Ok, I have a 9700 pro 128mb video card and I am in the market for an ATI 256mb one. I can't afford the X800 XT, so I went on ebay and searched 256mb and I saw a 9600 pro 256. I have no clue what the numbers 9700 and 9600 mean, but it has to do with the speed or something. So, my question is, would I be stepping down if I went to the 9600 card even though it is a 256? A little edcuation on what these numbers represent would be nice along with an answer. Thanks for your response.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations bkrike on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Step up or down 1
- Thread starter Ddraig85
- Start date
Well, 256mb cards compared to 128mb of the same chip make, are sometimes slower...
a 9700 is a better(?)/newer chip than the 9600...
in my opinion, save your money and buy the X800 later!!!!
another thing is, that there aren't enough GAMES out there that would benefit from the extra 128mb...
now CAD software or the like, would though...
so it all depends on what you use the GFX card for...
Ben
If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer...
a 9700 is a better(?)/newer chip than the 9600...
in my opinion, save your money and buy the X800 later!!!!
another thing is, that there aren't enough GAMES out there that would benefit from the extra 128mb...
now CAD software or the like, would though...
so it all depends on what you use the GFX card for...
Ben
If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer...
BadBigBen is right on. At the moment there are virtually no games or apps that will benefit from the additional graphics memory: 128MB is sufficient for current demands.
Definitely wait until the X800 becomes affordable: then 256MB may be beneficial.
Regards: tf1
Definitely wait until the X800 becomes affordable: then 256MB may be beneficial.
Regards: tf1
TekTippy4U
Technical User
be sure to adjust the AGP aperture size accordingly for the best performance
TT4U
Notification:
These are just my thoughts....and should be carefully measured against other opinions.
Backup All Important Data/Docs
TT4U
Notification:
These are just my thoughts....and should be carefully measured against other opinions.
Backup All Important Data/Docs
-
1
- #5
Sorry to contradict you guys.
9600 based cards are newer than the 9700's but nowhere near as fast.
The 9700pro is a damn fast card and is still ranked pretty high in the performance league eg.
My guestimates:
ATI
Plain 9800 slower
9800SE a lot slower
9800pro 5/8% quicker
9800XT 10/15% quicker
Then comes the new X800 series and things really do take a leap forward.
X800 series anything between 25 and 200% quicker depending on model and benchmark.
Nvidia
FX5700 quite a bit slower
FX5700SE even slower
FX5700ultra around 20% slower
FX5800ultra slightly quicker
FX5900 2/3% quicker
FX5900XT about the same
FX5900ultra 5/8% quicker
FX5950ultra 10/15% quicker
Then the new 6800 series again big leap 25/200% quicker depending on model etc.
Rule of thumb about graphics memory:
The slower the card the less memory it needs to perform at it's optimum.
Slower graphics chip = less frames rendered per second and at lower resolutions so requires less memory buffer to produce smaller rendered scenes.
Thus follows: faster graphics chip = higher frames per second at higher resolutions so requires larger memory buffer.
It always makes me chuckle when I see people buying say: an Nvidia FX5200 with 256mb of ram! the graphics chip simply isn't fast enough to ever create high enough fsp's and detailed enough scenes ever to need that much memory.
This is where I'm going to disagree with you fella's again, the latest 6800GT's/ultra's X800pro's and XT's definately do benefit from having 256mb onboard!
These powerful GPU's fitted with only 128mb are definately bottlenecking with lack of memory at higher resolutions, see the latest reviews.
Martin
We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.
9600 based cards are newer than the 9700's but nowhere near as fast.
The 9700pro is a damn fast card and is still ranked pretty high in the performance league eg.
My guestimates:
ATI
Plain 9800 slower
9800SE a lot slower
9800pro 5/8% quicker
9800XT 10/15% quicker
Then comes the new X800 series and things really do take a leap forward.
X800 series anything between 25 and 200% quicker depending on model and benchmark.
Nvidia
FX5700 quite a bit slower
FX5700SE even slower
FX5700ultra around 20% slower
FX5800ultra slightly quicker
FX5900 2/3% quicker
FX5900XT about the same
FX5900ultra 5/8% quicker
FX5950ultra 10/15% quicker
Then the new 6800 series again big leap 25/200% quicker depending on model etc.
Rule of thumb about graphics memory:
The slower the card the less memory it needs to perform at it's optimum.
Slower graphics chip = less frames rendered per second and at lower resolutions so requires less memory buffer to produce smaller rendered scenes.
Thus follows: faster graphics chip = higher frames per second at higher resolutions so requires larger memory buffer.
It always makes me chuckle when I see people buying say: an Nvidia FX5200 with 256mb of ram! the graphics chip simply isn't fast enough to ever create high enough fsp's and detailed enough scenes ever to need that much memory.
This is where I'm going to disagree with you fella's again, the latest 6800GT's/ultra's X800pro's and XT's definately do benefit from having 256mb onboard!
These powerful GPU's fitted with only 128mb are definately bottlenecking with lack of memory at higher resolutions, see the latest reviews.
Martin
We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.
Martin
In slower cards, to make matter even less attractive, the memory is also dam slow too. You get standard 266MHz DDR with most FX5200s or the like: as you go up, so the memory (usually) gets faster. The latest X800 has DDR3 memory!
I have always been really annoyed the way that graphics manufacturers make it difficult to see what performance you are getting by simply looking at the model. What with Pro, SE, GT, XT and Ultra, how is the poor punter to know!
To me, SE means Special Edition and I would expect to get better perfomance or something exclusive about it. In the graphics world, SE means special because all the components are bottom end budget (reject GPUs that won't pass full speed tests) coupled with memory from yesteryear.
I'd rather have a card with 128MB 2.5nS memory than another with 256MB 5nS memory because I know which will run faster. Thank heavens there's always Tomshardware.com to find the real value!
Regards: tf1
In slower cards, to make matter even less attractive, the memory is also dam slow too. You get standard 266MHz DDR with most FX5200s or the like: as you go up, so the memory (usually) gets faster. The latest X800 has DDR3 memory!
I have always been really annoyed the way that graphics manufacturers make it difficult to see what performance you are getting by simply looking at the model. What with Pro, SE, GT, XT and Ultra, how is the poor punter to know!
To me, SE means Special Edition and I would expect to get better perfomance or something exclusive about it. In the graphics world, SE means special because all the components are bottom end budget (reject GPUs that won't pass full speed tests) coupled with memory from yesteryear.
I'd rather have a card with 128MB 2.5nS memory than another with 256MB 5nS memory because I know which will run faster. Thank heavens there's always Tomshardware.com to find the real value!
Regards: tf1
@paparazi - read what I wrote, quote "...256mb cards compared to 128mb of the same chip make, are [/b]sometimes slower..." ... so here we agree...
Quote:"...a 9700 is a better(?)/newer chip than the 9600..." thanx, I stand corrected...
but to boil it down: Ddraig85 asked what the diff was on the two (9700 and 9600) and if it would be a downgrade... it would be a downgrade and waste of money, that's why I told him to save the moola for an X800 card...
but, thanx for a more elaborate definition there...
Ben
If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer...
Quote:"...a 9700 is a better(?)/newer chip than the 9600..." thanx, I stand corrected...
but to boil it down: Ddraig85 asked what the diff was on the two (9700 and 9600) and if it would be a downgrade... it would be a downgrade and waste of money, that's why I told him to save the moola for an X800 card...
but, thanx for a more elaborate definition there...
Ben
If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer...
Much respect! BadBigBen
Perhaps I should have pointed Ddraig85 to Toms excellent VGA charts:
Some very nice comparisons here!
Martin
We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.
Perhaps I should have pointed Ddraig85 to Toms excellent VGA charts:
Some very nice comparisons here!
Martin
We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.
TekTippy4U
Technical User
hey guys;
good info all around - what I noticed when browsing - oh say newegg.com for ati cards, it was not only to look for the DX engine (as that Toms Hardware link lists nicely) - but the available "Refresh" rates (not to mention the diff available inputs/outputs and other stuff like AIW cards)
...for ex;
from this page -
"ATI AIW RADEON 9700 PRO Video Card, 128MB DDR, CATV/VIVO, 8X AGP -OEM"
-- Max Resolution@32bit Color: 2048X1536@60Hz
@$216
versus the
"ATI FGL 9600 Video Card, 128MB DDR, 128-bit, DVI, 8X AGP, Model "FireGL T2-128" -OEM"
-- Max Resolution@32bit Color: 2048X1536@85Hz
@$225
amongst some other things - notice the available "Refresh rates"
60Hz can be painful, and I'm sure the 9700 above will do 85Hz at a lower resolution....so depending upon your needs..
Plus - another point - depending on 'what type' of work your doing - say CAD and Photoshop - the fps rate doesn't count as much as 'available' GPU RAM....but for Games, that's another story
TT4U
Notification:
These are just my thoughts....and should be carefully measured against other opinions.
Backup All Important Data/Docs
good info all around - what I noticed when browsing - oh say newegg.com for ati cards, it was not only to look for the DX engine (as that Toms Hardware link lists nicely) - but the available "Refresh" rates (not to mention the diff available inputs/outputs and other stuff like AIW cards)
...for ex;
from this page -
"ATI AIW RADEON 9700 PRO Video Card, 128MB DDR, CATV/VIVO, 8X AGP -OEM"
-- Max Resolution@32bit Color: 2048X1536@60Hz
@$216
versus the
"ATI FGL 9600 Video Card, 128MB DDR, 128-bit, DVI, 8X AGP, Model "FireGL T2-128" -OEM"
-- Max Resolution@32bit Color: 2048X1536@85Hz
@$225
amongst some other things - notice the available "Refresh rates"
60Hz can be painful, and I'm sure the 9700 above will do 85Hz at a lower resolution....so depending upon your needs..
Plus - another point - depending on 'what type' of work your doing - say CAD and Photoshop - the fps rate doesn't count as much as 'available' GPU RAM....but for Games, that's another story
TT4U
Notification:
These are just my thoughts....and should be carefully measured against other opinions.
Backup All Important Data/Docs
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question