Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

9500GT VS 4670

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 29, 2011 8:43:35 PM

hi guys my pc specs are pentium d 3.2ghz(2mb cache) intel d955xcs board and 4gb ram i don't want to spend so much money in changing my pc i just want to change a graphic card my price range will be of (6500rs=75$)
here are the links so tell me card which one i shoukd buy
i am looking for 9500gt(128bit,1gbrr2) or ati 4670(128bit,1gbddr2) both are alomst of same price
here is the link so u can tell me some other card also
nvidia link=http://www.galaxy.com.pk/nvidia-graphic.htm
ati link=http://www.galaxy.com.pk/ati-graphic.htm
my pc is intel so i think that nvidia will work better ?????

More about : 9500gt 4670

a b U Graphics card
June 29, 2011 9:55:15 PM

amd/ati dominates the low end get the 4/5/6670.
a c 355 U Graphics card
a c 110 å Intel
June 29, 2011 9:59:45 PM

The HD 4670 is definitely better. It's performance is between the 9500GT and the 9600GT.
Related resources
June 30, 2011 7:28:09 AM

the ati 4670 will work on my intel 955xc with 375watt psu?
a b U Graphics card
June 30, 2011 3:14:18 PM

Your motherboard has PCIe 1.0a slots. Any AMD series card newer than a 4670 (as suggested above) may not work within older motherboards equipped with a PCIe 1.x slot. The 4670 is PCIe 2.0, and is fully compatible with PCIe 1.x boards. Compatibility for 2.1 cards within 1.x boards is possible, but it required a BIOS update. Your motherboard lost official support in November 2007, so I doubt any such BIOS update was ever released.

I advise against attempting any PCIe 2.1 cards from the AMD 5000-series and 6000-series because all 5000-series and 6000-series are PCIe 2.1 cards. Go with the 4670.
a c 355 U Graphics card
a c 110 å Intel
June 30, 2011 3:33:42 PM

RazberyBandit said:

I advise against attempting any PCIe 2.1 cards from the AMD 5000-series and 6000-series because all 5000-series and 6000-series are PCIe 2.1 cards. Go with the 4670.


Initially the Radeon HD 5xxx series were released as PCI-e 2.0 cards which works fine in a PCI-e 1.0 slot. Midway into the production cycle they were updated to PCI-e 2.1 cards. Therefore, it may be possible that there are some existing HD 5570 or HD 5670 PCI-e 2.0 left to be bought; assuming they are within the OP's budget.

Generally speaking, a good 375w power supply should be able to handle the HD 4670 which consumes about 45w of power under typical gaming conditions.

The HD 5570's performance is similar to the HD 4670, but it draws about 19w of power under typical gaming conditions.

The HD 5670 performs roughly 25% - 30% better than the HD 4670 and it draws 30w of power under typical gaming conditions. This is the best card to get if the price is right due to better performance and lower power draw.

However, you must pay attention to the Radeon HD 5xxx series specs. If they are listed as PCI-e 2.1 cards then there might be problems when inserted into a PCI-e 1.0 slot.

a c 106 U Graphics card
June 30, 2011 4:21:54 PM

The DDR2 version of both cards is noticeably slower than DDR3 versions. Get a DDR3 4670 and consider overclocking your CPU. Of course, overclocked P4s are ovens so get a good tower cooler ^_^
a b U Graphics card
June 30, 2011 5:47:15 PM

jaguarskx said:
Initially the Radeon HD 5xxx series were released as PCI-e 2.0 cards which works fine in a PCI-e 1.0 slot. Midway into the production cycle they were updated to PCI-e 2.1 cards. Therefore, it may be possible that there are some existing HD 5570 or HD 5670 PCI-e 2.0 left to be bought; assuming they are within the OP's budget.

Generally speaking, a good 375w power supply should be able to handle the HD 4670 which consumes about 45w of power under typical gaming conditions.

The HD 5570's performance is similar to the HD 4670, but it draws about 19w of power under typical gaming conditions.

The HD 5670 performs roughly 25% - 30% better than the HD 4670 and it draws 30w of power under typical gaming conditions. This is the best card to get if the price is right due to better performance and lower power draw.

However, you must pay attention to the Radeon HD 5xxx series specs. If they are listed as PCI-e 2.1 cards then there might be problems when inserted into a PCI-e 1.0 slot.

Jaguar, even AMD has claimed the 5000-series cards are 2.1. Every manufacturer I've spoken with has told me all their 5000-series cards are 2.1. This includes XFX, MSI, Gigabyte, and ASUS. Both XFX and ASUS explained that when cards are being listed for sale on websites, the specs those sites choose to highlight are incorrect, often claiming the cards are 2.0 when in fact the spec sheets from the manufacturer specifically state they're "2.0 Compatible."

If there are genuine 2.0 5000-series cards, I've yet to come across a single one.

As for problems when a 2.1 card is used in a 1.x slot, there's no "might" about it if the motherboard BIOS was never updated to provide 2.1 compatibility. In such a case, the card simply won't work because the BIOS cannot initialize it. And as I said, with his board having lost manufacturer support in November 2007, and the latest BIOS dated February 2007, it's highly questionable whether such support was ever enabled. Sure, he could try a 5670 first, but he had better make sure he can exchange it for a 4670 without any penalty if it won't work.
July 1, 2011 5:32:13 AM

my board have pci 16x slot it will not support 4670?
July 1, 2011 5:48:40 AM

ok i understand about pci slot thanks guys but one more thing 9500gt is slower then 4670 but ati does not have physx so when playing game in terms of effects which card will perform better in those 2
a b U Graphics card
July 1, 2011 6:13:15 AM

No, ATI cards don't support Physx. But, the 9500GT is weaker without Physx running, so enabling it actually makes it's overall performance even worse.
July 1, 2011 7:34:25 AM

ati 4670
core clock 750mhz
memory clock 1000mhz
shader clock 750mhz
memory bandwith 32gb/s
nvidia 9500gt
core clock 550mhz
memory clock 800mhz
shader clock 1375mhz
memory bandwith 12.8gb/s
as you can see that ati have higher specs but its shader clock is like a half of 9500 does shader clock matters???????????and plz tell me the shader models?
a c 141 U Graphics card
July 1, 2011 12:35:57 PM

dell380 said:
ati 4670
core clock 750mhz
memory clock 1000mhz
shader clock 750mhz
memory bandwith 32gb/s
nvidia 9500gt
core clock 550mhz
memory clock 800mhz
shader clock 1375mhz
memory bandwith 12.8gb/s
as you can see that ati have higher specs but its shader clock is like a half of 9500 does shader clock matters???????????and plz tell me the shader models?


you can't compare the clocks for those two since both were built on different architecture. that's why people make reviews because they want to know how the cards perform in real world
a c 355 U Graphics card
a c 110 å Intel
July 1, 2011 8:08:37 PM

RazberyBandit said:
Jaguar, even AMD has claimed the 5000-series cards are 2.1. Every manufacturer I've spoken with has told me all their 5000-series cards are 2.1. This includes XFX, MSI, Gigabyte, and ASUS. Both XFX and ASUS explained that when cards are being listed for sale on websites, the specs those sites choose to highlight are incorrect, often claiming the cards are 2.0 when in fact the spec sheets from the manufacturer specifically state they're "2.0 Compatible."

If there are genuine 2.0 5000-series cards, I've yet to come across a single one.

As for problems when a 2.1 card is used in a 1.x slot, there's no "might" about it if the motherboard BIOS was never updated to provide 2.1 compatibility. In such a case, the card simply won't work because the BIOS cannot initialize it. And as I said, with his board having lost manufacturer support in November 2007, and the latest BIOS dated February 2007, it's highly questionable whether such support was ever enabled. Sure, he could try a 5670 first, but he had better make sure he can exchange it for a 4670 without any penalty if it won't work.


Well, I cannot claim to have spoken directly to any manufacturer, however. My Sapphire HD 5850 states PCI-e 2.0 on the box and my Abit IP35Pro has a PCI-e 1.0 slot. They never released a BIOS which explicitly insured that a PCI-e 2.0 (or PCI-e 2.1) card would be supported by the motherboard. Universal Abit ceased operations back in December 2008.
a b U Graphics card
July 1, 2011 11:03:09 PM

Dell380. As renz says, you can't compare them like that. It's apples to oranges. Only way to properly compare them is with real world benchmark tests where both cards are used in the same machine and the same tests are run. Trust us, the 4670 is faster. Look at the GOU Hierarchy Chart and you'll find the 4670 is five or six tiers above the 9500GT.

Jag. I didn't mean to make this a debate. Sorry if it seemed that way. And man... I miss Abit. I can remember when they had the best 440BX boards on the planet! :) 

I only dealt with Sapphire support once when they were new, and that one experience was enough to turn me away completely. Things may have changed since, but I still avoid them. That's not due to a lack of faith in their product quality, but that single support experience. I have to take your word that your card is 2.0, and concede there are 2.0 5000-series cards. I just haven't seen one myself. Combine that with several other manufacturers claiming theirs were all 2.1 and citing examples where their cards' specs were misrepresented, and there you have it. I suppose it's safe to say that the vast majority of all 5000-series cards are PCIe 2.1, though.

July 3, 2011 7:14:58 AM

so its is good for me to buy a ati 4670 for my pci x16?
a c 141 U Graphics card
July 3, 2011 9:00:32 AM

i see nothing wrong with that
July 3, 2011 3:40:40 PM

guys i have dell precision 380(3.2ghz 2mb cache,4gb ddr2 ram,nvidia fx quadro 3500 256bit 256mb ddr3,d955x board,375 watt supply)
i want to spend a little money on pc so i can play games should i buy a ati 4670/9500gt (1gb ddr2 thats my buying range)this would help me gaming or i sould buy a dell optiplex 760 with e8400 processor(3ghz,6mb cache,4gb ddr2 ram,nvidia fx quadro 3500 256bit 256mb ddr3)or buying this pc will be good?
a c 141 U Graphics card
July 3, 2011 4:44:32 PM

quadro is not a gaming card
a b U Graphics card
July 3, 2011 7:09:25 PM

Definitely don't buy a completely dead-end system now. A new system that's still using an eXXXX Intel Socket-775 CPU is a dead-end system. There's no CPU upgrade path, and newer CPUs are much more powerful. And again, renz is right about the Quadros. They're designed for CAD-like applications, not gaming.

You can breathe a little more life into your old system with a GPU upgrade. It won't be miraculous, but it will game better. If you want a better system all-around, keep saving money and get into something much more modern than that Optiplex you mentioned.
!