# About how much better is a 9600 GSO than a x1950 pro?



## Emanon Retsim (Jul 6, 2009)

Heyas folks. I'm looking to get a few more miles outta of my system before I do a full rebuild hopefully next spring. Right now my old x1950 is on the fritz and needs to be replaced with something cheap and decent. Newegg is selling Asus 9600 GSO 384MB for $35 bucks after rebate. Should I snag it while it's on sell or go with something else?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121319


Right now my system for gaming at 1280x1024 is;
Mobo: MSI K8N Neo4-F Socket 939
CPU: Single Core AMD Athlon 64 3800+
Ram: DDR1 2x1gb G.Skill 
GPU: Sapphire Radeon x1950 Pro
OS: Vista Home Premium 32bit


----------



## Kursah (Jul 6, 2009)

I noticed about double the frames in games comparing my x1950xtx (48 shaders) OC'd vs my Palit 9600GT stock in many games I played, from CoD4, BF2142, Supreme Commander, etc. The GSO is better on shader power with 96 vs my GT's 64, though the GT's shaders are faster. I miss my old Palit, that card clocked like a demon too. But you should see a very nice increase, though 384MB isn't too much for gaming at 1280x1024 you should be fine for the most part, though you might want to consider spending a tad more if youc an find a 768MB version. But it shouldn't  be all too necessary. For that price it's definately worth it imo, especially over the aged 1950pro, it'll be a night and day difference, with decent DX10 gaming at that resolution to boot.


----------



## LittleLizard (Jul 6, 2009)

you wont see much of a increase because ur cpu is bottlenecking the rig but at least a decent increase u will se.


----------



## Emanon Retsim (Jul 7, 2009)

K, thanks for the advice.


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Jul 7, 2009)

I agree with the above posters.i used a 7900GS OC(about same as x1950pro) and i went to a 8800GT i saw a big jump in frame rates and the benchmark scores are more then 2x but i wouldn't really bother getting a new card yet i would get a new CPU first.... BUT at that good of a deal i would snag it


----------



## Wile E (Jul 7, 2009)

LittleLizard said:


> you wont see much of a increase because ur cpu is bottlenecking the rig but at least a decent increase u will se.





p_o_s_pc said:


> I agree with the above posters.i used a 7900GS OC(about same as x1950pro) and i went to a 8800GT i saw a big jump in frame rates and the benchmark scores are more then 2x but i wouldn't really bother getting a new card yet i would get a new CPU first.... BUT at that good of a deal i would snag it



If he can already max it out, yeah, the cpu will be a bottleneck, but at that point, what does it matter? He already has good frames.

Now, on games that his card struggles, he'll notice quite a large improvement in frames. With most modern games, the gpu is the bottleneck, not the cpu. The cpu won't make any difference if the card is being pushed past it's limits.

He should absolutely buy the card first, and worry about a cpu later. DaMulta proved this by throwing an 8800GT into a single core Athlon system back when we were still sponsored.


----------



## KainXS (Jul 7, 2009)

can u get the street fighter 4 benchmark and run it and tell us what it scores, Its a good bench


----------



## LoserDave (Aug 30, 2009)

Emanon Retsim said:


> Heyas folks. I'm looking to get a few more miles outta of my system before I do a full rebuild hopefully next spring. Right now my old x1950 is on the fritz and needs to be replaced with something cheap and decent. Newegg is selling Asus 9600 GSO 384MB for $35 bucks after rebate. Should I snag it while it's on sell or go with something else?
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121319
> 
> ...



Hey Emanon
I am in the same situation . My Asus x1950 pro has become "Heat Weak" , so
I just purchased the above card from Newegg just before i found this thread.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121320
Someone on another forum suggested upgrading the fan  even before installing it first time.

Please Let me know how the card works out for you and your experience with it.
Thanks
Dave

Mobo:   Asus A8n32-SLI Deluxe, socket 939
  CPU:   Athlon 64 4000+
  RAM:  1 GB Kingston HYPERX DDR434
  GPU:  ASUS x1950 pro 256 DDR3
  PSU:  Antec TruePower Trio 650w
   OS:   XPpro sp3


----------



## LoserDave (Sep 2, 2009)

Ok here are the results.
it was a bit of a let down.
Just looking at the card , it was warped and the heat sink was on a bit cockeyed. Solder joints looked a bit messy. Visably, it doesnt seem to have the same quality as the 385mb version, although,  I understand Asus gets their board from different various manufactures.
 O well it works.

 Although the 9600GSO does allow me to finish a game at 1600x1200, gameplay is much choppier than that of the x1950 pro,, go figure 
I suspect it may have something to do with how the RAM is being used.

Here at the 3Dmark05 scores at 1600x1200
x1950pro 7518
9600GSO 9100

Oddly enough ,, With the 9600GSO the 3Dmark simulations were much choppier than the x1950pro, yet it had a higher frame rate,, can't figure that out 
The new Geforce card seems to be putting off just as much heat as the ATI yet isn't shutting down.
So i guess it was a bit of a trade off,, It works


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Sep 2, 2009)

those 9600GSO's overclock like crazy.....


----------



## MKmods (Sep 2, 2009)

the 9600 is a worthwhile upgrade over the 1950(especially if the 1950 is the 256mb version) It will work fine with your 3800. (no noticeable bottleneck, especially at your res)

I just built a rig with a pair of those GSO's in SLI and it kicks ass. If possible look for the 512mb version.

I have used MANY of the 9600s and really love them, they are the sweet spot for value (best perf,lowest power/heat for the $$)

although I have a pair of 9800GTs I wish I had kept my last pair of 9600GTs.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 2, 2009)

LoserDave said:


> Ok here are the results.
> it was a bit of a let down.
> Just looking at the card , it was warped and the heat sink was on a bit cockeyed. Solder joints looked a bit messy. Visably, it doesnt seem to have the same quality as the 385mb version, although,  I understand Asus gets their board from different various manufactures.
> O well it works.
> ...


Don't forget to try different driver versions. Some perform better than others.


----------



## MohawkAngel (Sep 2, 2009)

btw..i have a BFG Tech 9400GT 512megs DDR2 Pci-e 16X 2.0     
what is the tool that i can use to overclock it ? 
i know i could get more from that card. thx


----------



## MKmods (Sep 2, 2009)

have you heard the expression " you cant get blood out of a rock"

RivaTuner is what I use for my cards


----------



## KainXS (Sep 3, 2009)

you should have looked at what you were buying, that 9600gso only has 8 rops meaning the pixel fill rate is alot lower than a standard gso and is only 128bit meaning it has way less memory bandwidth

this is your gso on gpu z





this is a stock gso





just to confirm, does your card look like this one





and are you sure this is the one you bought
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121320

those are matts pics by the way


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Sep 3, 2009)

Found out that this 9600GSO only has a 128bit memory bus.  There are MANY flavors of 9600GSO.  With 128/192/256bit memory bus, 384/512/768/1GB ddr2 OR DDR3 RAM, different ROP count, and shader counts from 96 to 48, there have been many cards calling themselves 9600GSO.


----------



## KainXS (Sep 3, 2009)

its so fucked up man, newegg is selling 8rop, 128 bit 9600gso's now and one of them is a 48sp model meaning its barely faster than a 9500GT, but all have 8 rops and are 128bit now.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...48 106792522 1067939752&name=GeForce 9600 GSO
thats just so messed up

wth happened

48 sp, 8rop gso sucks


----------



## Zubasa (Sep 3, 2009)

thebluebumblebee said:


> Found out that this 9600GSO only has a 128bit memory bus.  There are MANY flavors of 9600GSO.  With 128/192/256bit memory bus, 384/512/768/1GB ddr2 OR DDR3 RAM, different ROP count, and shader counts from 96 to 48, there have been many cards calling themselves 9600GSO.


Thats the problem when nVidia remarked the 8800GS to 9600GSo and later slap on a G94 and refer it by the same name 



KainXS said:


> its so fucked up man, newegg is selling 8rop, 128 bit 9600gso's now and one of them is a 48sp model meaning its barely faster than a 9500GT, but all have 8 rops and are 128bit now.
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...48 106792522 1067939752&name=GeForce 9600 GSO
> thats just so messed up
> 
> ...


Well so you actually have no idea that the guy is buying the "standard" GSO?
Next, time when you recommand somebody to buy a nV card, do some research on nVidia's naming mess


----------



## KainXS (Sep 3, 2009)

Zubasa said:


> Thats the problem when nVidia remarked the 8800GS to 9600GSo and later slap on a G94 and refer it by the same name
> 
> 
> Well so you actually have no idea that the guy is buying the "standard" GSO?



he says he bought that one, its not the standard gso, the standard gso has 12 rops and 192bit bus
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121320


----------



## Zubasa (Sep 3, 2009)

None the less, nVidia's low end right now are full of ripoffs, I wouldn't recommand anyone buying those POS.

That G92 crap is one of those later GSOs that are castrated to match the G94 fail fests.

The G94 GSO actually performs much better than this G92. :shadedshu


----------



## KainXS (Sep 3, 2009)

dave bought that card before he was even on this thread, I think the thread op got the good one though,. . . . .  I hope

Sorry Dave, 

sorry


----------



## Zubasa (Sep 3, 2009)

He brought that junk off newegg, by any chance he can return it and get his money back?


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 3, 2009)

LoserDave said:


> Oddly enough ,, With the 9600GSO the 3Dmark simulations were much choppier than the x1950pro, yet it had a higher frame rate,, can't figure that out
> The new Geforce card seems to be putting off just as much heat as the ATI yet isn't shutting down.
> So i guess it was a bit of a trade off,, It works



Keep in mind that a 3Dmark test is a torture test.  The program is designed to push your card to the edge to see how much it will take to make the card crap out.  As such, cards will vary in their response to be pushed to the edge.  Some start getting really chopping, some ghost, some start freezing up, etc.  For a benchmark test, just go with the final score and not really how it looked during the test.

This difference, I think can also be caused by new options like PhysX being enabled for the new card that were not available at first, because the X1950 can't do those function.


----------



## Zubasa (Sep 3, 2009)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Keep in mind that a 3Dmark test is a torture test.  The program is designed to push your card to the edge to see how much it will take to make the card crap out.  As such, cards will vary in their response to be pushed to the edge.  Some start getting really chopping, some ghost, some start freezing up, etc.  For a benchmark test, just go with the final score and not really how it looked during the test.
> 
> This difference, I think can also be caused by new options like PhysX being enabled for the new card that were not available at first, because the X1950 can't do those function.


The "offical" 3DMark Vantage score should have GPU Physx disabled.
Which really puts the load on his CPU.

Vantage don't even run on X1950s.
So I will assume that he is running 3Dmark06:
In DirectX 9.0c those ROPs on the X1950 really comes in handy, and those 96 unified shaders on that GSO really doesn't do much shit.
Now that I look it up, the X1950Pro have almost double memory bandwidth, 12 vs 8 ROPs and even a higher pixel fillrate... 

The X1950Pro actually held its ground against the 8600GTS, so don't know what to say about this 9600GSO...:shadedshu
I guess you got DX10.


----------



## KainXS (Sep 3, 2009)

ummm, no

dave posted a 3dmark  05 score of about 9K, and even then he says it was outperformed his ripped down gso, now I have a gs which is the same as a original gso and it scores 15K stock, and those extra sp's do mean something and you can't compare pixel fill rate or texture rate to any card Geforce 8/Radeon HD2000 or higher, because the architecture is not the same.

I had a X1950XTX and I can tell you right now, this little crappy 8800GS greatly outperformed it when OC'd

the G94 GSO is not faster then the G92 GSO, I had both to replace a GS that died on me just to find out nvidia got me, the card is slower than a normal 96sp gso.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Sep 3, 2009)

Zubasa said:


> The X1950Pro actually held its ground against the 8600GTS, so don't know what to say about thise 9600GSO...:shadedshu
> I guess you got DX10.



The 8600 GTS was a disappointment to everyone.


----------



## audiotranceable (Sep 3, 2009)

KainXS said:


> you should have looked at what you were buying, that 9600gso only has 8 rops meaning the pixel fill rate is alot lower than a standard gso and is only 128bit meaning it has way less memory bandwidth
> 
> this is your gso on gpu z
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090902/GPUZ.png
> ...


muahahaha!


----------



## LoserDave (Sep 3, 2009)

The card i got is the 512mb 128bit version form Asus 
Actually when i consider what i payed for the x1950 pro new ,, as compared to what i paid for the 9600GSO new ,, the the Nivida Card is the absolute best deal , and that makes me happy 

By the way ,, here is a link to a free game from VOLVO that was causing my ATI card to shut down.
I play it with the graphics maxed out ,, pretty nice game.
http://www.volvocars.com/intl/All-Cars-MY09/conceptcars/Pages/S60concept.aspx
Oh and of course did i say it was free???


----------



## LoserDave (Sep 3, 2009)

KainXS said:


> ummm, no
> 
> dave posted a 3dmark  05 score of about 9K, and even then he says it was outperformed his ripped down gso, now I have a gs which is the same as a original gso and it scores 15K stock, and those extra sp's do mean something and you can't compare pixel fill rate or texture rate to any card Geforce 8/Radeon HD2000 or higher, because the architecture is not the same.
> 
> ...



Yeah i think im happier just actually being able to play the games without my computer shutting down


----------



## KainXS (Sep 3, 2009)

well I guess it wasn't so bad huh

nice


----------



## LoserDave (Sep 3, 2009)

At so low a cost for the card.... my mind is pondering,,    maybe SLI? 

Anyone SLI a 9600GSO? 
or as we say in ATI,, Crossfire?


----------



## Zubasa (Sep 3, 2009)

KainXS said:


> ummm, no
> 
> dave posted a 3dmark  05 score of about 9K, and even then he says it was outperformed his ripped down gso, now I have a gs which is the same as a original gso and it scores 15K stock, and those extra sp's do mean something and you can't compare pixel fill rate or texture rate to any card Geforce 8/Radeon HD2000 or higher, because the architecture is not the same.
> 
> ...


Did you realize that I was refering to that particular GSO with 128-bit bus and 8 ROPs?

The G94 GSO is clocked much higher to compansate for its architecture.
This G92 is clocked low and cut down rather badly. So YES the G94 GSO is faster than this GSO.
Even the architecture is difference, you can still some what compare the specs.
The low memoryband width do hold back a cards performance, you are talking about "GDDR3 vs GDDR5" kind of difference.
And spec wise the card He has is pretty much a 8600 with 96sp which isn't that spectecular at all. :shadedshu


----------



## LoserDave (Sep 3, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Don't forget to try different driver versions. Some perform better than others.



Thanks,  yeah ,, I'm going to have to do some research on that.
I'm kinda spoilt with the Catalyst graphical interface ,,,
 The Nvidia control panel only has one preview screen .
 However the Nvidia preview has motion which can indicate possible problems with different settings


----------



## Zubasa (Sep 3, 2009)

LoserDave said:


> At so low a cost for the card.... my mind is pondering,,    maybe SLI?
> 
> Anyone SLI a 9600GSO?
> or as we say in ATI,, Crossfire?


In terms of SLI, don't bother with anything below a 9600GT.
You can get a single card that out performs a pair of 8 ROP 9600GSOs.

If you can return your GSO I will say get a refund and grab this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102838
This card is basically a down clocked 4670, and 4600s OC like nobody's business.


----------



## LoserDave (Sep 3, 2009)

Zubasa said:


> In terms of SLI, don't bother with anything below a 9600GT.
> You can get a single card that out performs a pair of 8 ROP 9600GSOs.
> 
> If you can return your GSO I will say get a refund and grab this:
> ...



Dangit! How did i miss that?  
O well,, no returns now, UPC / Proof of purchase,  already cut out and on it's way for the refund 

Guess i'll build a new system in two years and use all this years hot hardware


----------



## Zubasa (Sep 3, 2009)

LoserDave said:


> Dangit! How did i miss that?
> O well,, no returns now, UPC / Proof of purchase,  already cut out and on it's way for the refund
> 
> Guess i'll build a new system in two years and use all this years hot hardware


To make up for the 8 ROP's on your GSO, I believe you should try to OC the core clock as high as you can to make up for it.
Grab a copy of Rivatuner off Guru 3D and OC away.


----------



## LoserDave (Sep 4, 2009)

well the 9600GSO plays Arkham Asylum just fine at 1200x1600


----------



## KainXS (Sep 4, 2009)

you mean 1600x1200 right


----------



## wahdangun (Sep 4, 2009)

i'm feel bad about your GSO, i even confuse reading all the post about THIS GSO and THAT GSO, then compared the performance from THAT GSO to THIS GSO, it's really fucked up man.

i think i will keep out from GSO for a while(I'm considering to buy a GSO, but after see this mess, i think i will go ati this time)


----------



## LoserDave (Sep 5, 2009)

KainXS said:


> you mean 1600x1200 right


Not if i have the monitor rotated

But yes that's what i ment


----------



## Zubasa (Sep 5, 2009)

wahdangun said:


> i'm feel bad about your GSO, i even confuse reading all the post about THIS GSO and THAT GSO, then compared the performance from THAT GSO to THIS GSO, it's really fucked up man.
> 
> i think i will keep out from GSO for a while(I'm considering to buy a GSO, but after see this mess, i think i will go ati this time)


What happened is Dave is ended up a "victum" of nVidia's naming mess.
He got a GSO that is not quite a GSO (Yes I know its confusing) 

If you want that level if performance, just grab a 4670, or a 4650 GDDR3.
A good one will be the 4650 I mentioned.

Now just to confuse you more nVidia recently rename a card GT 130 
It is the G94 9600 GSO (Well.... Thats the closest thing to it.)


----------



## LoserDave (Sep 6, 2009)

Update on the ASUS 9600GSO 512mb
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121320
If anyone is considering purchasing the 512mb version from Newegg,, there is something you should know.
The card is advertised as having a 1400MHZ memory clock. 
ACTUAL memory clock is 700MHz


----------



## KainXS (Sep 6, 2009)

dave thats not the ddr2 model, its the gddr3 model so its 1400mhz.


----------



## Zubasa (Sep 6, 2009)

KainXS said:


> dave thats not the ddr2 model, its the gddr3 model so its 1400mhz.


I think he is refering to the clock on the memory.
Almost all manufacturers adverise their card using effective clock anyways. 

Nothing abnormal about that, Dave.


----------



## wahdangun (Sep 6, 2009)

maybe, dave still pissed about his GSO, if i were you i will sue NVDIA, because of they naming scam

there should have been a law that's limit how many times a manufacturer can rename their product and there should be no more than one card that have the same name (without prior notice, or press release)


----------



## Wile E (Sep 7, 2009)

LoserDave said:


> Update on the ASUS 9600GSO 512mb
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121320
> If anyone is considering purchasing the 512mb version from Newegg,, there is something you should know.
> The card is advertised as having a 1400MHZ memory clock.
> ACTUAL memory clock is 700MHz



It's 700Mhz DDR (double data rate), so the effective speed is 1400Mhz. Manufactureers tend to advertise effective speeds, not actual speeds.


----------



## Zubasa (Sep 7, 2009)

Wile E said:


> It's 700Mhz DDR (double data rate), so the effective speed is 1400Mhz. Manufactureers tend to advertise effective speeds, not actual speeds.


In this case I actually thinks its a good idea.
The average Joe doesn't understand that GDDR5 900Mhz (DDR 3800) is faster than GDDR3 1000Mhz (DDR 2000) anyways.


----------



## LoserDave (Sep 7, 2009)

Just Overclocked card by common value of 5%
3Dmark05 went from 9100 to 9428
All stable no issues

Going for 10% next! baha bahaha ha


----------



## Zubasa (Sep 7, 2009)

LoserDave said:


> Just Overclocked card by common value of 5%
> 3Dmark05 went from 9100 to 9428
> All stable no issues
> 
> Going for 10% next! baha bahaha ha


You want a 33% overclock on the core to out perform the normal GSO


----------



## LoserDave (Sep 7, 2009)

Zubasa said:


> You want a 33% overclock on the core to out perform the normal GSO



12% only yielded a score of 9728 but stable
not sure i want to go much higher considering my old system.

Mobo: Asus A8n32-SLI Deluxe, socket 939
CPU: Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego 2.4GHz
RAM: 1 GB Kingston HYPERX DDR434
GPU: ASUS GeForce 9600GSO 512mb DDR3
PSU: Antec TruePower Trio 650w
OS: XPpro sp3


----------



## LoserDave (Sep 7, 2009)

wahdangun said:


> maybe, dave still pissed about his GSO, if i were you i will sue NVDIA, because of they naming scam
> 
> there should have been a law that's limit how many times a manufacturer can rename their product and there should be no more than one card that have the same name (without prior notice, or press release)



Ha ha  im not pissed at all.
 just a learning experiance


----------



## Bo$$ (Sep 7, 2009)

LoserDave said:


> Ha ha  im not pissed at all.
> just a learning experiance



usually higher end cards avoid this mess


----------



## LoserDave (Sep 7, 2009)

Well at 20% OC, 660/1650/840 , 3Dmark05 locks up.
So i think 10% is the limit for this card on my old system.


----------



## Bo$$ (Sep 7, 2009)

after market cooler?


----------



## LoserDave (Sep 7, 2009)

ASUS 9600GSO 512mb Over Clocking Final 
 The following is final stable overclocking settings at 1600x1200,
 (On the older system stated below)

GPU OverClocking Settings:
                           Core Clock:...........652MHz
                           Shader Clock:......1596MHz
                           Memory Clock:.......824MHz

3Dmark05 score:
*100037* 


Test System:
Mobo: Asus A8n32-SLI Deluxe, socket 939
CPU: Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego 2.4GHz
RAM: 1 GB Kingston HYPERX DDR434
GPU: ASUS GeForce 9600GSO 512mb DDR3
PSU: Antec TruePower Trio 650w
OS: XPpro sp3


----------



## KainXS (Sep 7, 2009)

wow, thats dirty what asus did, they stuck all the bad G92's on the cards with 8 ropsand I bet they would not even run with 12rops which is why they limited them to 8, which is why even though the core is weaker and should overclock better than a normal gso, it actually overclocks worst, also, why are you running 3dmark 2005.

I'm really suprised thats all you could get out of the memory though


----------



## LoserDave (Sep 7, 2009)

KainXS said:


> why are you running 3dmark 2005.
> 
> I'm really suprised thats all you could get out of the memory though



Well can't afford 3Dmark06 yet.
Also ,,, when you consider i only paid $30 bucks for the card new,, and i paid nearly $200 for my x1950 pro new, plus it's kicking the "shpoopy" out of the x1950 speed wise ( _of course x1950 pro's are selling for like $18 bucks now_)
So , for the cost i still think it's a good deal

After all , it is only a 30 dollar card.


----------



## Zubasa (Sep 7, 2009)

KainXS said:


> wow, thats dirty what asus did, they stuck all the bad G92's on the cards with 8 ropsand I bet they would not even run with 12rops which is why they limited them to 8, which is why even though the core is weaker and should overclock better than a normal gso, it actually overclocks worst, also, why are you running 3dmark 2005.
> 
> I'm really suprised thats all you could get out of the memory though


Well... Thats still not enough to make up for the 128-bit bus width...
Never liked Asus, but I never expecting them to be doing this kinda shit.

Just to make matter worst, a quick run on my bro's rig.
Sapphire X1950Pro all stock on Win 7 Ultimate:


----------



## LoserDave (Sep 8, 2009)

I agree with you about ASUS graphics cards.
 No way as good as their Motherboards.
Their x1950 pro was impossible to overclock with the stock heatsink.

That's my next upgrade, switching to a dual core processor.
i'm sure it would boost performance.
 maybe a FX60  (_yeah right, still way too costly_) or opteron 183
or even a 4800+ x2 would be an upgrade.


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Sep 8, 2009)

Asus is a four letter word after all.....


----------



## LoserDave (Sep 8, 2009)

*Updated my Motherboard BIOS and gained another 1600 points!!*




Wonder what upgrading to a Dual Core would do???


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Sep 8, 2009)

LoserDave said:


> That's my next upgrade, switching to a dual core processor.



IMHO, don't.  Dual core 939's are getting expensive.  Save up for a major upgrade.  ~$300 can get you a motherboard, processor and RAM that will run circles around what you have.  You already have an adequate PSU.  If you want help with what to buy, just post a question in the "System Builder's Advice" forum.


----------



## KainXS (Sep 8, 2009)

I don't know how amds x2's perform but even the lowest clocked core2 the E2140 is pretty much at least 2 times as fast as your 4000+ when overclocked

but that is a good score for the system you have, I will admit that for sure


----------



## LoserDave (Sep 8, 2009)

thebluebumblebee said:


> IMHO, don't.  Dual core 939's are getting expensive.  Save up for a major upgrade.  ~$300 can get you a motherboard, processor and RAM that will run circles around what you have.  You already have an adequate PSU.  If you want help with what to buy, just post a question in the "System Builder's Advice" forum.



You're right . Upgrading the whole system would be fastest ,,
 Someday.
If i could of afforded now i would have bought a better video card along with new mobo, ram & CPU

I'll make this my final post on this thread. 

In conclusion ,, i feel the 9600GSO 512mb board is definitely worth it's price. 
A real deal for a new card.

Thanks to all who posted for their help and input.


----------



## LoserDave (Dec 7, 2009)

Well i did end up upgrading my system.
to 4core amd Phenom @3.4gHz
ASUS motherboard ith IGP HD4200
and windows 7 ultimate.

Now i can't afford a new graphics card


----------



## zithe (Dec 7, 2009)

Well at least it's a decent system now lol


----------



## Zubasa (Dec 7, 2009)

Yup and you are now join but a bunch of GT215 users.


----------

