No 3 phase power? I'd still rather have my Palit 1GB over this.

Meh I would still buy the normal one... an extra $80 does not merit 1gb of ram.

Isn't it a little late to be screwing around with 8 series cards?

hatIsn't it a little late to be screwing around with 8 series cards?

haha, maayybee, considering the 9600's aren't even as good as the 8800 GTX's.... i don't get what Nvidia is doing lately.

Swansenhaha, maayybee, considering the 9600's aren't even as good as the 8800 GTX's.... i don't get what Nvidia is doing lately.

9600 GT isn't supposed to be as good as 8800 GTX either, it replaces its older generation equivalent, the 8600 GTS, which it did. It's twice as fast as the card from the older generation.

btarunr9600 GT isn't supposed to be as good as 8800 GTX either, it replaces its older generation equivalent, the 8600 GTS, which it did. It's twice as fast as the card from the older generation.

the 9600gt is only twice as fast the 8600gts because the 8600gts was the sh*ttiest excuse for a midrange bang for a bucker...

springs113the 9600gt is only twice as fast the 8600gts because the 8600gts was the sh*ttiest excuse for a midrange bang for a bucker...

Technically, 'mid-range' by classical definition should be Radeon HD2600 XT, HD3650, GeForce 8600 GTS and 9600GT. How 'shitty' an excuse was the HD2600 XT?


The new definition of 'Mid-Range' would be that which allows you to play any current API standard game (currently, any DX 10 game) at medium settings at acceptable frame rates. The 8600 GTS and HD2600 XT couldn't do that....but a 9600 GT can....and so can its price-to-price equivalent, the Radeon HD3850. So, the real mid-range champions would be GeForce 8800 GT and the Radeon HD3870, looking into the price-stratum they fall into.

btarunrTechnically, 'mid-range' by classical definition should be Radeon HD2600 XT, HD3650, GeForce 8600 GTS and 9600GT. How 'shitty' an excuse was the HD2600 XT?


The new definition of 'Mid-Range' would be that which allows you to play any current API standard game (currently, any DX 10 game) at medium settings at acceptable frame rates. The 8600 GTS and HD2600 XT couldn't do that....but a 9600 GT can....and so can its price-to-price equivalent, the Radeon HD3850. So, the real mid-range champions would be GeForce 8800 GT and the Radeon HD3870, looking into the price-stratum they fall into.

if you want to emphasize...emphasize the point that nvidias g92 9 stinks when compared to the g92 8. and like i have said to numerous i have both an 8800gt and 3870 so no fanboy here. it definately looks like you are one of the pawns in this gpu battle...the 2600xt was still better than the 8600gt...and from the jump these cards were not meant to play crysis and other direct 10 games like these manufacturers wanted you think. there as not been such an increase in performance like the jump from a 8600 and the 9600...that just flat out tells ya that the 8600 stinks...and to back my claim up the gts 512 and the gt perform very similarly and the impending gtx i know will not seem so superior when comparing them to the 8800s..its all a wash...

nvidia is playing a dirty game and it shows in how they destroy each one of their product line ups...and to push the envelope even further...the 9600 is a watered down gt...8800gt...and the two are so close in price that they have each other in chokeholds.

springs113the 9600gt is only twice as fast the 8600gts because the 8600gts was the sh*ttiest excuse for a midrange bang for a bucker...

i agree ...

springs113the 2600xt was still better than the 8600gt

You don't know what you are talking about. Anyone who thinks the HD2600XT was better than the 8600GT is either completely ignorant to the facts or a fanboy.

i1.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_3650/images/perfrel.gif

The 8600GT was cheaper than the HD2600XT too, and it still cheaper than the HD3650, which is the exact same card as the HD2600XT.

The 9600GT is faster because it is a beast of a card. It is faster than ATi's high end offering! I mean WTF?!?!?! The 8600GT wasn't super fast card, but it was till better than its competition, as is the 9600GT.

The current gen mid-range card is not supposed to be faster than the last gen's high end cards. Especially when the generations are more like refreshes.

newtekie1You don't know what you are talking about. Anyone who thinks the HD2600XT was better than the 8600GT is either completely ignorant to the facts or a fanboy.

i1.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_3650/images/perfrel.gif

The 8600GT was cheaper than the HD2600XT too, and it still cheaper than the HD3650, which is the exact same card as the HD2600XT.

well i should have clarified a little more...but i guess i like the debate thing...the 2600s/2400 werent really gamers...ati made those cards specifically(2600s) for those that wanted a good htpc remedy but at the same time some gaming...this is why i stated that its better...and come to think of it when it comes to all around performance the ati cards are better...lets not even go nvidias shady image practices to increase frames...lol

springs113well i should have clarified a little more...but i guess i like the debate thing...the 2600s/2400 werent really gamers...ati made those cards specifically(2600s) for those that wanted a good htpc remedy but at the same time some gaming...this is why i stated that its better...and come to think of it when it comes to all around performance the ati cards are better...lets not even go nvidias shady image practices to increase frames...lol

also one review does not make or break a card...and w1zzards method is crazy at times...i asked him to stop doing the aa and af things at higher resolutions or even run test with and without aa because aa and af really were meant to improve the pictures at low resolutions...
but anyways one review does not make or break a card.

springs113well i should have clarified a little more...but i guess i like the debate thing...the 2600s/2400 werent really gamers...ati made those cards specifically(2600s) for those that wanted a good htpc remedy but at the same time some gaming...this is why i stated that its better...and come to think of it when it comes to all around performance the ati cards are better...lets not even go nvidias shady image practices to increase frames...lol

Again, they were not better. They were no better in an HTPC than an 8600GT. And no, all around ATi's cards do not perform better. Show me proof of this. You can't, because it isn't true. Every single ATi card currently available has an nVidia counterpart that performs the same for less money, or better for the same amount of money. For cards not meant to be gamers, they sure were priced like gaming cards.

We can go into nVidia's shady image practices, but then again those are rare, and don't really apply here. Nvidia's image quality is equal to ATi's currently.

Anyone who says ATi's all around performance is better is, again, either completely ignorant or a fanboy. Which are you?

springs113also one review does not make or break a card...and w1zzards method is crazy at times...i asked him to stop doing the aa and af things at higher resolutions or even run test with and without aa because aa and af really were meant to improve the pictures at low resolutions...
but anyways one review does not make or break a card.

Your right, one review does not make or break a card, you are welcome to post some other reviews that show differently. I'm not going to just take your word for it.

AA is used at all resolutions, I use AA and AF no matter what resolution I am gaming at. And resolution has no affect on AF, it is needed on all resolution.

aa/af are ment to improve picture quility PERIOD not just at low res, 1600x1200 i use 8xQ aa on my 8800gt, where as my 1900xtx only needed 2x-4x for the same quility.....nvidia drivers suck...:/

and btarunr=nvidiot, saw a quote a while back in somebodys sig where he admited it........

@newtekie1: check some forums that are detocated to video playback, you will find that in most reviews ati's cards are better for htpc(video decoding) compared to nvidia's 8 seirse, the built in HD decoder and mpeg2 decoder are beter and offload more of the work from the cpu, this along with slitly better image quility in said decoding leads to them being a better choice for an HTPC thats not primarly used for gaming(who would build an HTPC to game on? )

its not just about game perf, and you seem to fail to understand that, also the 8800gts are not nesserly cheaper then the 2600/3650 cards, and the 2400/3450 vs the 8400, the 8400 looses in every way for htpc/mpc use as we all know, any card in that pricerange isnt for gaming at all, so the video decodign ablilitys whats important.

BumbRushand btarunr=nvidiot, saw a quote a while back in somebodys sig where he admited it........

Your point would be? Where has he even posted anything near as trollish as this post anywhere? Very rude of you, nice start to the forums, good day newbie :shadedshu BTW Welcome to TPU :toast:

I think this speaks for itself:

Eh, just save up and buy a 9800GX2.

BumbRushaa/af are ment to improve picture quility PERIOD not just at low res, 1600x1200 i use 8xQ aa on my 8800gt, where as my 1900xtx only needed 2x-4x for the same quility.....nvidia drivers suck...:/

and btarunr=nvidiot, saw a quote a while back in somebodys sig where he admited it........

well as far as tuning ...if you compare turning on aa/af at lower resolutions to the same at higher ones...you will notice that the difference as you increase resolutions are less visible...

Is that dual slot cool? Quite good for SFF. Does EVGA cheaper than 8800GTS 512MB?

newtekie1Again, they were not better. They were no better in an HTPC than an 8600GT. And no, all around ATi's cards do not perform better. Show me proof of this. You can't, because it isn't true. Every single ATi card currently available has an nVidia counterpart that performs the same for less money, or better for the same amount of money. For cards not meant to be gamers, they sure were priced like gaming cards.

We can go into nVidia's shady image practices, but then again those are rare, and don't really apply here. Nvidia's image quality is equal to ATi's currently.

Anyone who says ATi's all around performance is better is, again, either completely ignorant or a fanboy. Which are you?



Your right, one review does not make or break a card, you are welcome to post some other reviews that show differently. I'm not going to just take your word for it.

AA is used at all resolutions, I use AA and AF no matter what resolution I am gaming at. And resolution has no affect on AF, it is needed on all resolution.

there ya go again...aa/af... i said there really is no need for them at higher resolutions....
I AM NOT A FAN BOY I AM A FAN...a lil tip...i own both amd and intel systems with both nvidia and ati gpus...and i will continue to pursue it this way because i like to have my cake and eat it too...

to the guy that said by a gx2..typical fanboy...i could afford to buy that crap but it is not worth it...

as for you again...i really dont think that i need to be digging through my old pc favorites folder just to prove one person wrong...every reviewer/techie knows that no two systems are a like even if you have the same components...

8600GT was one of the best mid range cards ever made. I had the GTS and at the time I was killing the much more expensive X1950Pro and on par with the X1900XT.

Not a fan boy either, I have had 5 Ati cards and 5 Nvidia cards. On top of that, I did the tests and had the proof to back it up.

JC3168600GT was one of the best mid range cards ever made. I had the GTS and at the time I was killing the much more expensive X1950Pro and on par with the X1900XT.

Not a fan boy either, I have had 5 Ati cards and 5 Nvidia cards. On top of that, I did the tests and had the proof to back it up.

the 8600 on par with atis 1900xt
am i seeing things

springs113the 8600 on par with atis 1900xt
am i seeing things

Nope, I was right behind them. I couldn't kill them, but I could keep up. Lost planet, F.E.A.R, and Oblivion to name a few that were only a few FPS behind the XT.

JC316Nope, I was right behind them. I couldn't kill them, but I could keep up. Lost planet, F.E.A.R, and Oblivion to name a few that were only a few FPS behind the XT.

anyways once again nvidia is crazy ...even though it is one review, the review on the 9800gtx does show that the gx2 becomes even more unnecessary than before...it is on par with the 3870x2 and the 9800gx2... while being around the same price of the 3870x2