View Full Version : 9600XT vs 9800 Pro

24-02-2004, 04:16 PM
I posted a topic a few weeks ago about Mid range graphics cards, and decided upon the GeCube 256MB 9600XT.

However, some more money has flown into the kitty, and I am now considering moving to the next level.
But I wanna know if the extra few hundred dollars are well spent.

I am now considering a GeCube 128MB 9800 Pro.

It's a drop in the amount of memory, but some other speed specs jump up a notch.
Is it worth it? And why?

24-02-2004, 04:26 PM
Also, another quick question...

I have seen on Pricespy a couple of other brands that are cheaper.

Instead of the GeCube, I could get a Gigabyte or Powercolor 9800Pro?
Any ideas on which is better?

24-02-2004, 04:42 PM
really i would say the cards are about even but would probably go for the 9800 as the extra 128mb of ram wont make that much of a difference and you are better off getting the higher specced card. (of course if it was me i would get the 256mb Ge-force fx 5900 ;) ) . and on the brand thing no it wont make much of a difference which brand you get as long as they are a fairly "mainstream" vid card brand (dont go for any dodgy off brands) if you still want more info go and search google for reviews of the video cards you want, when i was looking for my card i found some sites with comparitive tests of the cards i was looking at.

24-02-2004, 04:47 PM
Unfortunately the 256MB GeForce 5900's are a fraction out of my range.

Consider also that it will be being used for mostly Video editing, and playing simulation games. I.E. Sims 2, Sim City 4 etc...

So if the 9600XT 256MB and the 9800Pro 128MB are roughly similar, would I not be better going for the 9600XT seeing as there is nearly a $300 difference?

Pete O\'Neil
24-02-2004, 05:13 PM
Perhaps it would be a good idea for the Sims2 to be realeased so you know how demanding it willl be? If all you want to do is vid editing and play simulation games then i would be inclined to buy a Gexcube 9600XT 128mb Extreme, the ram is faster provided better preformance over average 9600XT's. All the ATI cards are build by Saphire so there is no need to worry about quality. Stay away from card with 256mb of alteast at this level in the market. It may be worth gettin extra ram with a 9800XT etc. The ram is often slower and since we dont use texture file anywhere near 256 it becomes a bottleneck with 128mb cards providing better preformance. The card listed above will clean house with any Radeon 9600XT 256mb because of its faster ram.


24-02-2004, 05:16 PM
This way you are wrong robert, first of all the 9800 Pro will blow away the 9600 XT at higher settings i.e. with AA and AF, and they most certainly do not perform about the same like u said.

Secondly, it will also own ur 5900 Ultra! In particular when directX 9 games come out. The ranking of graphics card right now should be:

9800 XT, 9800 Pro, Geforce FX 5950 Ultra .......

Goto www.futuremark.com/community u ll find heaps of post people make about the 9800 Pro vs 5900 Ultra, and every single one of them will tell you that 9800 Pro kicks the crap out of the FX5900 Ultra.

As for the extra 128 MBs of video memory, save ur money ...today's game and I am sure the not too distant future's game will not need it and u will not see any increase in performance even if you have it!

Now the brand thing, you would want to look for a brand which uses either Samsung or Hynix memory on the card. These will allow you to overclock you card way more than cards which are using the Infineon ram! So, if possible look for those. Personally I would go with either the PowerColor or the Gigabyte.

Finally, if I remember correctly you bought urself a P4 3.2 GHz rit? Its like I said before ...anything short of a 9800 NP will be a waste of ur fast CPU gaming wise.

Go for the 9800 Pro I say!
Hope this helps!

24-02-2004, 05:29 PM
Excellent advice.
Yes you remembered correctly, the system will be a 3.2GHz

In that case, I think a good option will be:

[url=http://www.c1computer.co.nz/shop/step1.php?number=737]Gigabyte 9800 Pro 128MB ] $555.95

I assume a card like this will do my new PC justice for at least a couple of years.

24-02-2004, 06:50 PM
Hey - i'm not trying to talk you ot of this or anything... BUt is it really worth eteh extra $200 odd $$$ to get a card with a faster chipset but less memory?
Especially for vid editing - wouldn't more memory be bit - and you're saving $200.

24-02-2004, 07:01 PM
I've been reading some reviews on the net and it seems that the 9800 Pro still out performs the 9600XT.

Plus, the video editing I'm doing isnt huge. It's mainly just taking a few minutes of footage and making a music video out of it.
I can do it on my current computer, although it's hard work. So I dont think that either card will make a difference to that.

24-02-2004, 07:15 PM
fergie, I can gurantee u that ... the 9800 chipset is way faster than the 9600 chipset, while the extra bit of memory will give you close to 0 increase in performance...

now as for whether 200 bux it's worth it ...I think in his case it is ... since he has a P4 3.2 GHz .... unless you don't play games ..... ur games would only run as fast as the slowest of ur CPU or Graphics card ......

9600 XT is a decent card ... i can't deny that ..beats it's FX counterpart by quite a bit .... but when you have a 3.2 GHz ... it really pays to get something a lil faster ...rather than having ur fast processor sitting there waiting for the next bit of information ; )

24-02-2004, 08:21 PM
Heres the standings so far: Benchmarks (http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-03.html)

24-02-2004, 08:26 PM
But then that's not accurate ..as Nvidia uses "product specific optimization" drivers AKA cheat drivers. For those of you who dont know ... it means that Nvidia deliberately make their driver faster for those games or benchmark which are commonly used to compete with ATI.

That's ok ..but the problem is that ..most of the time ..the increase in performance comes at the cost of reduced image quality!

24-02-2004, 08:30 PM
I wouldn't look to toms results for real info,They have in the past used nvidia drivers that had specic cheats built into them that gave better benchmarks,Drivers that were labelled as non-compliant by madonion.They have also used an unpatched version of 3dmark which gives an unfair advantage to nvidia(one again due to nvidia drivers being dodgy).Not to mention running different spec machines against each other and calling it a fair test.

All this and much much more has been catolouged by the folks at Madonion.com.

24-02-2004, 08:44 PM
Well even if they favoured Nvidia in the past, those tests favour the ATI cards.

24-02-2004, 09:13 PM
Well, i guess to sum it up then:

If You're prepared to pay $550 odd for a video card - go with the 9800, but if you're not that keen to spend that much get a 9600XT - it seems both will do the job you're after.