Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Rol on September 10, 2004, 08:35:34 pm
-
hi
i need help
should i buy the radeon 9600XT 256mb or the 9800pro 128mb? both are from sapphire. the price is very similar...
or a completely different card?
thanks for the help
-
Tough question. If they are similair in price, then they are most likely (though I could be wrong) similair in performance.
Btw, wouldn't this belong in the Hard Light forum?
-
About 2 months ago, I performed a major core system upgrade (CPU, MB, RAM, VC). I was planning on getting an R9600XT, and was interested in the low price of the 256MB version. However, everyone I talked to, told me that 256MB on an R9600 is useless, since the card itself can only address 128MB worth. The R9800 series on the other hand (except for an Atlantis model, can't remember which manufacturer), can address the whole 256MB worth. Now, the R9800 Pro you mentioned was only 128MB, so if the R9600XT can only use 128MB, then the R9800 Pro should actually run faster, since its got the better core and wider data pathways.
Answer, if you can afford it, go with the 9800Pro, even if its 128MB. If you can't, stick with the R9600XT with 128MB, which is what I'm running.
Hope that helps.
Later!
-
Wait.
For what? The nVidia GeForce 6600 GT. Just like ATI did in early 2002 with the Radeon 9500 Pro, so will nVidia do in October/November of 2004. They will produce a card that is overpowered and underpriced. The 6600GT does impressively well for a midrange ~$200 card and thoroughly stomps the 9600 and its derivatives. No insane two slot cooling solution, and apparently it does fine without the extra molex connector. Frankly I intend it to be my next card unless ATI can conjure a rabbit out of their hat before then which is doubtful. Don't get me wrong, ATI makes some fine cards and I've had great fortune with their drivers for years, but it looks like nVidia will soon take the crown in the midrange market.
Dunno about you guys, but high end makes no sense to me. $400-500 a card? No thank you, that's best spent on multiple whores on Aurora Avenue, but the midrange $180 to $250? Yeah, that's good.
Wait for the 6600 GT.
However, everyone I talked to, told me that 256MB on an R9600 is useless, since the card itself can only address 128MB worth. The R9800 series on the other hand (except for an Atlantis model, can't remember which manufacturer), can address the whole 256MB worth. Now, the R9800 Pro you mentioned was only 128MB, so if the R9600XT can only use 128MB, then the R9800 Pro should actually run faster, since its got the better core and wider data pathways.
I'm guessing your "everyone" mistook the maximum addressable memory for memory path bandwidth. 128 bits is the width of the 9600 memory bus (with the exception of the SE revision which is a pile of crap. 64 bits? NO.) However to the best of my knowledge 256 megabytes of physical memory is no problem for the RV350 core, it just sports a 128 bit wide bus compared to the 256 of it's elder 9700 brother and 9800.
-
~$200 card and thoroughly stomps the 9600 and its derivatives
The 9600 costs about half that, IIRC.
-
thanks for the help i will wait for the 6600 GT
-
Buy a 9800 Pro. It rocks.
I just got one myself...and the performance is excellent.
-
Just out of curiousity, what are you upgrading from?
-
Oh and Plasma, I just read a review of the 6600GT and the Radeon X600XT was able to keep up with it. I'd go with ATI mostly because "Radeon" sounds cooler. :D But seriously, it will just come down to brand loyalty between those two since they cost the same.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
Just out of curiousity, what are you upgrading from?
Good point. I wouldn't know quality if it hit me in the face with a BFRed. I just upgraded from an Nvidia 2 MX 400. SUCKAGE!!!
I was getting 30 FPS tops (I just couldn't turn off jpgtga, must...have...lightspeed's engine...effects...).
Now, with my ATI Radeon 9800 Pro, I get a steady 100 FPS.
The only thing is, I can only play two missions at a time, because I run out of RAM. Something is eating up RAM really fast (I have 512 MB)...
-
Originally posted by Blitzerland
Good point. I wouldn't know quality if it hit me in the face with a BFRed. I just upgraded from an Nvidia 2 MX 400. SUCKAGE!!!
I was getting 30 FPS tops (I just couldn't turn off jpgtga, must...have...lightspeed's engine...effects...).
Now, with my ATI Radeon 9800 Pro, I get a steady 100 FPS.
The only thing is, I can only play two missions at a time, because I run out of RAM. Something is eating up RAM really fast (I have 512 MB)...
What FSO version are you running? The older ones have memory leaks, IIRC - which have been fixed, though I can;t remember exactly in which builds. (which is ok, as someone will almost immediately post here to correct me ;) )
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
What FSO version are you running? The older ones have memory leaks, IIRC - which have been fixed, though I can;t remember exactly in which builds. (which is ok, as someone will almost immediately post here to correct me ;) )
I'm using Fs2_open_ex
-
Blitz, I posted a possible solution in your thread in the Source Code forum.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
Oh and Plasma, I just read a review of the 6600GT and the Radeon X600XT was able to keep up with it. I'd go with ATI mostly because "Radeon" sounds cooler. :D But seriously, it will just come down to brand loyalty between those two since they cost the same.
Which review have you been reading? Every place I've seen has the 6600GT stomping the X600 into the ground and some cases matching the x800pro. Until ATi releases the x700, nvidia is going to own the midrange market.
-
at the moment i have a radeon 9600 pro atlantis 128mb but someone who wants a cheap card pay me 80€ so i think abaut buying a new one
-
Originally posted by Trivial Psychic
However, everyone I talked to, told me that 256MB on an R9600 is useless, since the card itself can only address 128MB worth.
That's not correct. The R9600 can address 256 MB of graphics memory. It just makes no sense, anyway, since 256 MB are used purely for large sized texture, which only occur when using high resolutions. But the R9600, regardless of being standard, Pro or XT, simply does not have the power to handle these amounts of data.
Originally posted by Rol
at the moment i have a radeon 9600 pro atlantis 128mb but someone who wants a cheap card pay me 80€ so i think abaut buying a new one
If you ask me : buying a 9600 XT is a waste of money, since it won't provide a notable gain in speed over your 9600 Pro. The larger memory size won't be an upgrade, either, for the aforementioned reason. If you intend to upgrade, you should go for the 9800.
-
Look at the benchmarks. Many people will tell you the same thing: the R9800Pro 128 MB has the best Price-performance ratio. After all, I am a very satisfied customer of my R9800Pro.
-
Me too! Heh, heh, heh. ATI shall rule all! DIE, PUNY NVIDIA! HOO-HA HA! HOO-HA HA!
But seriously, ATI is a much better choice.
EDIT: I have a 9800 Pro too! Welcome to club, buddy! Together, we shall crush the foolish Nvidia users! Or not...depending on whether or not I get over this cold i'm currently suffering.
-
Originally posted by ChronoReverse
Which review have you been reading? Every place I've seen has the 6600GT stomping the X600 into the ground and some cases matching the x800pro. Until ATi releases the x700, nvidia is going to own the midrange market.
www.hardocp.com
One that actually uses real world games. :p
-
And if you read the HardOCP article carefully (which I did read incidentally... it's included in the "every site I've seen"), you'll realize two things.
First, they also say the 6600GT is insanely fast for the price.
Second, the graphs have the cards at different settings (for a reason). The 6600GT is always at a higher graphics level (i.e. higher AF or AA or resolution or combination of those).
Please be aware we test our video cards a bit different from what is the norm. We concentrate on examining the real-world gameplay that each video card provides. Gameplay includes performance and image quality evaluation. We have two sections, “Highest Playable” and “Apples to Apples”. The Highest Playable section shows the best Image Quality delivered at a playable frame rate. Following the Highest Playable section we have a brief Apples to Apples performance section for those that find benefit of framerates with matching IQ.
From the article with the 6600GT in question.
Some tidbits from the article graphs.
D3:
6600GT: 52.7 FPS
X600XT: 50.7 FPS
Sure sounds close and like the X600XT is keeping up right?
Gee whiz, the 6600GT is at 1280x1024 noAA/8xAF HQ mode while the X600XT is at 800x600 noAA/noAF MQ mode.
Of course we know that nVidia's cards perform better in D3 so lets try FarCry where nVidia is known to perform worse.
FarCry:
6600GT: 47.1 FPS
X600GT: 51 FPS
Both are at 1024x768 4xAF BUT
6600GT is at 2xAA and "Very High" graphics settings.
X600XT is at noAA and "Medium" graphics settings for everything except for lighting which was at "Very High" (HardOCP says this enables PS 2.0).
A whole different story eh?
At least I try to be objective about video cards.
-
This (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-102-297&depa=0)
Cooled with
This (http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=35-116-013&depa=0)
Using
This (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=35-100-008&depa=0)
-
Okey, first on the X600 VS 6600GT:
1) the X600 is basicly a 9600XT in a PCI-E core, so unless your upgrading your mobo to a PCI-E one, its worthless.
Also, the 6600GT is ALSO PCI-E ONLY, neither are an option for a reguler upgrade because neither will have an AGP option.
2) the X600 is outdated in favour of the X700, which losses badly against the 6600GT no matter what test you run(see Ananadtech.com, Tomshardware.com,Xbitlabs.com)
3) For an upgrade, there is nothing more efficient then a 9800 unless your going for a 6800GT.
4) ATi won the last generation(FX and 9xxx), it has allready lost badly against the 6xxx line of cards that nVidia put out, to say nothing of future preformance.
5) The 9600XT is overpriced, and underpowered, for its price, you can get a 9800Pro today.
6) Unless your getting one of the new cards (6xxx or Xxxx) there is no need for 256MB of memory on your card, becuase you don't have the power to run in resolutions that use that texture size.
-
I have to disagree with the ssecond half of point 4.
ATi won the last round. This is clear.
This round is still rather split.
-
Originally posted by ChronoReverse
I have to disagree with the ssecond half of point 4.
ATi won the last round. This is clear.
This round is still rather split.
It's unclear in the current games, but all games utilizing shadows extensivly (Far Cry, UT, D3,HL2) show anything from a moderate to nice win for nVidia, particulary in the mid range, where the X700 can't even hold ATi's traditional lead in AA and AF, but losses everywhere except UT.
-
ATI runs fine with me. Specular mapping with FSO even works with the latest drivers (only for me though, seemingly).
ATI is superior (not by much, however) to Nvidia.
-
I have a 9700... Seems to be about the same as both... slightly faster then the 9600, but slightly slower then the 9800...
-
Originally posted by Hippo
I have a 9700... Seems to be about the same as both... slightly faster then the 9600, but slightly slower then the 9800...
The middleground. :p
-
indeed :p
-
Can I have it? :p
-
you could have my old computers old one... Nvidia Riva... NON TNT compatable :p
-
Nvidia Riva...not TNT compatible...
Reminds me of my old 3DFx 4MB 3D-card I had when I was, like, 8-10 or so.
It made everything look soooo nice...at the time.
"What's a 3D Aceleflahterrer, Daddy?"
:lol:
-
You're really telling you're age blitz, you must be what 16?
I didn't get my first 3d accelerator till I was 19, it was a 3dfx Voodoo 3 2000 with 16 megabytes of VRAM in a PCI slot.
-
Was that top of the line back then?
-
If the old one was a Voodoo or Voodoo2 then yes.
The V3 unfortunately, was never really top of the line since the TNT2 mostly out-classed it.
-
Actually I upgraded from a built in Trident POS that stole 8mb of RAM from the system memory. It wasn't long after that that my monitor faded to black and I could barely see anything with the gamma turned all the way up and lights off.