Tom's Hardware Forums » Graphic & Displays » Graphics Cards » Nvidia's GeForce 9600 GT Tested
 

Nvidia's GeForce 9600 GT Tested

Add a reply



 Word :   Username :  
 
 Page :   1  2
Next 
Author
 Thread : Nvidia's GeForce 9600 GT Tested
 
Official Core 2 Overheater
Profile: Eternal Poster
More Information

Last message on previous page:
So when are these price drops going to affect the rest of the world? The HD3870 is still minimum $256 here.


---------------
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w179/random1301/Ibanezrandom.png
Sig art copyright verndewd
Related Pr oduct

Register or log in to remove.

Profile: Faithful Poster
More Information

Ive read the drops are US first, maybe another couple weeks worldwide. Ive said it before, if nVidia can ramp up their clocks, theyll have a killer card on their hands


---------------
Every artist is a cannibal,every poet is a thief,they all kill their inspiration then sing about their grief
Profile: journeyman
More Information

Regarding the article...
 
In general, I thought it was great. But one thing that I find a bit... odd is the Performance Recap at the end. While I like the idea of an overall gaming performance graph, I don't know that its results are completely reflective of the individual tests that it's based upon. I mean, is 10 FPS in Oblivion really equal to 10 FPS in Crysis?
 
Wouldn't a relative graph at the end be more useful? IOW, if the 8800GT 512MB was the fastest card in every test, why not show a graph at the end that reflects how each card performed relative to it in every test?
 
For example, if we were simply comparing the 8800GT 512MB and the 9600GT 512MB, we would see...
 Crysis: 8800GT = 44.5 FPS, 9600 GT = 34.9 FPS
 STALKER: 8800GT = 54.4 FPS, 9600 GT = 46.5 FPS
 Oblivion: 8800GT = 97.2 FPS, 9600 GT = 91.7 FPS
 UT3: 8800GT = 123.6 FPS, 9600 GT = 109.2 FPS
AVERAGE: 8800GT = 79.925 FPS, 9600GT = 70.575 (8800GT 512MB = 13.2% better FPS than 9600GT)
 
 Crysis (1280x1024, no AA/AF): 8800GT 512MB = 27.5% better FPS than 9600GT  
 STALKER (1280x1024): 8800GT 512MB = 17.0% better FPS than 9600GT  
 Oblivion (1280x1024): 8800GT 512MB = 6.0% better FPS than 9600GT  
 Unreal Tournament III (1280x1024, no AA/AF): 8800GT 512MB = 13.1% better FPS than 9600GT  
AVERAGE: 8800GT 512MB = 15.9% better FPS than 9600GT
 
So, with just these four games, it looks like there's a decent difference between simply the average of the FPS values of each game and the average of the relative difference between them for each game. The second value, though, is actually rather close to the difference shown by the Tom's Hardware Average Performance graph, so maybe they're already taking this into consideration somehow.
 
Anyway, just thought it might be worth mentioning. But maybe I'm just being an idiot and I overlooked something. :) (I am a history major, not a math major. :) )


Message edited by RobertM525 on 02-24-2008 at 10:20:25 PM
"Thus is Life"
Profile: stranger
More Information

For me, I am already pretty content with my 8800gts oc. We'll see how well the 9800's n up fair in benchmarks and price...

Profile: old hand
More Information

the 9600(whatever) ain't no da** 9 series card?
 
Until they come out with a real new architecture its an 8650 at best... :pfff:


---------------
Evga 780i SLI : Q6600 @ 3.5Ghz :8800GTX x 2 SLI 649/2052 :4GB XMS2 Dominator 4-4-4-12 900 :XFi Fatal1ty :150GB WD Raptor :500GB Seagate 16MB x2 :Eheim + Danger Den :Lian Li PC V1000 (black) :BFG 1Kw PS :37" Westinghouse 1080p 8ms :XP32bit :Vista64bit
Profile: Forum Gigolo
More Information

8650?  Oh comeon, it does very good for a 6 series card.  AT least call it an 8750. :)


---------------
MSI P6N SLI Platinum, Q6600, 2GB Crucial Ballistix Tracer PC8000,  
SLI BFG 8800GT OC 512MB, SB X-Fi Fatality, Antec TruePower Trio 550W, Windows XP pro
Profile: old hand
More Information

p05esto wrote :


If I'm thinking about upgrading I want to know if it's worth it yet for example. And wouldn't this be what the card companies would also want? Don't they want to show people how much better the new cards are to entice people to upgrade?


 
While they aren't as up to date as they should be, Tom's GPU guides have as the last page "what about this other card?", which lists Nvidia on one side and ATI on the other to see comparative generations. The recommendation is to only upgrade if the new card is two steps above. Here's the one from February 2008:
 
http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/0 [...] page7.html

Profile: old hand
More Information

deltapapazulu wrote :

I completely agree.  Oblivion has been out for two friggin years, and the best cards on the market still can't play a comfortable 60fps in most demanding settings.

 

Keep in mind that Oblivion is the Crysis of it's generation. The Witcher runs a bit better with a 3870x2 than Oblivion does. Yet, I'm so happy with my new Oblivion performance that I don't mind lows of 25 fps with ultrahigh quality and HDR.

 

My 3870x2 can get from 25 to 60 fps average in Oblivion at 1024 x 768. When I finally ditch this CRT for an LCD in the middle of March, then I'll give it a try at 1680 x 1050. Of course, Oblivion recognizes Crossfire and dual GPU on one PCB is Crossfire without the hassles, but it cost me $450.

 

If Nordic Hardware is right, you'll see an equivalent card in June for $299. The 4870 is expected to be 50% faster than a 3870 (the range of the 3870x2). The 4850 is expected at $250, but the 4870x2 will be $499. You'll need to spend more than $200 for 60fps in Oblivion.

 
deltapapazulu wrote :


Now the Intel Wolfdale on the other hand.  That has made me a little giddy.  Maybe Intel should purchase Nvidia.  I'm not joking.

 

Intel's developing their own discrete GPU's, so why buy Nvidia? Intel does not need underperforming chipsets, whereas ATI had great chipsets and slightly under performing cards that they reengineered into winners. All Nvidia has are good to great GPU's and an SLI multicard interface that no one else wants to license.

 


Message edited by yipsl on 02-25-2008 at 09:17:45 PM
Official Core 2 Overheater
Profile: Eternal Poster
More Information

yipsl wrote :

The recommendation is to only upgrade if the new card is two steps above.


Three tiers actually ;)


---------------
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w179/random1301/Ibanezrandom.png
Sig art copyright verndewd
Profile: stranger
More Information

Or you crack the die on the 8600 and then step up to the 9600, as I just did. I do enjoy the performance boost that the 9600 offers. So do not shoot me down for this. I do things differently than others. I live in my own little world. Don't worry, they know me here.

Profile: addict
More Information

randomizer wrote :

Three tiers actually ;)


 
so what is the time to upgrade the 8800GT?


---------------
Q6600 @ 3Ghz | zalman 9700NT cooler | gigabyte P35-DS3L | Kingstone DDR2 667 1GB x 2 | XFX 8800GT | enermax Liberty 500w | Coolermaster C5 case |
Profile: stranger
More Information

This card should be able to run Bioshock nicely, right?

Profile: Forum Gigolo
More Information

pugdog0o0 wrote :

This card should be able to run Bioshock nicely, right?


The 9600GT...sure can. http://www.firingsquad.com/hardwar [...] page14.asp


---------------
MSI P6N SLI Platinum, Q6600, 2GB Crucial Ballistix Tracer PC8000,  
SLI BFG 8800GT OC 512MB, SB X-Fi Fatality, Antec TruePower Trio 550W, Windows XP pro
 Page :   1  2
Next 
Top 

Go to:
Add a reply
  Tom's Hardware Forums » Graphic & Displays » Graphics Cards » Nvidia's GeForce 9600 GT Tested
 

Google Ads
Ad