit card. Ever see a 128bit card score 10,357 on the 3D Mark06?

http://en.expreview.com/?p=184

As quoted from Fudzilla.com today
Quote:
"The good news is that the card is using a 256-bit memory interface as expected, so the mid-range cards have finally gotten that performance boost they needed."
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...
January 11, 2008 12:14:55 AM

rwayne said:

Dell offers a lot of computers with the 8600GT as one of their top graphic options for midrange computers (The $800 to $1,400 price range). Now with the 9600GT coming out this is really going to provide the general public (non-PC builders) with a very strong video cards.


What are the typical watts on those Dell PSU's? 300-350? This card will need at least a 400 watt PSU. I guess the general public can have solid midrange gaming, but these increasing power requirements are shooting up the price of this midrange and negating the improved price/performance profile of this new midrange card.
January 11, 2008 12:22:21 AM

jaguarskx said:
Yeah, based on the naming convention my 5 year old Radeon 9600XT should rock the up coming GeForce 9600GT.

:pt1cable:  :pt1cable:  :pt1cable: 
LOL. Funny. I am glad to know I am not the only one who thinks that way.

I have pondered at times if it would be best for ATI to swallow their pride and realign their card numbering system with Nvidia's in order to help gain market share.

I know it sounds stupid but Face it. If Mr. Average Joe (who doesn't know squat about computers) walks in to a store sees an ATI 1950 card and a NVidia 7600 card he would probably think that the 7600 is a better card because of the higher number.

But then again he could look at an ATI 9250 card and think that it is better than a 7600 card.

ATI did address this issue somewhat by dropping the GT, Pro, XT, and XTX Suffixes and replacing them with XX50 and XX70 numbers but I think they are going to have to do more than that on their Marketing side.

I know I got very confused when I started researching ATI cards.

No doubt though, things are getting better for ATI. However they have a long ways to go.
January 11, 2008 12:52:34 AM

Quote:
Walk in to a Best Buy, or a Circuit City or Sam's Club and try to find a OEM computer with an ATI card in it. There are almost NONE! Out of 20 computers there may be 1 or 2 with ATI cards. Even on computers with AMD processors.


too bad only maybe 4 or 5 out of those 20 would actually have a dedicated graphics card. the rest are integrated.
January 11, 2008 1:08:28 AM

rwayne said:
LOL. Funny. I am glad to know I am not the only one who thinks that way.

I have pondered at times if it would be best for ATI to swallow their pride and realign their card numbering system with Nvidia's in order to help gain market share.

I know it sounds stupid but Face it. If Mr. Average Joe (who doesn't know squat about computers) walks in to a store sees an ATI 1950 card and a NVidia 7600 card he would probably think that the 7600 is a better card because of the higher number.

But then again he could look at an ATI 9250 card and think that it is better than a 7600 card.

ATI did address this issue somewhat by dropping the GT, Pro, XT, and XTX Suffixes and replacing them with XX50 and XX70 numbers but I think they are going to have to do more than that on their Marketing side.

I know I got very confused when I started researching ATI cards.

No doubt though, things are getting better for ATI. However they have a long ways to go.


Most serious PC gamers know their way around videocards. Personally, I'd be more worried for the chap that buys an 8400GS because it says "Extreme Edition" on the box.
January 11, 2008 1:24:17 AM

I still see PCI (Yeah, PCI) FX5500's at Wal-Mart for $100 with some random sign touting the insane performance.
January 11, 2008 1:32:59 AM

metrazol said:
What are the typical watts on those Dell PSU's? 300-350? This card will need at least a 400 watt PSU. I guess the general public can have solid midrange gaming, but these increasing power requirements are shooting up the price of this midrange and negating the improved price/performance profile of this new midrange card.
The lower end Dells or your typical Acer or e-machines typcially have low wattage PSUs in the range of 250W to 350W.

However the Midrange Dells and HPs have power supplies that run from 450 Watts and much higher. I just checked Dell's site tonight for their XPS midrange computers. At $899 they start off with Intel Q6600 processors. You know that thing is backed by a pretty strong PSU.

My boss just bought a Dell XPS system for a $1,100 dollars back in December which came with an AMD 64x2 6000 processor and a Nvidia 8600GT 256MB video card. You know with an 64x2 6000 processor that sucker probably had at the very least a 500Watt power supply.

I went to Dell that night and looked at the machine he got. What I thought was interesting that the leap in price from a 64x2 5200 to a 64x2 5600 was only $50. However the leap from a 64x2 5600 to a 64x2 6000 was an additional $150 bucks! I am sure the only reason for the disportional price increase was to outfit the computer with a stronger power supply and bigger heat sink to satisfy the 125 watt demand of the 64x2 6000 processor vs the 89Watt demand of the 64x2 5600.

I think today's midrange computers are very capable of handling HD3850 or 9600GT cards.

Look at Dells site tonight.

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us...

They refreshed their video card line up.

Now they are offering with their $899 base computers the following cards:
  • 128MB ATI Radeon HD 2400 PRO
  • 256MB Radeon ATI HD 2600 XT
  • 256MB nVidia GeForce 8600 GTS
  • 512MB Nvidia GeForce 8800 GT
    BTW, I am not Pro Dell. Far as I am concerned Building it yourself is where it's at.
    January 11, 2008 7:29:17 PM


    @mumblings about the naming conventions...

    hmm, now why would an inexperience user buy a high end video card after all (8800s mix)? anyone with a good mental condition who wants to buy a new graphics card would actually do an online search, check some benchies, and do some forum lookups to avoid confusion.

    now if someone picks up the more expensive 320mb gts over the 8800gt, its his fault, not nvidias nor the etailer/retailer. its all about responsibility and protecting yourself from being mislead.
    January 11, 2008 7:39:01 PM

    Quote:
    I agree with you Zen Master.

    Nvidia's new numbering system has ZERO LOGIC!

    Why did they do a remake of the 8800GTS on the G92 chip? Tell me that isn't confusing as h3ll for someone who is not as experienced as us. It would had made a world of more sense to had named it the 8850GTS or the 8900GTS.
    No kidding, lol. It leads to comments like this: "lol dont get the 512mb gts, get the 640mb version. it has more memory" It pains me to see recommendations like that in the Homebuilt section. :'( 
    January 11, 2008 8:17:04 PM

    reconviperone1 said:
    Another mid range card that is supposed to be 256 bit, i hope it's true this time, the 7600gt and 8600gts were supposed to be 256 bit too, also isnt the 8800gs only 192 bit, me thinks this is gonna be a 128 bit card.


    The fact that it is a 384MB card suggests it will be 192 bit, and thus, possibly somewhat related to said 8800gs.
    January 11, 2008 8:19:45 PM

    rwayne said:
    It will have 384MB of onboard 256 bit ram and the sucker.......


    Im not sure where you got that part from.

    It really isnt possible for a 256bit architechture to utilize 384mb of RAM...
    January 11, 2008 8:51:12 PM

    rallyimprezive said:
    Im not sure where you got that part from.

    It really isnt possible for a 256bit architechture to utilize 384mb of RAM...


    Is that true? Why not?
    a b Î Nvidia
    January 11, 2008 9:14:32 PM

    rallyimprezive said:
    Im not sure where you got that part from.

    It really isnt possible for a 256bit architechture to utilize 384mb of RAM...


    You beat me to it.

    How do you get 384 out of 256bit using equally spec'd chips?
    Some very odd chip selections and/or pathway issues to achieve that.

    If it is 384MB, then it's likely either 384bit or 192bit, but 256bit would make more sense with a 256/512MB configuration due to the wire/chip ratios. Of course you could have a memory crossbar that allow anything, but it seems very inefficient and at some point the numbers would be higher/lower than 256bit.

    [:wr2:2] PS, if you look at the GPU-Z pic in the link it say 512MB. :hello: 
    January 11, 2008 9:36:37 PM

    http://en.expreview.com/?p=184

    Good to see such a professional test rig, using a cardboard box under the motherboard. ("Hey, don't touch THAT!" and "You coffee spilt WHERE?" not to mention "Ok, who the hell bumped the desk this time!?").
    January 11, 2008 9:46:30 PM

    Pre-release hype over a mid-range card that is basically a substitute in both price and performance for cards already on the market. Real impressive.
    January 11, 2008 10:58:52 PM

    Weren't they planning to release an 8800GS that was supposed to compete with the 3850? If so, what's the point of this card?
    Besides, we have enough great mid-range cards as it is in all price segments.

    Quote:
    Pre-release hype over a mid-range card that is basically a substitute in both price and performance for cards already on the market. Real impressive.

    Exactly.
    January 12, 2008 12:47:12 AM

    rallyimprezive said:
    Im not sure where you got that part from.

    It really isnt possible for a 256bit architechture to utilize 384mb of RAM...
    You appear to be right. I wouldn't know. I am not an expert in that particular area (yet). I was just passing on a direct quote from Fudzilla.com that I assumed would be true. It may had been a misprint on their part. Below is the link.

    http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...
    Quote:
    The good news is that the card is using a 256-bit memory interface as expected, so the mid-range cards have finally gotten that performance boost they needed. Let's hope Nvidia doesn't sit too long on these cards and that the final retail price will be right.

    January 15, 2008 4:05:17 AM

    i wanna see the 9800GT, or the GTX, wonder how smooth crysis will be.
    January 15, 2008 11:21:04 PM

    a 6pack in said:
    i wanna see the 9800GT, or the GTX, wonder how smooth crysis will be.
    Disappointingly it may not be much. I just saw a review the other day where Nvidia was showcasing their Tri-SLI motherboard. They had Three 8800GTXs all running in TRI-SLI.

    The results?

    On max settings in Crysis the game was reported to be running at about 40 Fraps with some dips in the game to as low as 17 fraps.

    Which I think is kind of exciting. I like it when developers design games so graphic intensive that they are pretty much future proof for 5 years.

    Look at Age of Empires 3 for example. That game out like 3 years ago and even today it takes a strong card to run it at max graphics.

    On another note...


    I did see some promising news that the R700 appears like it may be 50% faster or better than the R600. Take that and run 2,3, or even 4 of them in Quad X-Fire then you might have something.

    http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...

    I like your post though. Everyone dreams of the day that smooth frame rates will be available in DX10 for mid range cards.
    January 16, 2008 7:14:26 PM

    rwayne said:
    I agree with you Zen Master.

    Nvidia's new numbering system has ZERO LOGIC!

    Why did they do a remake of the 8800GTS on the G92 chip? Tell me that isn't confusing as h3ll for someone who is not as experienced as us. It would had made a world of more sense to had named it the 8850GTS or the 8900GTS.

    And what happened to the 8900 Series cards? Nvidia just leaped right over them and went straight to the 9800 Cards.

    Yet the new G92 dual chip card (which is basically two 8800GTs) is going to be called the 9800GX2.

    What are they thinking?


    At least they've kept a constant for the 6/7/8 series so far. I always liked the fact that with nvidia, for the most part just looking at the name can give you an idea as to its performance class. The higher the number the better once you get there, the moniker (GS/GT/GTS etc.) plays a role. Without doing research I have no clue what ATI cards are the best. Thanks toms hardware vga charts.

    I wish both companies would go to a more simple "monkey can figure it out" platform. I.E. name the next series the Geforce 9 series, make up a new moniker for each performance class (i.e. GF9 LE, GF9 GS, GF9 GT). I mean though I see what some are saying, some people really buy in to the box art, and are quick to judge on the naming conventions. Some people are just marketers dreams.




    January 16, 2008 7:26:49 PM

    tsd16 said:
    At least they've kept a constant for the 6/7/8 series so far. I always liked the fact that with nvidia, for the most part just looking at the name can give you an idea as to its performance class. The higher the number the better once you get there, the moniker (GS/GT/GTS etc.) plays a role.


    Ati uses the same system that Nvidia does. They just added the 'x' to represent 10,000 after the 9000 series:

    9000 series
    X000 series
    X1000 series
    2000 series (dropped the X)
    3000 series

    The 'hundreds' place is the same as Nvidia: 400 or below is low-end, 500-700 is midrange, 800-900 is top-end

    Ati's suffixes are GT/GTO/PRO/XT/XTX.
    This has recent6ly changed in the 3000 series, as they have replaced this with numbers... a card ending in '50' is what we'd used to call the 'pro', a card ending in '70' is what we'd used to call an 'xt'.
    January 16, 2008 7:39:23 PM

    cleeve said:
    Ati uses the same system that Nvidia does. They just added the 'x' to represent 10,000 after the 9000 series:

    9000 series
    X000 series
    X1000 series
    2000 series (dropped the X)
    3000 series

    The 'hundreds' place is the same as Nvidia: 400 or below is low-end, 500-700 is midrange, 800-900 is top-end

    Ati's suffixes are GT/GTO/PRO/XT/XTX.
    This has recent6ly changed in the 3000 series, as they have replaced this with numbers... a card ending in '50' is what we'd used to call the 'pro', a card ending in '70' is what we'd used to call an 'xt'.


    interesting new info for me!

    January 16, 2008 9:38:43 PM

    I did know all of that either.
    March 18, 2008 11:56:44 AM

    rwayne said:
    Disappointingly it may not be much. I just saw a review the other day where Nvidia was showcasing their Tri-SLI motherboard. They had Three 8800GTXs all running in TRI-SLI.

    The results?

    On max settings in Crysis the game was reported to be running at about 40 Fraps with some dips in the game to as low as 17 fraps.

    Which I think is kind of exciting. I like it when developers design games so graphic intensive that they are pretty much future proof for 5 years.

    Look at Age of Empires 3 for example. That game out like 3 years ago and even today it takes a strong card to run it at max graphics.

    On another note...


    I did see some promising news that the R700 appears like it may be 50% faster or better than the R600. Take that and run 2,3, or even 4 of them in Quad X-Fire then you might have something.

    http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...

    I like your post though. Everyone dreams of the day that smooth frame rates will be available in DX10 for mid range cards.

    RV770 does sound promising, infact after doing all this research im doing a build for a friend and using 2 3870x2 boards. I think he will be okay for a couple of years with that setup.

    me on the other hand am more budget oriented hence the 8800 gt
    March 18, 2008 12:14:57 PM

    SEALBoy said:
    The 9600GT is looking to be a decent enough card. It will likely debut at the price point of the current HD 3850 and be on par with performance. However, I see no real reason to buy this over an HD 3850, especially seeing that the HD 3850 will scale better in CF.


    Do you still think the same? :lol: 
    !