Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

9600 GT vs 4650

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 22, 2010 4:10:19 PM

I need some help.

I'm currently using a GeForce 9600 GT Superclocked (EVGA Part No. 512-P3-N862-AR) that I purchased back in 2008. Here are its specs:
675 MHz GPU
64 Stream Processors
512 MB DDR3
256 bit bus
1.8 GHz memory speed



I have the opportunity to replace it with a Radeon 4650 (Biostar Part No. VA4653NH51-B), with the following specs:
600 MHz GPU
320 Stream Processors
512 MB DDR3
128 bit bus
1.8 GHz memory speed

The older 9600 trumps the 4650 on both GPU speed and bus width, but is that offset by the large increase in stream processors? In other words, am I better off with the older card or the newer card?

My rig isn't used to do anything but surf the web and play World of Warcraft.

More about : 9600 4650

a c 147 U Graphics card
March 22, 2010 7:19:20 PM

I am pretty sure the 9600GT outperforms the 4650, at least in gaming applications. I am not sure about HD playback though. If you are playing WOW, stick with the 9600GT is has more, Umph!
m
0
l
a c 1415 U Graphics card
March 22, 2010 8:12:03 PM

^+1
m
0
l
Related resources
March 22, 2010 8:16:38 PM

IS it being offered as a trade?

Buecuase if you have to buy it, It's deffinalty not worth it, paying money for a GPU that's very similar in speed.
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
March 22, 2010 8:20:38 PM

They aren't similar speed. The 9600GT is significantly better.
m
0
l
March 22, 2010 8:22:08 PM

Ok, Proving my point even more.
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 107 U Graphics card
March 22, 2010 8:47:38 PM

You're much better off with the 9600GT. You can't really count the stream processors the same way as those on the 9600GT since the architecture is so different. Shaders on the 4650 operate in groups of 5 that are dependent on each other, so how many of them are used depends alot on how the shader code is optimized. At worst, a shader can be done in such a way that only one of the 5 in a group is utilized meaning the 4650 is effectively using 64 shaders though each shader can still do two instructions per clock. As for clock rates the 9600GT has a separate clock for the shaders which is much higher than the core clock.
Share
March 22, 2010 8:49:15 PM

9600GT is far superior but I wouldnt buy any of those obsolete card if I were you. Go for the 5670.
m
0
l
March 22, 2010 8:49:54 PM

I mean ! If you already got the 9600 dont upgrade at all....
m
0
l
March 22, 2010 8:51:28 PM

5670 is not a card marketed towards gamers, more towards office build looking for Eyefinity at a low price.

The 5670 has anemic gamin performance at the 100$ price margin, get ownd by 4770/4850/GTS 250.
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
March 22, 2010 8:57:54 PM

builderbobftw said:
5670 is not a card marketed towards gamers

Eh, it's a perfectly fine card for low resolution gaming. It's on par both in performance and price with the newer 9800GTs.
The current deals on the HD4850 certainly make it a better buy but a lot of systems don't have a PSU capable of handling that card.
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
March 22, 2010 9:08:18 PM

Not if you need a new PSU to buy it because it uses over twice as much power... and same price doesn't not = cheaper.
m
0
l
March 22, 2010 9:10:29 PM

Show me a 90$ 5670 1gb.

Anyway's 99% of builds can run the GTS 250.
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
March 22, 2010 9:13:39 PM

More than 512mb of memory on a card of that caliber is a marketing gimmick and nothing more. Why are you asking for one?
Your 99% number is laughably incorrect. I'd be quite surprised if even the average computer has a PSU that can handle a GTS 250.
m
0
l
March 22, 2010 9:19:21 PM

jyjjy said:
More than 512mb of memory on a card of that caliber is a marketing gimmick and nothing more. Why are you asking for one?
Your 99% number is laughably incorrect. I'd be quite surprised if even the average computer has a PSU that can handle a GTS 250.


Lol, you need 1gb of ram to play with either AA, or a decent res.

marketing gimmick my ass.
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
March 22, 2010 9:20:29 PM

That's simply not true and why would you be using an HD5670 at high resolutions anyway?
m
0
l
March 22, 2010 9:23:08 PM

Educate you'reself.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3415&p=4

OWND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And exaclty, why would you want a 5670 for high res? You'd want a GTS 250 for that.....
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
March 22, 2010 9:27:41 PM

Are you kidding me?
What do you think that article is supposed to prove?
Your knowledge is clearly limited, statements often flat out untrue, your attitude unnecessary and your arguments are only tenuously related to the previous statements.
m
0
l
March 22, 2010 9:28:34 PM

how much faster thet 4870 1gb is compared to the 512mb version?
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
March 22, 2010 9:32:17 PM

So the 1gb HD4870 being slightly better than the 512mb version at high resolutions is relevant to whether or not a card half as powerful needs more than 512mb at much lower resolutions in what way?
m
0
l
March 22, 2010 9:38:39 PM

Slightly???

Massive diffrence!

Just proving you wrong, yet again.

And the GTS 250 is close (75% ish) to the 4870, and gains from having 1gb of memory.

But the 5670 is more like 1 quarter as powerfull as the 4870....(LOL PROVING MY POINT AGAIN ARN"T you?)
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
March 22, 2010 9:40:42 PM

I didn't realize you were a troll... How disappointing.
m
0
l
March 22, 2010 9:44:13 PM

Me? A troll?

And troll or no troll, I'm right,a nd the 5670 fails for gaming.
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
March 22, 2010 9:50:50 PM

You are barely coherent, half the things you say are simply false and the other half mostly inapplicable to the discussion...
The HD5670 is a fine card for low resolution gaming and the amount of memory it has is almost entirely meaningless. It is the best choice around at the moment for people who don't have a PSU capable of handling an HD4850/GTS 250.
m
0
l
March 22, 2010 9:56:51 PM

Can anybody with a modern rig not handle a GTS 250?

It uses 145W, compared to the 61W from the 5670.

Under 100W diffrence,and faster cards use more power, so to be expected.

And talking about false, you called more than 512mb a "marketing gimmick".
m
0
l
a c 236 U Graphics card
March 22, 2010 10:00:14 PM

ok back to your corners

1) the 5670 is not a total fail for gaming. It's a solid entry level card, and is not a real upgrade from the 9600GT but it does need less power.

2) at higher resolutions, both the 4850 and GTS 250 can take some advantage from 1GB of RAM compared to their 512mb versions. Obviously not like the 4870/260.
m
0
l
March 22, 2010 10:02:02 PM

ct1615 said:
ok back to your corners

1) the 5670 is not a total fail for gaming. It's a solid entry level card, and is not a real upgrade from the 9600GT but it does need less power.

2) at higher resolutions, both the 4850 and GTS 250 can take some advantage from 1GB of RAM compared to their 512mb versions. Obviously not like the 4870/260.


Right, But for less money, IF you have a semi decent PSu, Why not use a 48501gb/GTS 2501gb?

I mean It preforms like a soild entry card, but it's priced at 100$.
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
March 22, 2010 10:03:20 PM

Yes, there are tons of computers that have low end PSUs, I'd say most of them in fact and especially ones by large manufacturers like Dell and HP.
A 100w difference is huge btw and it has more to do with the new ATI cards being built on a 40nm process. The HD5750 which is slightly better than the GTS 250 also uses almost half the power.
m
0
l
March 22, 2010 10:04:13 PM

IS the 5750 realy faster than the GTs 250?

Even if it is, the GTS 250 is 40$ cheaper.
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
March 22, 2010 10:04:15 PM

builderbobftw said:
Right, But for less money, IF you have a semi decent PSu, Why not use a 48501gb/GTS 2501gb
No one ever suggested otherwise.
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
March 22, 2010 10:11:53 PM

Yes, not by much but it is slightly faster. The GTS 250 at $90 is definitely a better buy. The HD5750 isn't really a worthwhile purchase at the moment imo because it is so close in price to the HD5770. Unless PSU considerations come into play.
m
0
l
March 22, 2010 10:13:34 PM

jyjjy said:
The GTS 250 at $90 is definitely a better buy.


Thank you very much, We can lay this matter to rest now.
m
0
l
a c 236 U Graphics card
March 22, 2010 10:13:57 PM

builderbobftw said:
IS the 5750 realy faster than the GTs 250?

Even if it is, the GTS 250 is 40$ cheaper.


believe it or not but the GTS 250 1GB is slightly faster then ATI 5750

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/844/11

future drivers from ATI may change that though. Also the 5750 requires less power and offers DX 11

at the same time the GTS 250 is $40 less

The issue is only a consumer looking for a new card can answer the question of "whats best for me". Every need is different, every PC is different, so that card that best fits those need would be the best card.
m
0
l
March 22, 2010 10:16:36 PM

Debate Solved, Thank you Ct.
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
March 22, 2010 10:17:51 PM

Techpowerup and most other sites I've seen got opposite results;
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_5750_P...
Also keep in mind that the initial review were based on beta drivers for the HD5750 while the GTS 250 is 3 year old tech with fully mature drivers. I wouldn't be surprised if the HD5750 is significantly faster at this point with 5 months of driver improvements under its belt.
m
0
l
a c 236 U Graphics card
March 22, 2010 10:18:58 PM

builderbobftw said:
Debate Solved, Thank you Ct.


my work here is done...now im off to resolve world peace in the middle east, find the missing link, and create a national health plan everyone can agree on...I also plan to make a sandwich...may start on that one first
m
0
l
March 22, 2010 10:19:22 PM

Still, You would expect a card made 3 years later, and costing 40$ more, and built on a 40nm process to be faster though, right?

(By a very wide margin, enough to make up the 40$ price gap right?)
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
March 22, 2010 10:19:58 PM

builderbobftw said:
Thank you very much, We can lay this matter to rest now.

That was never in question so I don't see at all what you think is being put to rest.
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
March 22, 2010 10:23:02 PM

builderbobftw said:
Still, You would expect a card made 3 years later, and costing 40$ more, and built on a 40nm process to be faster though, right?

(By a very wide margin, enough to make up the 40$ price gap right?)

Don't get too crazy about the sale on one GTS 250 for $90. The card usually costs $110+. That deal appeared in the last few days and the lowest I've ever seen it before was $100 and that didn't last more than a month or 2. The card to be comparing the GTS 250 to is the HD4850 and that card can be found for $85 right now.
m
0
l
March 22, 2010 10:24:34 PM

Show me a 4850 1gb for 85$.

And the 512mb is much slower than the 1gb, as we determined.
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
March 22, 2010 10:34:45 PM

No, we didn't determine that. What we determined was that the HD4870 1gb is slightly faster than the HD4870 512mb at high resolutions like 1920x1080.
On cards of the caliber of the HD4850 and GTS 250 1gb vs 512mb of memory will make a slight difference at 1680x1050 but it will be quite small. Below that resolution the difference will be negligible and I wouldn't use those cards at higher resolutions.
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
March 22, 2010 10:43:12 PM

Yes, that's one game, the most intensive game in existence. I don't qualify generalized statements on the basis of one game.
m
0
l
March 22, 2010 10:48:34 PM

Nope, Metro 2033 is the most intensive game in existence.

And check the other benches, applies to all of them.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
March 22, 2010 10:52:26 PM

Ok, this has gone long enough. This thread is closed by randomizer.
m
0
l
a c 376 U Graphics card
March 22, 2010 10:55:37 PM

I'm going to pretend it worked. It would be rude not to.
m
0
l
!