9500pro vs 9600pro

[nocturnal]

How come the 9500pro performs better than the 9600pro. Wouldn't less numbers mean more worse (9500<9600). I don't get it, and is it more cheaper?

and this is from ATI Radeon

[Pierre-Marie Baty]

Well since recently it doesn't mean anything anymore...

Look, my woodputer has a GeForce 4 MX, when I bought the card I thought, well, GF4 must be a new chip, and furthermore there's a trailing MX behind it that must mean something nice, so I gotta try it... and once back home I saw that the other computer that has an ages old GeForce 2 GTS performs MUCH better.

I feel, sorta, swindled. 9_9

[MarD]

Heyyo,

@nocturnal: I have your solution buddy! The reason was that the 9500pro was built with higher class parts, n' was more expensive. Since the sales weren't good, they resorted to cheaper, but still stable parts that would get the job done. Which's why the 9600pro is still on the market, n' the 9500 series has gone missing. If you can, I suggest trying to grab a 9500 over a 9600 for preformance wise, but money/FpS the 9600's a better deal. Also, the 9500 pro had a way better cooling system (so i'm told) so you can overclock it higher than the 9600 pro... if you're into the whole overclocking scene yeah, go for a 9500pro.

@PMB: YES, PMB, I bought that same crapper card too! The G4 Mx series was a big joke... horrible. I also tried the FX5600, that sucked too... should've spent the extra $20 for a ATI Radeon 9600 Pro. SO? I sold off my crappy FX5600, lost $50 on that... n' bought a 9600pro. Works GREAT. sure I feel I should've just gone all out n' get a 9800pro, but whatever, I'm still satisfied with my 9600 pro since my cpu is still relatively small (AMD Athlon XP 1900+ ). So yeah, PMB, check for deals, n' if you can find a nicely priced 9800 Pro? go for it, the frames diff between the 9800pro n' 9600pro is like, 20-30 at some cases. So at higher rez's n' such that can mean the diff between playable n' very sketchy. I thought your little wood computer couldn't handle a AGP card.. how'd you mod your case to get in that G4 mx?

Here, my fav link for vid card benchmarks:

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/gra...ournament_2003

[EDIT]
OOOH! found a new VGA chart! chart IV! including the new PCI-express cards! :o
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/gra...ml#3dmark_2003

I wish you wouldn't have to rely on actual tests in order to make sure you get your money's worth for computers.. but with soo many little scandals (like the G4 MX) you have to be VERY careful.. n' if you can, try to buy from warehouses, they're cheaper.. just watch out for that warranty.. some are like, 15 days...

[Zacker]

The original 9500 chip was almost similar with the kickass 9700 chip. They had just disabled half of the pipelines.

You should not always trust the numbers. A Radeon 8500 is also better than a 9000.

[Jeffrccar]

Originally Posted by Pierre-Marie Baty

Well since recently it doesn't mean anything anymore...

Look, my woodputer has a GeForce 4 MX, when I bought the card I thought, well, GF4 must be a new chip, and furthermore there's a trailing MX behind it that must mean something nice, so I gotta try it... and once back home I saw that the other computer that has an ages old GeForce 2 GTS performs MUCH better.

I feel, sorta, swindled. 9_9

If my memory serves me well the MX models means that they disabled the speed by half. So, GeForce 2 GTS would be about the same speed even know that the GeForce 4 MX has newer shaders.

[-=RAV=-AdrianShephard]

I had a 9000 pro once. wow my gf2 mx that had half the ram performed better.

[-=RAV=-AdrianShephard]

Well numbers dont mean anything the worst card nvidia has probably made has got to be the 5500.. worst card ever!

and its all about the nividia 5700 ultra 9_9

[MarD]

Heyyo,

Heh, for ATI, actually the 9100 is a soupped up version of the 8500 if ya diddin't know already. So one would hope the 8500 could outdo the 9000. The reason why the 9000 was created was for very cheap low end DX9 cards I believe...