9600GT Benchmarks Pop-Up on Guru3d

It's meant to compete with the 3850 512MB.

It doesn't beat the 8800GT, so I'm a bit disappointed.

Why would it beat an 8800 GT?

The 9600 GT is a castrated G92.

I thought we debunked that in the other thread.

I think he was being sarcastic based on a conversation we had in another thread.

Well to be honest, a 7600GT can beat or match a 6800GT right? So why wouldn't a 9600GT match or beat a 8800GT?

...so goes my twisted thoughts.

I agree, Nvidia needs to get their act together by being beaten.

COME ON ATI! AMD!...DAAMIT!

Maybe because the 7900GTX can mop the floor with an 8600GTS.

Well of course the refresh was better. But it didn't warrant a new series.

the HD3870 atleast added 10.1 DX support. 9 Series has nothing new, just a refresh.

It's something we hardware enthusiast likes to pay attention to. We want our system to handle anything easily at blazing fps.

It's not something that everyone can understand.

Personally, I consider things like the GeForce 6600GT and 7600GT to be anomalies here, probably more of a testament to what nVidia did wrong with the high-end cards of the previous generation than anything, ESPECIALLY in the case of the 6600GT. I'd note that the FX 5600 series was utterly laughable in comparison to the GeForce 4 Ti, and the 8600 series, as noted, was easily beaten by the 7900 series. The same thing was seen on the ATi side; the X600XT was, for all intents and purposes, actually a 9600XT made for PCI-express and vendors actually sometimes had the gall to call it a mid-range card; the X700pro might've been better, but still was a 9800 or 9800SE at best.

And anyone remember the X1600 series? It would've classified as fully mid-range for even the X-series! (and still didn't really quite show any marked improvement over, say, the 9800XT) And again, once we headed into DirectX 10, the HD 2600 series doesn't fare so well compared to the best DirectX 9.0c card like even the Radeon X1950pro.

That's actually incorrect; the human eye can probably percieve at around 300-500fps, not numbers around 60 as most people claimed. Television signals were only set at 60Hz because, as I'd note, this was back in like the 1950's, and it was about the best trade-off they could find between resolution and refresh rates... As well as just about all that would fit through a coaxial composite cable.