Geforce 9600 gso 512mb x 2(SLI) versus readeon hd5770

hello...newbie here...please be kind ;)

deciding between setting up (2)geforce 9600 gso 512mb in SLI mode

or

purchasing an hd5770

i can purchase the 9600's for about $55-60 each which would be alot less than the cost of the hd5770...but how would they compare? according to hardware compare - hwcompare.com - comparing the 9600 gos 512mb to the hd5770 shows this:

Intro
The GeForce 9600 GSO 512MB comes with core clock speeds of 650 MHz on the GPU, and 900 MHz on the 512 MB of GDDR3 memory. It features 96 SPUs along with 48 Texture Address Units and 16 ROPs.

Compare that to the Radeon HD 5770, which has GPU clock speed of 850 MHz, and 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory running at 1200 MHz through a 128-bit bus. It also is comprised of 800(160x5) Stream Processors, 40 TAUs, and 16 ROPs.
(No game benchmarks for this combination yet.)

Power, Temperatures and Theoretical Benchmarks

Power ConsumptionGeForce 9600 GSO 512MB 90 Watts
Radeon HD 5770 108 Watts
Difference: 18 Watts (17%)

Memory Bandwidth

The Radeon HD 5770 should in theory be quite a bit faster than the GeForce 9600 GSO 512MB overall. (explain)
Radeon HD 5770 76800 MB/sec
GeForce 9600 GSO 512MB 57600 MB/sec
Difference: 19200 (25%)

Texel Rate

The Radeon HD 5770 is a small bit (about 8%) faster with regards to texture filtering than the GeForce 9600 GSO 512MB. (explain)
Radeon HD 5770 34000 Mtexels/sec
GeForce 9600 GSO 512MB 31200 Mtexels/sec
Difference: 2800 (8%)

Pixel Rate

The Radeon HD 5770 is much (more or less 24%) faster with regards to AA than the GeForce 9600 GSO 512MB, and should be able to handle higher screen resolutions while still performing well. (explain)
Radeon HD 5770 13600 Mpixels/sec
GeForce 9600 GSO 512MB 10400 Mpixels/sec
Difference: 3200 (24%)

my question is this...theoretically, would using the 9600 gos 512mb in sli(2) double these rates? would this also mean it is more cost effective to use (2)9600's versus (1)5770 and still get the same or better performance? all input is greatly appreciated...thanks.


~kaoscoded
38 answers Last reply
More about geforce 9600 512mb versus readeon hd5770
  1. "$55-60 each alot less than the cost of the hd5770", no , see this 5770 for $120: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131330&cm_re=5770-_-14-131-330-_-Product

    Getting 2 9600gsos at this point would be completely ridiculous, in SLI, it won't perform any better than a single 5770 if not worse, it will use alot more power and produce a lot more heat, and also lack DX11.

    It's a no brainer there.
  2. It will be more powerful but they will suck a lot more juice last time I checked 2 9600gt sli almost equaled 2 8800gt sli and taking into account that 2 8800gt equal about a 460 I'd say it's at least or more powerful than a 5770.

    But then again the previous poster has a point it's a older card, in the end it's up to you!
  3. Why purchase a 5770 for 120 dollars when you can get a GTX 460 768 for 105 dollars?

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814162058&cm_re=GTX_460_Galaxy-_-14-162-058-_-Product
  4. Why settle 768MB when you can have 1GB?
  5. accolite said:
    Why settle 768MB when you can have 1GB?


    Because its not 105 dollars? Judging by the post you can see the OP is taking cost into account. He is obviously around the 100 dollars range. Heck you *could* just suggest a GTX 580 but that wouldn't make much sense, right?
  6. accolite said:
    Why settle 768MB when you can have 1GB?

    Why settle for a 460 when you can get a 580.... Reason: Budget.
  7. Helltech said:
    Why purchase a 5770 for 120 dollars when you can get a GTX 460 768 for 105 dollars?

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814162058&cm_re=GTX_460_Galaxy-_-14-162-058-_-Product


    awesome...and yes, price is a concern for now...had no idea there was a gtx460 for 105...even if it is 768mb...thanks for the link and help! i'm on it!!!

    and thanks to everyone who responded...gotta love forums!


    ~kaoscoded
  8. kaoscoded said:
    awesome...and yes, price is a concern for now...had no idea there was a gtx460 for 105...even if it is 768mb...thanks for the link and help! i'm on it!!!

    and thanks to everyone who responded...gotta love forums!


    ~kaoscoded


    Yeah no problem it is an amazing deal. =]
  9. I say go spend the money you can to get a decent gpu and not be sorry later that you didn't spend the extra $15.
  10. accolite said:
    I say go spend the money you can to get a decent gpu and not be sorry later that you didn't spend the extra $15.


    I implore you to find me a GTX 460 1GB that is 120 dollars.... The SE version (worse than the 768 mb version btw) is 140 USD for the cheapest, and the normal 1GB version cheapest is 155 USD. These are on Newegg, for reference.
  11. Helltech said:
    I implore you to find me a GTX 460 1GB that is 120 dollars....


    I am talking about the 5770!?
  12. accolite said:
    It will be more powerful but they will suck a lot more juice last time I checked 2 9600gt sli almost equaled 2 8800gt sli and taking into account that 2 8800gt equal about a 460 I'd say it's at least or more powerful than a 5770.

    But then again the previous poster has a point it's a older card, in the end it's up to you!

    The OP is talking about the 9600 GSO not the GT's and the 512MB GSO's only have 48 cores making them no match for the 8800GT's which have 112 and even in SLi they will probably be out done by a single 5770.
  13. accolite said:
    I am talking about the 5770!?


    5770 is not better than a GTX 460 768 MB....

    http://www.overclock.net/graphics-cards-general/502403-graphics-card-ranking-5th-time-last.html

    EDIT - Were you talking to the OP's about his dilemma about the 9600 GSO's SLI vs 5770? If so I agree about getting a more powerful single card than trying to SLI those 9600's. Regardless if he is thinking about buying a 5770 for 120 USD the more intelligent decision would be to get that GTX 460 768 for 105 USD.
  14. gtx460 will still perfrom better even though it's the 768mb version, but it could be a problem later on when games use even more memory, games like gta iv, crysis or metro are already cutting it close even at lowish resolutions. gta iv uses over 1000mb of my 5850 when maxed and I'm at 1360x768, crysis uses over 800mb, all that without AA, I know the system has allocated memory for the graphics when the gpu isn't enough, but even still it could be a potential problem in the not-so-far future
  15. Mousemonkey said:
    The OP is talking about the 9600 GSO not the GT's and the 512MB GSO's only have 48 cores making them no match for the 8800GT's which have 112 and even in SLi they will probably be out done by a single 5770.


    Actually they came in both variants with 96 and 48! In SLI there there really is no difference between a 9600gt, a 9600gso, and a 8800gt/9800gt. A couple of frames here and there but not much to be considered substantial.
  16. GTA IV is a horrible port with bad graphics memory management. I would not use that as a good example. I am still using my 4870 512MB card without issues @ 1680x1050. I honestly think a 768MB card will suffice for his needs. Sure he wont be able to max everything out, but the 460 is not designed to have everything maxed, it is a mid range card.
  17. Ram is the main reason why I am suggesting the 5770.
  18. accolite said:
    Actually they came in both variants with 96 and 48! In SLI there there really is no difference between a 9600gt, a 9600gso, and a 8800gt/9800gt. A couple of frames here and there but not much to be considered substantial.

    There is only one 9600GSO 512MB that I can find.

    http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_9600_gso_512_us.html

    The 9600GT is the card that comes in two variants from what I can find.
  19. Mousemonkey said:
    There is only one 9600GSO 512MB that I can find.

    http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_9600_gso_512_us.html

    The 9600GT is the card that comes in two variants from what I can find.


    I've seen them on newegg either way back when they came out so maybe my memory is a little fuzzy, anyway sli'd there is no real big difference that's all I'm trying to get at.

    I got all my info from toms reviews and a couple of other sources of these cards from over the years, again from what I can remember.

    EDIT:
    From link that is a 48 core gso! So I am guessing thats all they offer now but I bet you can find a 96 core unit used. anyway that's beside the point.
  20. accolite said:
    I've seen them on newegg either way back when they came out so maybe my memory is a little fuzzy, anyway sli'd there is no real big difference that's all I'm trying to get at.

    I got all my info from toms reviews and a couple of other sources of these cards from over the years, again from what I can remember.

    Even when SLi'd there will be a difference due to the core count and RAM, the 9600GSO 512MB will be more akin to the GT220's than the 8800GT due to only having 48 cores.
  21. The 96 core 9600GSO was a 384MB card using the G80 GPU.
  22. All I can do is point you to the charts!

    As a example here is a link:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-cards-charts-2009-high-quality/Sum-of-FPS-Benchmarks-1680x1050,1831.html

    the 8600gso would be in between 8800gt and 9600gt.
  23. Mousemonkey said:
    The 96 core 9600GSO was a 384MB card using the G80 GPU.


    yes, correct
  24. guys...perhaps i should have been a little more clear when i first brought up the dilemma...you guys have been great and the information has only added to my limited understanding regarding video cards...i'm not a hard core gamer...i like playing dragon age origins, warhammer 40k and games along those lines...otherwise i stick to my consoles for games...

    i mostly mess around with animation and 3d art...i have an intel 2 quad core 2.5g with 8 megs of ram...it's a little over a year old and i'm replacing a gt220 ddr3 1gig card...

    i have also been looking at a gtx 260 896mb overclocked selling for $90...the directx 11 thing doesn't concern me too much as i will be replacing the system later this year anyway...

    that gtx 460 with 768mb seems like a steal to me and it's for a short period before i pass it on to my son to bang around on...thanks for all the input...


    ~kaoscoded
  25. accolite said:
    All I can do is point you to the charts!

    As a example here is a link:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-cards-charts-2009-high-quality/Sum-of-FPS-Benchmarks-1680x1050,1831.html

    the 8600gso would be in between 8800gt and 9600gt.

    There is no 8600GSO but there are two different 9600GSO's and I think you may be getting them confused with each other.
  26. Mousemonkey said:
    There is no 8600GSO but there are two different 9600GSO's and I think you may be getting them confused with each other.


    Oh sorry, my typo ment to type 9600!
  27. kaoscoded said:
    guys...perhaps i should have been a little more clear when i first brought up the dilemma...you guys have been great and the information has only added to my limited understanding regarding video cards...i'm not a hard core gamer...i like playing dragon age origins, warhammer 40k and games along those lines...otherwise i stick to my consoles for games...

    i mostly mess around with animation and 3d art...i have an intel 2 quad core 2.5g with 8 megs of ram...it's a little over a year old and i'm replacing a gt220 ddr3 1gig card...

    i have also been looking at a gtx 260 896mb overclocked selling for $90...the directx 11 thing doesn't concern me too much as i will be replacing the system later this year anyway...

    that gtx 460 with 768mb seems like a steal to me and it's for a short period before i pass it on to my son to bang around on...thanks for all the input...


    ~kaoscoded

    The GTX460 768MB is a storming little card, I recently built a little rig for my nephew with one of those and an i3 530 and it was able to give my SLi'd 8800GT's and e8400 a run for it's money @16 x 10 res.
  28. Mousemonkey said:
    Even when SLi'd there will be a difference due to the core count and RAM, the 9600GSO 512MB will be more akin to the GT220's than the 8800GT due to only having 48 cores.



    i'm curious about your quote...again, my knowledge is limited regarding video card capabilities so i am learning as i go along...having said that, i had done a comparison between my current gt220 1 gig ddr3 with the 9600 gso 512mb...this was also done on hwcompare.com and the results showed the following:


    Intro
    The GeForce 9600 GSO 512MB has core clock speeds of 650 MHz on the GPU, and 900 MHz on the 512 MB of GDDR3 RAM. It features 96 SPUs along with 48 TAUs and 16 Rasterization Operator Units.

    Compare those specs to the GeForce GT 220 GDDR3, which has a core clock frequency of 625 MHz and a GDDR3 memory speed of 506 MHz. It also makes use of a 128-bit memory bus, and makes use of a 40 nm design. It features 48 SPUs, 16 Texture Address Units, and 8 ROPs.

    Fallout 3Settings: High Settings
    AA: none
    AF: none
    Resolution: 1280x1024
    Test Machine: Intel Core i7-920,3 x 1 GB Ram,Windows Vista Ultimate 64 Bit SP1 (Source)

    GeForce 9600 GSO 512MB 81 FPS
    GeForce GT 220 GDDR3 68 FPS
    Difference: 13 FPS (16%)

    GeForce 9600 GSO 512MB is Fastest

    When combining all game benchmark scores together, the GeForce 9600 GSO 512MB wins overall, by 13 FPS.GeForce

    9600 GSO 512MB 81 FPS
    GeForce GT 220 GDDR3 68 FPS
    Difference: 13 FPS (16%)

    Power, Temperatures and Theoretical Benchmarks

    Power ConsumptionGeForce GT 220 GDDR3 58 Watts
    GeForce 9600 GSO 512MB 90 Watts
    Difference: 32 Watts (36%)

    Memory Bandwidth

    The GeForce 9600 GSO 512MB should theoretically perform quite a bit faster than the GeForce GT 220 GDDR3 overall.

    GeForce 9600 GSO 512MB 57600 MB/sec
    GeForce GT 220 GDDR3 16192 MB/sec
    Difference: 41408 (72%)

    Texel Rate

    The GeForce 9600 GSO 512MB will be a lot (more or less 68%) better at anisotropic filtering than the GeForce GT 220 GDDR3.
    GeForce 9600 GSO 512MB 31200 Mtexels/sec
    GeForce GT 220 GDDR3 10000 Mtexels/sec
    Difference: 21200 (68%)

    Pixel Rate

    The GeForce 9600 GSO 512MB is much (approximately 52%) more effective at anti-aliasing than the GeForce GT 220 GDDR3, and will be able to handle higher screen resolutions better. (explain)
    GeForce 9600 GSO 512MB 10400 Mpixels/sec
    GeForce GT 220 GDDR3 5000 Mpixels/sec
    Difference: 5400 (52%)


    now having seen these results, are you saying that combining a pair of 9600's would be closer in performance to a pair of gt220's versus 8800 gt's? and how would a pair of gtx260's compare? just wondering if i'm missing something here...i'm still getting the gtx460 768mb but i'm curious now?


    ~kaoscoded
  29. I dont know how the comparison would be but some games do not support SLi, and the older generation of cards do not scale as well in SLi as the 4xx series does. A good single card is better than two lower end cards.

    The 460 768MB is a good budget card.
  30. kaoscoded said:
    i'm curious about your quote...again, my knowledge is limited regarding video card capabilities so i am learning as i go along...having said that, i had done a comparison between my current gt220 1 gig ddr3 with the 9600 gso 512mb...this was also done on hwcompare.com and the results showed the following:


    Intro
    The GeForce 9600 GSO 512MB has core clock speeds of 650 MHz on the GPU, and 900 MHz on the 512 MB of GDDR3 RAM. It features 96 SPUs along with 48 TAUs and 16 Rasterization Operator Units.

    Compare those specs to the GeForce GT 220 GDDR3, which has a core clock frequency of 625 MHz and a GDDR3 memory speed of 506 MHz. It also makes use of a 128-bit memory bus, and makes use of a 40 nm design. It features 48 SPUs, 16 Texture Address Units, and 8 ROPs.

    Fallout 3Settings: High Settings
    AA: none
    AF: none
    Resolution: 1280x1024
    Test Machine: Intel Core i7-920,3 x 1 GB Ram,Windows Vista Ultimate 64 Bit SP1 (Source)

    GeForce 9600 GSO 512MB 81 FPS
    GeForce GT 220 GDDR3 68 FPS
    Difference: 13 FPS (16%)

    GeForce 9600 GSO 512MB is Fastest

    When combining all game benchmark scores together, the GeForce 9600 GSO 512MB wins overall, by 13 FPS.GeForce

    9600 GSO 512MB 81 FPS
    GeForce GT 220 GDDR3 68 FPS
    Difference: 13 FPS (16%)

    Power, Temperatures and Theoretical Benchmarks

    Power ConsumptionGeForce GT 220 GDDR3 58 Watts
    GeForce 9600 GSO 512MB 90 Watts
    Difference: 32 Watts (36%)

    Memory Bandwidth

    The GeForce 9600 GSO 512MB should theoretically perform quite a bit faster than the GeForce GT 220 GDDR3 overall.

    GeForce 9600 GSO 512MB 57600 MB/sec
    GeForce GT 220 GDDR3 16192 MB/sec
    Difference: 41408 (72%)

    Texel Rate

    The GeForce 9600 GSO 512MB will be a lot (more or less 68%) better at anisotropic filtering than the GeForce GT 220 GDDR3.
    GeForce 9600 GSO 512MB 31200 Mtexels/sec
    GeForce GT 220 GDDR3 10000 Mtexels/sec
    Difference: 21200 (68%)

    Pixel Rate

    The GeForce 9600 GSO 512MB is much (approximately 52%) more effective at anti-aliasing than the GeForce GT 220 GDDR3, and will be able to handle higher screen resolutions better. (explain)
    GeForce 9600 GSO 512MB 10400 Mpixels/sec
    GeForce GT 220 GDDR3 5000 Mpixels/sec
    Difference: 5400 (52%)


    now having seen these results, are you saying that combining a pair of 9600's would be closer in performance to a pair of gt220's versus 8800 gt's? and how would a pair of gtx260's compare? just wondering if i'm missing something here...i'm still getting the gtx460 768mb but i'm curious now?


    ~kaoscoded

    For starters the GT220's can't be SLi'd but if they could they would still be out performed by a pair of 8800GT's and whilst the 9600GSO's performance is higher than the GT220's it's still less than the 8800GT's.
  31. Snipergod87 said:
    I dont know how the comparison would be but some games do not support SLi, and the older generation of cards do not scale as well in SLi as the 4xx series does. A good single card is better than two lower end cards.

    The 460 768MB is a good budget card.

    The G92 8800's scale pretty well and most games do support SLi and Xfire, those that don't are usually the boring type of RPG's and lessor FPS drudge that I wouldn't bother with myself.
  32. I love all this discussion about the 9600GSO, a name that was used on two chips. One a cut down G92, and the other a cut down G94. Anyway, the cut down G94 version (512 & 1GB cards) is alot weaker than the G92 version.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_9_Series#GeForce_9600_GSO

    As far as wikipedia goes I don't believe their info on the 768 version is accurate saying it was a G94 based chip, mostly because the G94 only had 64 SPs :p. The 384, 768, and 1.5GB (192-bit bus) were all based on the G92. Basically chips not good enough to be an 8800GT/9800GT.
  33. megamanx00 said:
    I love all this discussion about the 9600GSO, a name that was used on two chips. One a cut down G92, and the other a cut down G94. Anyway, the cut down G94 version (512 & 1GB cards) is alot weaker than the G92 version.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_9_Series#GeForce_9600_GSO

    As far as wikipedia goes I don't believe their info on the 768 version is accurate saying it was a G94 based chip, mostly because the G94 only had 64 SPs :p. The 384, 768, and 1.5GB (192-bit bus) were all based on the G92. Basically chips not good enough to be an 8800GT/9800GT.

    It was the G80 series chips that were reused IIRC.
  34. accolite said:
    It will be more powerful but they will suck a lot more juice last time I checked 2 9600gt sli almost equaled 2 8800gt sli and taking into account that 2 8800gt equal about a 460 I'd say it's at least or more powerful than a 5770.

    But then again the previous poster has a point it's a older card, in the end it's up to you!


    In practice the 9600gso is weaker than a standard 9600gt. I wonder why people have forgotten this fact. The reason is due to having less bandwidth and having lower fillrates than the 9600gt. The G94 version often ships in the 128bit 48 shader 8 rop configuration while the G92 being 96 shader 192bit 12 rop. The lack of bandwidth and lower fillrates often resulted in less than 9600gt level performance and only matched when overclocked despite having more shader performance. The G92 version came in many flavors with 384/768mb being common. 512/1gb often being 128bit. Memory type is also a factor as there are many GDDR2 versions of both the G92 and G94 floating around. Over All I suggest that you do not buy these cards as a 5770 is better investment and if cuda and physx is eating away then buy a second card and use the community hacks to set up multy card.
  35. Their all the same 9600gt, gso v1 v2 whatever you get pretty close performance from them while they might have more shaders they reduce the interface to 192bit while the other has 48 shaders they keep it at 256 bit,
    It's all the same performance wise they crippled one to match the other and vise versa.

    I think we beat this to death long enough.
  36. accolite said:
    Their all the same 9600gt, gso v1 v2 whatever you get pretty close performance from them while they might have more shaders they reduce the interface to 192bit while the other has 48 shaders they keep it at 256 bit,
    It's all the same performance wise they crippled one to match the other and vise versa.

    I think we beat this to death long enough.


    Wrong they were Not the same performance, they often underperformed the 9600gt in most benchmarks and games. Why don't you just look online for your self.
  37. nforce4max said:
    Wrong they were Not the same performance, they often underperformed the 9600gt in most benchmarks and games. Why don't you just look online for your self.



    Bub, I did back when they came out and I read just about all the reviews and frankly I don't care anymore...

    Yes, they gave you different fps but for me it is all in the same ballpark!
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards SLI Geforce Graphics Product