9600pro preview is out,what do you think?

[DOOM III]

IMO,the 9600pro is ok but the performance of 9600 is way too low.
both cards are appealing with price at 150 and 100 USD,respectively.

 

[BoardBonobo]

I like the look of the 9600Pro, but not when compared to the 9500Pro. I guess it all depends on how it performs against the 5600 Ultra and maybe the NV36 derivatives - should they ever appear.

I'm sure that nvidia have designed the entire NV3x line in conjunction with Boeing. The inclusion of all their stealth technology has left them with a product that could be filling the shelves right now but no-one would know...

 

[DOOM III]

yep,9600pro will be competing with 5600ultra while ati leave 9600 for 5600/5200 ultra.
we won't see many 9500 series card any longer,will we ? I heard there's a lack of 9500 card in the US for a while.

 

[jandar]

IT competes rather well, winning some, losing some against its older brother.

However, its much cheaper to produce, needs no external power (makes OEMs happy) and the laptop model of it should rock.


Ati keeps moving foward, I wonder though how much of a hit or what kind of small margin they were making on the 9500 chips though?

 

[Evildeus]

If you want some bench:

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/461/page1.html

In french, but i think you can have a look at the graphs. I do understand the last boost on the 9600 pro. Otherwise it would have been difficult to compete with the 5600 ultra :/

 

[martrox]

Ummm... looks like the 5600Ultra get's it's head handed to it by the 9600Pro.....

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDU4

 

[Ostsol]

Well. . . In terms of performance it's not a good replacement for the 9500 Pro, but it should be quite sexy as a mobility solution! 8)

 

[DOOM III]

Ummm... looks like the 5600Ultra get's it's head handed to it by the 9600Pro.....

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDU4

they used different drivers for 9500pro and 9600pro?

 

[DOOM III]

ATI Radeon 9600 Pro Reference Card - Operating at default clock speeds (400/300) using WHQL driver version 7.84.10. "Quality" settings selected within drivers for all options.

ATI Radeon 9500 Pro - Operating at default clock speeds (277/270) using Catalyst 3.2 drivers. "Quality" settings selected within drivers for all options.

what's this 7.84.10 driver? it maks 9600pro outperform 9500pro&cat3.2 in splinter cell.

 

[Hellbinder]

In french, but i think you can have a look at the graphs. I do understand the last boost on the 9600 pro. Otherwise it would have been difficult to compete with the 5600 ultra :/

Thats funny.. All the reviews im seeing where thay actually use the Same IQ settings for both cards the Ultra gets absolutly crushed. ITs not even close. The only benchmarks Nvidia wins are when they are allowed to use their Xabresque AF settings..

 

[Evildeus]

]

In french, but i think you can have a look at the graphs. I do understand the last boost on the 9600 pro. Otherwise it would have been difficult to compete with the 5600 ultra :/

Thats funny.. All the reviews im seeing where thay actually use the Same IQ settings for both cards the Ultra gets absolutly crushed. ITs not even close. The only benchmarks Nvidia wins are when they are allowed to use their Xabresque AF settings..

Well, i generally fing HFR reviews better than Anand/[H] reviews, including this one. But well, you are Hellbinder[CE]

 

[Dave Baumann]

what's this 7.84.10 driver? it maks 9600pro outperform 9500pro&cat3.2 in splinter cell.

7.84.10 is full packag revision number for Cat3.2's. In other words the 7.84 drivers used on 9600 PRO reviews are the same Cat3.2's that are currently downloadable.

the downloadable ones don't contain any .inf information for 9600's though and the set passed to reviewers have a modified .inf.

 

[BoddoZerg]

]The only benchmarks Nvidia wins are when they are allowed to use their Xabresque AF settings..

LOL, "Xabresque". Thats an awesome saying.

 

[KimB]

Ummm... looks like the 5600Ultra get's it's head handed to it by the 9600Pro.....

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDU4

Note that they used the "application" anisotropic settings.

As it turns out, setting the slider to "optimal" or "aggressive" even on a GeForce4 improves performance. This says to me that setting the FX 5600 to application also gets rid of lots of improvements made back in the GeForce3/4 era that don't significantly reduce image quality. I guess this should say, if anything, that nVidia should really implement the "old" anisotropic modes of the GeForce4 as the "quality" setting on the FX line.

As the article stands, they should at least have benchmarked the FX 5600's 8x aniso vs. the Radeon 9600's 16x aniso, in order to offset the off-angle problems that the Radeon has.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

As the article stands, they should at least have benchmarked the FX 5600's 8x aniso vs. the Radeon 9600's 16x aniso, in order to offset the off-angle problems that the Radeon has.

They should then also test 9600's 2X AA against FX's 4X aa to account for 9600's gamma correction.

And 9600's 4x AA against Fx's 6x or 8x mode to account for ATI's gamma correction and better sample positions...

 

[BoddoZerg]

As it turns out, setting the slider to "optimal" or "aggressive" even on a GeForce4 improves performance. This says to me that setting the FX 5600 to application also gets rid of lots of improvements made back in the GeForce3/4 era that don't significantly reduce image quality.

Is it true that it doesn't significantly reduce image quality? Does anyone have screenshots from a GeForce4 running on "balanced" and "aggressive"?

In any case, setting the GeforceFX to balanced or aggressive definitely DOES reduce image quality.

 

[Dave Baumann]

This says to me that setting the FX 5600 to application also gets rid of lots of improvements made back in the GeForce3/4 era that don't significantly reduce image quality.

The application mode for 5600U is faster than a Ti4200. I don't think they've removed improvements, clearly they've added some as the 5600U has a much lower texture fill-rate.

 

[David G.]

The card is exactly what I thought it will be although I was wondering if the much highyer clock will help it overcome the R300 advantages ... and it does in some tests ....

The RV250 history repeats it's self .

A good card . Hope fully the prices will go down fast and that they launch a AIW version of it as I will buy it in a wink .

I just can't wait to see the overclocking results .

 

[Pete]

This says to me that setting the FX 5600 to application also gets rid of lots of improvements made back in the GeForce3/4 era that don't significantly reduce image quality.

The application mode for 5600U is faster than a Ti4200. I don't think they've removed improvements, clearly they've added some as the 5600U has a much lower texture fill-rate.

Looking at the pics in Ante P's latest 5800U review, it seems nV just lowered the FX's AF quality. His pics show the GF4 (at the same driver setting as the NV30) with MIP-maps pushed much further back than the FX's.