Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

NVIDIA 8800GT 1GB vs. NVIDIA 9600GT 1GB

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 24, 2008 6:46:51 PM

Hi guys,

I'm currently configuring a new PC and I don't know which graphics card is better. They both have more or less the same price.

First card: MSI NVIDIA 8800GT 1024MB GDDR3 PCI-E 2.0 2xDVI/1xTV-OUT 256Bit SLI Retail.
Second card: MSI NVIDIA 9600GT Zilent 1024MB GDDR3 PCI-E 2.0 2xDVI/1xTV-OUT 256Bit Zalman Cooling SLI Retail.

The first one is a couple or Euros more expensive, the second one has Zalman cooling. I can't seem to find the difference between these 2 cards.

The rest of my system will be:
INTEL Core2 Quad Q9450 2660MHz LGA775 12MB Cache 4Core FSB1333 45nm
INTEL DP35DP ATX Socket775 DDR2 800 SDRAM FSB1333 10/100/1000NIC 6xSATA Mainboard
4x TRANSCEND 2048MB JETRAM DDR2 800 (8GB)
2x WD Raptor 150GB HDD 10000rpm SATA serial ATA 16MB cache
I'm going to use a trial boot: Win XP Home, Win Vista Ultimate 32 bit and 64 bit.

If more information is required let me know. Thank you for your help.
April 24, 2008 7:23:18 PM

8800 GT is way better because it's a mid-high end card(9600GT is a mid range card), if you have more money go with the 8800 GTS G92.
Related resources
April 24, 2008 7:27:48 PM

@runswindows95,

Thanks for the URL. The 8GB is purely for the 64 bits Vista. I know 32 bits only supports upto 3.2GB, but there are still alot of programs that don't run under Vista 64 bits, that's why I still need the 32 bits OS's.

@can007,

I'm not that much of a gamer, I just liked the 1GB cards because they are affordable, so I don't need the performance of the 8800 GTS 92.

So the 8800GT is a better choice than the 9600GT Zilent?

April 24, 2008 7:31:31 PM

By the way, is the Zilent more silent than the regular cards?
April 24, 2008 7:44:35 PM

I am sure the 8800GT will out perform the 9600GT both would make nice SLI cards. I haven't seen any 1GB SLI benchmarks but I would be willing to bet that's where they really shine. If you go more than 4GB then there is no choice but to go 64bit. Even at 4gb you see more benefit from 64bit. I went with 64bit had no problems whatsoever. Of course I did run the beta version of Vista for about 8 months before it was released, so I had most of the kinks worked out. Driver support is way way better now then it was back then.

For what it's worth, I haven't had a single program not run on Vista 64bit. Most of my programs are newer so I'm sure that helps. If you use old programs that are no longer supported with updates from the developer then you might have problems with those. I had more trouble with some programs not working with 8GB than I did with 64bit.
April 24, 2008 9:23:43 PM

Shouldn't the 256bit bus bottleneck the 1 gig of vram?
That was my understanding. So I would think that the 512MB versions of the cards would be both cheaper and more efficient.
My 1.5 cents.
April 24, 2008 9:24:32 PM

Shouldn't the 256bit bus bottleneck the 1 gig of vram?
That was my understanding. So I would think that the 512MB versions of the cards would be both cheaper and more efficient.
My 1.5 cents.
April 24, 2008 9:48:01 PM

I saw a benchmark somewhere that showed that the 1 gig versions of these cards only got a few fps more than the 512 (if they even managed that). The 256 bit bus nullifies any gains from having 1 gig of vram. On the other hand, it doesn't hurt it either, so if these are cheaper than (or the same price) the 512 for you, go for it.
April 24, 2008 10:04:53 PM

1GB is useful only on extreme resolutions, where cards with less ram runs out of onboard ram, and has to reach across the bus to access main system memory, which will tank performance considerably.

The problem is, 9600gt's g94 core just isn't nearly powerful enough to run at the extreme resolutions needed to make this happen anyway, so it's pointless. 8800gt's g92 will do better, but still may not be enough. The 1gb ram is wasted on less powerful cards. I'd consider 1Gb video ram if it has at least an overclocked g92 8800gts or better to match.
April 24, 2008 10:11:15 PM

If you're not much of a gamer don't bother with either of those cards. Get something cheaper. The 1gb tends to be more of a marketing gimmick anyway.
April 25, 2008 12:18:29 AM

runswindows95 said:
The 9600 performs slightly worse than the 8800GT.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-9600...

Also, with 8GB of RAM, it's pointless to run 32-bit. If you are going to run 32-bit, might as well just install 4GB of RAM.

An 8800GTS 512MB G92 is the best GFX card for the money spent and as far as the human eye can tell is the same as a 8800GTX.
96** cards are just a joke with exception of one which is ment to match value with the ATI 3850.

8GB of RAM is 4 times what most (any) gamers need in real life...and XP is the best MS OS.
I use XP and 2GB of RAM...run 4 security programs,seed six torrents -and- play Fronlines:Fuel of War at the same time with no more than 49% of the RAM used and zero lag....on an AMD 6000+ ($111 USD),Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe,2GB Corsair XMS2 (4.4.4.12 and $29 after rebate) and a 8800GTS 512 G92 all on -stock- speed and volts.

Spending a truck load of cash on the latest CPU and sh!t loads of RAM is just a fools game for almost everyone...but if it makes you happy then I say just go do it.

You could almost build -TWO- systems for the cost of that overpriced CPU you have listed...case/PSU/ROM+HD included.

April 25, 2008 12:34:27 AM

Wait, if your not much of a gamer, then why bother with these cards?
April 25, 2008 6:45:46 AM

Get yourself a cheap 8800GS before they all turn into 9600GSO's
April 25, 2008 9:14:01 AM

Okay new update: I'm planning on buying three Samsung SyncMaster 245B Widescreen TFT panels if this is not much of a hassle. If this means I need to use the VGA cards in SLI, which means 2 grahic cards, then it's too much of a hassle. Then I'd rather go for 2 of these Samsung screens.

Dagger: With the 2 screens used on 1920 x 1200, would this be considered "extreme resolutions"?

ZOldDude: I get all items for almost wholesale price because a friend runs a computer business, so I don't pay the retail prices. That's why I can buy heavier products cheaper.

April 25, 2008 10:19:57 AM

Dude get 2 8800gt at least.
April 25, 2008 12:35:16 PM

jochem8 said:
Okay new update: I'm planning on buying three Samsung SyncMaster 245B Widescreen TFT panels if this is not much of a hassle. If this means I need to use the VGA cards in SLI, which means 2 grahic cards, then it's too much of a hassle. Then I'd rather go for 2 of these Samsung screens.

Dagger: With the 2 screens used on 1920 x 1200, would this be considered "extreme resolutions"?

ZOldDude: I get all items for almost wholesale price because a friend runs a computer business, so I don't pay the retail prices. That's why I can buy heavier products cheaper.



No, I wouldn't call that extreme.
April 25, 2008 10:05:27 PM

I would say go for two 8800gts (the g92 versions, 512MB). Right now they are the best bang for the buck.
April 25, 2008 10:19:23 PM

soundefx said:
I would say go for two 8800gts (the g92 versions, 512MB). Right now they are the best bang for the buck.

But that means you'll have to pay more for a lower performing Nvidia motherboard. Better wait for 9900 or 4xxxs cards.
April 26, 2008 4:32:35 AM

I contemplated going with 8800gt SLI but now have decided to go with Asus 9600gt Silent SLI. I sold my 8800GTS 640mb and just don't feel anything on the market does anything for me. I went with the 9600 SLI for price versus performance. I'll wait for the next gen cards to buy high end. That is if they decide to design groundbreaking cards again like the original 8800 (G80).
!