Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

X600 Pro and the 9600 Pro are the same?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 6, 2004 1:40:11 AM

I was looking at the specs for the x600 pro and the 9600 pro.

http://www.neeyik.info/3dspecs/

And they looked exactly the same.

I just ordered the x600 pro with my new computer.

So shouldn't the x600 pro be more powerful than the 9600 pro?

Does the PCI express architecture give it something better that was no revealed in that chart? Since the chart shows that every feature is the same for both cards?

It's funny since they both have 600 and Pro at the end but the one I ordered has an X which is supposed to be higher than 9 right???

The X600 pro costs $5 more than the 9600 XT from the SAME STORE, yet it seems to be more weaker. While it is the same as the Radeon 9600 Pro. My motherboard only uses pci express X16 so I couldn't get the 9600XT.

According to ATI's website the PCI Express cards are supposed to have double the bandwidth of AGP 8X cards yet the memory bandwidth for the X600 Pro is the same as as the 9600 Pro 9.6 GB/s.

That doesn't seem to "double the bandwidth" to me. Unless they are talking about some other bandwidth.

http://www.mainmod.com/article50.html

"ATI to launch X600, X600 PRO and X300 SE in June

ATI’s PCI Express design provides up to double the bandwidth of bridged PCI Express solutions. Full bandwidth is available in both upstream and downstream directions, whereas bridged PCI Express (AGP) provides only unidirectional bandwidth."

Did ATI lie to me and I spend a lot of money on what is essentially a ati 9600 pro???

More about : x600 pro 9600 pro

September 6, 2004 1:55:28 AM

First things first, PCIx bandwidth is a measure of potential at this point. Regarding your quote about double the data rate possible through the slot vs. agp.....Right now, no cards even come close to maxing out the possible bandwidth on AGP 8X.

Therefore, the most repeated comment on these boards comes out again...<font color=red>right now</font color=red> PCIX is no faster than AGP8x which is really no faster than AGP 4x on most current hardware. There, i've said it again.

Anyway, about the cards being pretty much the same; from a consumer standpoint you are correct. However, the X600 uses a smaller manufacturing process (dont remember the number off hand - 90nm?) which makes the cores cheaper and require less voltage (to an extent).

Releasing a newer card which is cheaper to produce and performs on par with a previous generation is good buisness; it fills a nice market niche for ATI. So i dont think ATI lied to you, because you did get a different core architecture that draws less current, but probably does perform just like the 9600 pro.

Hey, they are still nice cards, and you didnt spend that much more, right?

"Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my drive?"
P4 3.0C HT, Intel D865GBF, 1GB Crucial PC3200 DDR, 2x WD 36GB Raptor 10kRPM, BBA Radeon 9800PRO, SB Audigy, Hauppage WinTV
September 6, 2004 2:35:17 AM

"Hey, they are still nice cards, and you didnt spend that much more, right?"

Hey thanks but look at this: http://www.pricewatch.com/

radeon x600 pro costs $142 while the radeon costs 9600 pro $73.

Yet they are the same strength. How can it be more "cheaper to produce" when it costs double?

But thanks for the reply. :) 
Related resources
September 6, 2004 2:41:27 AM

No, the $73 one is a 9600SE, the 9600Pro is $115 cheapest version.

<font color=blue>AthlonXP-M 2500+(12x200)</font color=blue><font color=green>Abit NF7-S</font color=green><font color=red>Kingston DDR400 2x256Mb</font color=red><font color=orange>NEC Accucync 19" CRT</font color=orange><font color=black>Sapphire 9600XT</font color=black>
September 6, 2004 3:01:21 AM

Are you sure???

www.pricewatch.com

$142 - RADEON X600 Pro
$128 - RADEON 9600 XT 128MB
$51 - RADEON 9600 SE 128MB
$112 - RADEON 9600 Pro 256MB
$73 - RADEON 9600 Pro 128MB

I copied and pasted this.

Notice how the X600 Pro costs $142 while the radeon 9600 Pro 128 megs costs $73 almost double the price even though the specs are the same.

It is even $12 more than the 9600 XT which has better specs.

Either that or I'm reading the tables wrong. I don't know how the X600 Pro is more "cheaper" to build.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by TheStranger on 09/05/04 11:02 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
a b U Graphics card
September 6, 2004 3:13:35 AM

On pricewatch, you have to click and see the cards offered, not just go by the general price by chipset. Lot's of non-pros and SE's show up under Pro prices because the compamies say things like (9600 Pro also available) and it makes the list.

Try to go and add a real pro to your cart and long before that you will discover that the Pro's are not $73.


ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 1GB Corsair XMS 4000 Pro Series, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
a b U Graphics card
September 6, 2004 3:21:13 AM

Quote:
right now PCIX is no faster than AGP8x

PCI-X 64-bit 133MHz offers the same bandwidth as AGP2x!

Now PCI-Express x16 on the other hand offers nearly double the bandwidth of AGP8x

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
a b U Graphics card
September 6, 2004 3:29:04 AM

A lot of the cheaper Pro's aren't real Pro's because they often use slower RAM clocked at a slower speed. They normally go under the names "Pro Lite", "Pro EZ", etc, but some companies purposely confuse buyers, and one way of doing that is selling the card in an unlabled wrapper.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
September 6, 2004 11:32:36 PM

Keep in mind i was talking about the core prices being cheaper to produce, the PCI express boards and controllers may offset that cost to make them retail much more closely. This is really an apples to oranges comparison when you factor in agp vs. pcix

I've yet to see a true 9600 pro anywhere for < $100.

"Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my drive?"
P4 3.0C HT, Intel D865GBF, 1GB Crucial PC3200 DDR, 2x WD 36GB Raptor 10kRPM, BBA Radeon 9800PRO, SB Audigy, Hauppage WinTV
a b U Graphics card
September 7, 2004 12:29:13 PM

Do you really need a refresher in pricing?

New model = new price. Or more accurately same old price, just no discounts.

A 2005 Ford Escape will cost more than a 2004 Escape on the lot with 0 miles, yet they have the same features. Oh my, what's going on!?!

Seriously, buy a motherboard with integrated graphics, that's about the right speed for ya'.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
September 7, 2004 2:11:40 PM

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2196" target="_new">Ananstech</A> today has given another intensive test of the current cards including the new 6600GT. In most of the games, infact all, except the X800XT, no other ATI card is giving a strong challenge to the Nvidias. The 6800GT seems again to be the best all rounder kick ass product for the high end price. X600XT pretty much SUCKS and was behind 9800s in a few tests. I hope Ati come out with better cards.

<i> :evil:  <font color=blue>Futile is resistance,</font color=blue><font color=red> assimilate you we will.</font color=red> :evil:  </i>
<b>Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off now.</b>
September 7, 2004 2:33:41 PM

It's the same story with Nvidia. The FX5700 = the 5750 PCX; the FX5200 = the 5300 PCX; and the old geforce4 MX has been rebadged the 4300 PCX! Thus, the 4300 PCX is GROSSLY INFERIOR IN EVERY WAY to the Geforce4 Ti4200.

Hell, any Geforce3 is better than a Geforce4 MX.

As a customer, the onus is on you to research your product names. Marketers will, of course, try and make it sound as nifty as possible to get your cash.

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9700 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 329/337)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>~2750+</b></font color=red> <i>(2400+ @ 2208 Mhz)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,876</b>
September 7, 2004 2:51:47 PM

PCIe please for PCI express ! NVs fu**cked up terminology of PCX has confused quite a few.

<i> :evil:  <font color=blue>Futile is resistance,</font color=blue><font color=red> assimilate you we will.</font color=red> :evil:  </i>
<b>Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off now.</b>
a b U Graphics card
September 7, 2004 4:32:01 PM

What are you on about you crazy nutter!?!

High-end?

The X600XT is MID-Range, and nothing from nV matches it right now, the PCX 5950 is more expensive and the PCX5750 is a joke.

At least understand your comparison regions befor making such silly statements. You sir, are Looney! :tongue:


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
September 7, 2004 7:41:14 PM

i made that remark for the 6800GT !!
though that test involved intro to the new 6600GT but as all other cards were also reviewed so I just made a line summary for those Highends cards too.
In eihther case, the x600 did not perform well compared o other ATIs.

<i> :evil:  <font color=blue>Futile is resistance,</font color=blue><font color=red> assimilate you we will.</font color=red> :evil:  </i>
<b>Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off now.</b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by priyajeet on 09/07/04 03:11 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
a b U Graphics card
September 7, 2004 8:41:23 PM

Quote:
i made that remark for the 6800GT !!

which isn't Mid-Range, yet you mention the X600 along with all the others, so compared to what you are comparing it to the following statement didn't match.

"<font color=blue>X600XT pretty much SUCKS and was behind 9800s in a few tests....</font color=blue>"

And yet you include it once again in your reply...

Quote:
I just made a line summary for those Highends cards too.
In eihther case, the x600 did not perform well compared o other ATIs.



Which other ATIs? Every other card in that review, ATI and nV is a HIGH end card. The GF6600GT isn't even here yet and the X600XT isn't it's competition it's last generation's card. So you are comparing a MID-range card to the High-End cards, and a card that isn't even out yet. So once again, <i>what are you on about</i>?

I noticed no mention of the PCX5750, so nothing in the same league to compare to.

It's easy to make another card look bad, but considering that the others listed aren't supposed to be the competition for that card it's pretty underhanded to try and compare them.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
September 7, 2004 8:45:20 PM

9700,9600

also the x800 and the 6600 are not designed for comparison, but the 6600gt does go ahead of the x800pro at times. the x700 will be <= than that then.

<i> :evil:  <font color=blue>Futile is resistance,</font color=blue><font color=red> assimilate you we will.</font color=red> :evil:  </i>
<b>Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off now.</b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by priyajeet on 09/07/04 03:52 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
a b U Graphics card
September 7, 2004 9:26:28 PM

Quote:
9700,9600

Explain this please, not sure where this comes in.

R9700, not the same as the R9600 or X600 series. R9600 not included in the review you posted, and no it doesn't own the X600XT. So the question is how it relates.

While the GF6600GT does better in some cases, it's similar to the Q3 tests of the previous generation, setup the test in such a way you can show a GF4ti beating an FX5900U.

Once it's in retail form and tested thoroughly against it's direct competition, especially with proper drivers, is when it will be apparent where everything falls in the rankings. Right now however it looks pretty good for the whole spectrum for all users. No longer is there that HUGE gap between the GF6800/X800 and the mid ranges. It was really showing that the PCX5750 and X600 were LAST generation's mid-range contenders.

Right now though the GF6600GT seems to have alot of the right features, the smartest IMO being the inclusion of the SLI support, but that too is really secondary to DAMN fine performance. Because SLI added to something that only match the PCX5750's performance wouldn't have added much. Added upgradability to a good starting point makes a big difference.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
September 7, 2004 9:32:18 PM

Well they do have 9600XT there...page 5
And the 9700 was on page 4.
All cards are being compared, whether they were meant to bcos of their architechture diff, thats a diff story, but yes they are being compared and so one can say that is a inter-architectural comparison.

well, its good that the gap is closing. NV guys wont swear at the ATI guys and vice versa. Also competition will keep both busy in creating better chips n tecnology. Thats y i bought stocks for both companies so that no matter whos on top, i earn.

<i> :evil:  <font color=blue>Futile is resistance,</font color=blue><font color=red> assimilate you we will.</font color=red> :evil:  </i>
<b>Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off now.</b>
September 7, 2004 9:38:47 PM

Quote:
Thats y i bought stocks for both companies so that no matter whos on top, i earn.


Does anyone else see the flaw in this strategy?

Priyajeet... I wish the best of luck to you... but don't quit your day job to become a stockbroker, OK? :) 

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9700 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 329/337)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>~2750+</b></font color=red> <i>(2400+ @ 2208 Mhz)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,876</b>
September 7, 2004 9:57:55 PM

oh yeah...i m still a student...and thats just a side thing..i dont want to be the one to jump off a building when my stocks crash in the market. :lol: 

But u all felows out there...buy ATI and nvidia cards...keep buying.

<i> :evil:  <font color=blue>Futile is resistance,</font color=blue><font color=red> assimilate you we will.</font color=red> :evil:  </i>
<b>Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off now.</b>
September 7, 2004 10:22:05 PM

In the THG test, the 6600GT even beats the 6800GT in the last game (Driver Racer) at high resolution. Also its seems a very strong contender in the other games. I guess, as you said, with the support for SLI, its a pretty handsome card. Wonder when will we see a few SLI benchmarks.

<i> :evil:  <font color=blue>Futile is resistance,</font color=blue><font color=red> assimilate you we will.</font color=red> :evil:  </i>
<b>Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off now.</b>
a b U Graphics card
September 8, 2004 12:41:49 PM

I wouldn't expect SLI benchmarks until '05 (except for maybe some leaked thrown together setups). Rigth now there's just not the board production, and even Intel seems a little reluctant to focus on that when they have their own problems. I don't think it matters much though because really it's greatest benifits will be to users in 1 years time, where they get the cheap upgrade benifit.

For all we know it could be delayed on it's own to ensure base sales of all lines, because the worst thing to happen would be for an SLI GF6600 array to clobber the 'buy it for a premium' GF6800UE would be a terrible thing for nV. The cost of two GF6600GTs is likely significantly more than a GF6800UE, and yet the price would even be less.

So there may be alot of factors at work here.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
!