Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

9600GT Benchmarks Pop-Up on Guru3d

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 20, 2008 1:05:50 AM

http://guru3d.com/newsitem.php?id=6340

Supposed 9600 GT benchmarks popped up on Guru3d, but if true, looks good. :) 

Comments, Remarks anyone?
January 20, 2008 1:08:48 AM

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

It doesn't beat the 8800GT, so I'm a bit disappointed.
January 20, 2008 2:52:24 AM

lol the 8800GT is the 9800GS

nvidia is insane!
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
January 20, 2008 2:54:24 AM

Evilonigiri said:
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.
January 20, 2008 2:56:17 AM

cnumartyr said:
Why would it beat an 8800 GT?

The 9600 GT is a castrated G92.

Cause 9>8.

Reason enough?
January 20, 2008 3:02:25 AM

Evilonigiri said:
Cause 9>8.

Reason enough?


I thought we debunked that in the other thread. :kaola: 
a b U Graphics card
January 20, 2008 3:03:26 AM

Its the second number that counts tho, 96 isnt a 98, as a 86 isnt a 8800, so 9600 is midrange
January 20, 2008 3:05:12 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Its the second number that counts tho, 96 isnt a 98, as a 86 isnt a 8800, so 9600 is midrange


I think he was being sarcastic based on a conversation we had in another thread.
a b U Graphics card
January 20, 2008 3:08:08 AM

Hmmm OK, 9 is ummmm bigger tha 8 heheh
January 20, 2008 3:13:05 AM

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.
January 20, 2008 3:17:19 AM

Evilonigiri said:
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.


This goes back to the generation thing. 7 Series was a new generation, so was the 8 series. The 9 series is a refresh (aka a joke).

Should be the 8900 GT, 8900 GTS, 8950 GX2, and 8700 GT.
January 20, 2008 3:21:44 AM

cnumartyr said:
This goes back to the generation thing. 7 Series was a new generation, so was the 8 series. The 9 series is a refresh (aka a joke).

Should be the 8900 GT, 8900 GTS, 8950 GX2, and 8700 GT.

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

COME ON ATI! AMD!...DAAMIT!
January 20, 2008 3:27:16 AM

Well Its surprisingly fast for only having 64 shaders, When 8800GT has 112. Still how does the 9600GT get around 10000 3Dmarks in 3Dmark06?
January 20, 2008 3:50:08 AM

Evilonigiri said:
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.


Maybe because the 7900GTX can mop the floor with an 8600GTS.
a b U Graphics card
January 20, 2008 4:16:34 AM

The refresh is sposed to be better. The 8800GTS 320 is similar to the 9600GT, the refreshed 8800s are better, except the 256 version, as it shows its lack of vram as an impediment in most games
January 20, 2008 4:17:49 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
The refresh is sposed to be better. The 8800GTS 320 is similar to the 9600GT, the refreshed 8800s are better, except the 256 version, as it shows its lack of vram as an impediment in most games


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.
January 20, 2008 5:29:07 AM

when will anyone stop caring about FPS so much, if its a playable frame rate it is a playable frame rate, 25-70FPS is playable, and after 70m your brain doesn't process information that fast and your eyes cant see that many FPS, otherwise on CRT screens you would see that "flickering" of the fill rate on the screen...i just want better image quality while maintaining about 50 FPS please. thank you :) 
January 20, 2008 5:42:53 AM

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. ;) 
January 20, 2008 5:48:23 AM

Speaking of Enthusiasts.

I always wanted a Calvin pee'ing on a 360 or PS3 with a caption that read "water cooled".

I don't know how it relates to enthusisast...but it sounds neat.
January 20, 2008 6:04:40 AM

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.
bstep1989 said:
after 70m your brain doesn't process information that fast and your eyes cant see that many FPS,

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.
!