Working on Radeon 9600XT

by Anand Lal Shimpi on 10/9/2003 12:37 PM EST
Comments Locked

70 Comments

Back to Article

  • Anonymous - Thursday, October 16, 2003 - link

    add 5800NU
  • Pete - Monday, October 13, 2003 - link

    My suggestions:

    1024x768 seems reasonable across the board. I'd like to see three settings at that res: plain, 2xAA 4xAF, and 4xAA 8xAF. I'd also like to see screenshots of each card at each setting in each game. You can include small inline jpg's if you want, but I'm more interested in links to full-size jpg's. I'd prefer a text summary of IQ differences you spotted along with a table of links to the various screenshots, a la NordicHardware's 9800XT review. Small inline shots are fairly useless, as I'd imagine the cards won't show differences so great that they'd be visible in almost-thumbnail sized pics. Please, please include commentary on how their AA and AF implementations differ in each game, as well as whether you'd prefer lower res with AA, or higher res without. Perhaps the latter analysis would only be useful if you could provide 12x10 plain (and maybe 2xAA 4xAF) numbers, too. Please pay particular attention to 3DCenter.de's recent discovery that the 52.14 drivers totally remove trilinear filtering as an option for FX cards.

    As for the system, I think an nF2 and Barton 2500+ is a reasonable mid-range system ATM.
  • Anonymous - Monday, October 13, 2003 - link

    Why should people have to read between the lines then? Hell, why should Anand have to make comments where you HAVE to read between the lines? Shouldn't he just come straight out with the facts, THEN let us make a decision based on that? What about the guys who maybe don't know as much? Who don't know the difference betwen Anti-Aliasing and Anisotropic? What's he supposed to do? Guess? What's the point of writing a review/analysis if all you do is make it even more difficult for a buyer to choose? The current state of hardware reviews is completly ridiculous. All the reviewers worry about is upsetting the company that gave them the card in the first place. No one has any integrity. No one.
  • Morten - Monday, October 13, 2003 - link

    #65
    Settle down dude. If you gotta be told straight out, then find some other hardware sites that does exactly that. AT never has, and probably never will. AT may certianly point you in the right direction, but it never tells you what to do. It lays out all the facts, and all the findings. And leave it to you to decide what to actually buy. But if you read between the lines, it's fairly obvious anyway. I don't really see why it bothers you so much. It's a tough decision. All the alternatives are good at worst. Just use your head. Stop bitching. Don't like it, go somewhere else. I like it this way. Makes me actually think about what I'm gonna get, instead of following blindly.
  • Anonymous#2 - Sunday, October 12, 2003 - link

    1280x1024 would be nice for the 17" and 19" TFT owners.
  • Anonymous - Sunday, October 12, 2003 - link

    These "reviews" are starting to piss me off. You'll all - Anand, Toms, and [H], a bunch of spineless jellyfish afraid of upsetting nVidia. Stop taking advice from nVidia on what and how to benchmark. Actually REPORT your findings. MAKE IT CLEAR what you are trying to say. Don't say "we'll leave it up to you to decide" or "a certain hardware vendor does this" or "we don't notice it during gameplay so it doesn't matter". Don't force us to speculate on what point it is you've tried to make but have hidden behind your spineless attempts at journalism - SAY IT. SAY WHAT YOU MEAN. IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO YOUR READERS TO MAKE SURE THEY MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION WHEN BUYING THEIR $500 VIDEOCARD.
  • Go1 - Sunday, October 12, 2003 - link

    Please include 9800 pro or xt for reference. 9700pro is a more common card and would be nice to see it instead of 9700. 1280x960 would be great, I want to see how well this card will do at higher resolutions.
  • pisart - Sunday, October 12, 2003 - link

    Use the gf4 ti4600 to, in the latest reviews they let that card every time be replaced by the ti4200. Your current list is good. ;)
  • lifeguard1999 - Saturday, October 11, 2003 - link

    For card #6 I would use an ATI 8500 or NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200.
  • BMA - Saturday, October 11, 2003 - link

    I would also request that the tests be done on a more common PC setup.
  • DG - Saturday, October 11, 2003 - link

    I'd like a 9800pro (or 9800XT) in there, just as a reference, numbers mean much more when there is something more "understood" to compare against. Also I thought ATi said the 9600XT would beat the 9700PRO in all areas, so that might be the more suited card of the two - I think its a more popular card also. Maybe not 100% relevant to the cost bracket, but still close and most enthusiasts have an idea of the comparable performance of the 9700pro/non-pro.

    Also I agree about going with fastest CPU generally, since the main objective is to compare video cards. Also to support a CPU scaling chart or two (the most "important" games and the most apparently cpu bound one only maybe?), this has been VERY useful for people buying whole new systems and those looking to upgrade.
  • Anonymous - Saturday, October 11, 2003 - link

    Jeff, you're an idiot, stop posting irrelevant crap about subscribers in every weblog. Dork.

    Anyway, I'd really like to see a Ti4200 and/or Ti4600 included in your benchmarks. Preferably, Ti4200. Besides that, just make sure BF1942 is included, as that is a VERY popular games.

    Thanks Anand. :)
  • Ronald - Saturday, October 11, 2003 - link

    See if the 9600XT can be somehow modded into a 9800XT. :O
  • mietde - Saturday, October 11, 2003 - link

    1280x1024 would be nice though.
  • Defconfunk - Saturday, October 11, 2003 - link

    I'd really like to see the 9500Pro included.
    I'm really curious how it stacks up to these newer cards.
  • Henry Thomas - Saturday, October 11, 2003 - link

    There are quite a few of us at Rage3D who want to see what the differences are between the 9700 Pro and the 9600 Pro. There is speculation that the 9600 Pro will actually be a faster card overall even with the reduced memory pipeline.
  • Truder - Saturday, October 11, 2003 - link

    Since it is a "mainstream" product, it would be reasonable to bench it on a mainstream computer (I'm sure you know what, better than I do).

    Although the bottleneck issue is a valid point as well, and if you intend to do a CPU scaling article later on, it might be the best choice. Ultimately it's your call.

    Keep up the good work!
  • Anonymous - Saturday, October 11, 2003 - link

    9700 Pro, since ATI made the comparison and claimed the 9600XT better in all ways.

    Also, I agree about benchmarking this class of cards with nothing faster than a 3 GHz P4. That's about equal to an OC'd 2.4C or Barton.
  • Ronald - Saturday, October 11, 2003 - link

    Ti4200 included.
  • edplayer - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    and I think you should use the 9800 nonpro and a 8500 in your comparisons (some NVidia cards also, including the Ti4200).
  • edplayer - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    Can you test it at 2 resolutions? 1024x768 and 1152x864 (or 1280x960). And I think it should be tested on a Barton cpu (2500+ oc'd to 2.2GHz) as that is currently the best performance/price cpu out (this card is anticipated to be one of the better performance/price cards)
  • BenSkywalker - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    For boards, I would suggest dropping the 5600 non Ultra and the Ti4600 and using the Ti4200 and R8500 instead. For people thinking about upgrading to the 9600XT, it is more likely that they would have one of those boards.

    For processor, I would say something in the XP2500/P4 2.4GHZ would be better suited for a review of mid level parts. Most people who pick up mid range graphics cards don't spend ~$600 or more on a processor and mobo.
  • nla - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    9800SE is as expensive as a 9600XT (200 bucks) so this card MUST be included in the review :)
  • Anonymous - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    I also would like to see one high end card, such as a 9800 Pro or XT, as a reference point.

    It could replace the Ti4600 imo.
  • Anonymous - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    Please test as much DX9 benchmarks as you can.

    I would also like to see these cards in the benchmark if possible.

    ATI:
    9800XT
    9500 pro
    9500
    9600
    9600se
    9100

    Nvidia
    5900 ultra
    GF4mx440
  • Anonymous - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    Do some PROPER IQ testing and not that shit on those 9800XT/NV38 tests. Or go and get some sleep and let someone write the review who knows what the hell they are doing.
  • Anonymous - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    It doesn't matter what games you use, as long as those games:
    A) push the card hard enuf so that the CPU isn't the bottleneck
    B) use features on the card like Pixel and Vertex Shaders of various versions so that I can tell how well it perform on modern and future games.
    C) aren't coded with any one particular IHV in mind.

    If I want a review of 20 or so games, then I'll go read game reviews - so how about a review of the card itself?
  • Anonymous - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    Another idea would be to have a FPS/$ chart comparing the cards you end up testing.
  • Unoid - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    A lot of current 9600 pro owners would like to see how well the xt overclocks. Also I'd like to know the stock vgpu and vmem voltages. ( to comapre to 9600 pro) A lot of poeple don't mind modding/ocing their 9600 pro and if there isn't muchdiff in overclocking of either then a pro would be better/cheaper choice.

    If you wanna know where to take volt readings check volt mod section of my site. Also Please e-mail me high res front and back pics of the card you're reviewing.
    Http://unoid.net/9600pro/
  • Anonymous - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    I say at the 9800xt to show if the difference in price justifies the cost. If possible use the Asus version since Atacom.com is selling it now for $580
  • Anonymous - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    Cards I'd like to see:

    9600XT
    9700 PRO (or 9800 Non-PRO)
    9500 PRO
    NV36/FX5700 (if possible)
    FX5600 Ultra
    Ti4600
  • Anonymous - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    How long until you get your hands on NV36. I think that's the comparison everyone wants. 9600XT vs. 9700 PRO vs. 9500 PRO would also be good.
  • z0mb1e - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    There seems to be alot of interest in comparing the 9700 Pro and the 9600XT. As someone who will be buying a gfx card soon I'd like to see that comparison myself. Also, I'd rather see a 9500 than a 9600 Pro, especially with the newer games.
  • Anonymous - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    I have a hard time asking for anything considering the great job you've already done, but here's one request:

    Maybe instead of a Ti4600, you could use a Ti4200. I realize the difference will be minimal when compared to such powerful cards, but I believe there are many many more Ti4200 owners out there than Ti4600 owners.

    In truth, I would just like to see the incredible leaps the graphics industry has made in the last few years, and comparing a very popular card of yesterday (such as the Ti4200) with the new breed could foster a little appreciation among those who only see the (relatively) minute differences between the top-end contenders. (The greater the gap between new and old, the greater the appreciation, thus the Ti4200)

    Either way, I fully support the addition of a GeForce4 Ti card, and can't wait to see the results.
  • Anonymous - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    Finally, I'm so glad to hear about the inclusion of the Ti4600. Ever since the new DX9 cards have come out, everyone has completely dropped the older DX7/8 cards. If we're contemplating an upgrade, it helps to see what sort of performance increases we get by moving to the new crop of cards. Also, I think if you're testing with the 5600 Ultra, you can drop the 5600 from the suite.

    As for the CPU, I saw go with the fastest. If you use a slower processor, and we get to a game where the CPU is limiting things, we get absolutely no information on the video cards- which is the sole purpose of this review. Save scaling for later, and tell us about the cards.
  • Anonymous - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    You think Anand reads this? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !
  • Jeff - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    Anand, check your email and actually reply please. Stop ignoring the subscriber issues.
  • Anonymous - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    Cards I would like to see:
    9800XT
    9600XT
    9700Pro
    9500
    9200
    NVidia FX5600 Ultra

    We don't need to see much of the nVidia side of the market, since the other nVidia cards have their own reviews that compare to the ATI counterpart.

    And I would either use the same test bed you used in the original 9800XT review to save you some time. I don't think it matters what the test bed is, you should still theoretically see the same rank of winners in the end.

    Thanks for asking, Anand!
  • Mark - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1890...

    "According to ATI, the Radeon 9600 XT should be the first mainstream part to outperform the Radeon 9700 Pro in all situations – not bad for a $199 card."

    Would be nice to see the 9700 Pro used in the review, and perhaps some 1280x960,1280x1024 comparisons on the same test system used in the High End Shootout.
  • Shalmanese - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    If you use the same testing platform, wouldn't it be possible to use the numbers from the 9800XT review? That way, you could get away with testing less cards but have more numbers, better both ways.
  • Morten - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    I'd also like to see the 9700Pro instead of the 9700NP. Just to see if the rumours about 9600TX ~ 9700Pro.

    I'd rather see a AthlonXP 3200+ (many overclock 2500+ to 3200+) than a Athlon64 FX51. Since these cards are budget cards, they will for the most part, be run on budget systems. And there's no better budget CPU than the 2500+ atm. But this isn't a big issue really. But it would be nice to see though.

    Also about using 1024x768 for benchmarking. Personally I'd like to see 1280x1024 included too, but I guess, with these cards, you won't be running 1280x1024. Anyway, I'm not sure, that's why I'd like to know I guess.

    If your doing a CPU scaling comparison later, then just use the A64 FX.
  • hohoh0 - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link

    Athlon 64 FX should be fine for testing platform. Any idea when that CPU scaling comparison report will come out?
  • Anonymous - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link

    Anandtech and Hardocp are the only corporate sites that have not sold themselves to companies and that is what makes them great.

    There are also small sites that are doing a great job with reviews such as Legit Reviews, Xbit labs, CoolTechZone, ArsTechnica, Gruntville etc. etc. but am also noticing small sites being sold out for money or free stuff. That is unethical.
  • Anonymous - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link

    OT: How about a TV Tuner card roundup review? Take all of the stand-alone TV Tuner cards available at NewEgg.com, and comparison test. Including the ATI TV Wonder Pro, MSI TV@nywhere Master, Leadtek, etc. Maybe include 3rd-party software, such as DScaler, ShowShifter, PowerVCR, etc.
    Also, compatability with Windows Media Center Edition.
    Thanks!
  • Anonymous - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link

    I NEED A JOVB
    \






  • Anonymous - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link

    Truly NC Y Cali dos goot
  • Anonymous - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link

    Did u ponys see Jonny0n spluges ....... i didntb
  • Anonymous - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link

    Epic Truly does until Boy JC spluges on us
  • Anonymous - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link

    I'm from Calee4nia AND NC RulZ
  • Anonymous - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link

    NC Rulz
  • Anonymous - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link

    Epic rULZ
  • Anonymous - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link

    Dont Worry ,,,Hakors say it runs on GF3 no Problemo,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,so PLAY UNREAL 2004 With your new cart And u wont forget it.....


    Right Buddy..........
  • Anonymous - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link

    The thing about is Dont worry....Every thing is going RUN fine no matter What jou Got


    We Havevto Vorry about ur own State
  • Anonymous - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link

    Thank You #16
  • Anonymous - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link

    #15 Hey when HL2 comes out the 9600 should be a steal so dont worry about it
  • Anonymous - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link

    OK Bay, all we to do is to pencil in the results, the difference at best is maybe 10% so just figure 10% percent in the price of the wallet that is in the pocket...I'm trying so hard not to use the word you when writing someone...
  • Bay - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link

    #8 - Sure, you may be right. The main purpose in my asking of him to use a 9700 Pro instead of a 9700 was to perhaps clear up some controversy of which performs faster - the 9600XT or 9700 Pro (you can browse the forums of the major websites to see what I'm talking about).

    #11 - Sure, but it would be nice to see them on the same set of graphs. ;)
  • Anonymous - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link

    #11 True, We already know that these super Carts are still not ready for "Prime Time " in heavy fire-fights at 16x12 w/aa/af enabled... It's a pity I still have to go down in resolution on my 400.00 video card to get frame rates that are exceptable...Example UT2K3 Excessive/Mod is the most demanding app. for a videocard I crawl some times at 1280x960 ....
  • Anonymous - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link

    test-bed system should be a 3ghz on a D865GBFL (or another 865 platform)... it (motherboard) is a cheap mainsteam dual-channel DDR board... I think that the 9500pro would be a nice inclusion, if it wins again, I would give it a liftime achievement award (I already noticed that its GPixel count is higher than the 9600XT on ATI's site... 2.2 vs 2.0). Also DX8.1 features should be run on an 8500 vs the 9600np,FX5200 & FX5600.
  • Anonymous - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link

    we already know what a 9700/9800 does by now DONT WE?????
  • Anonymous - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link

    I would like to see it vs the other ATI cards vs nvidias, tho I guess the 5600s would be okay to add in, but the 9600XT vs the 9600Lite, 900 and 9600 Pro, 9700/Pro as well at the 9800SE at last would be good so we can see which cards is right for us.
  • Anonymous - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link

    I think I'll go enjoy the day in sunny Palm Spings also ,Cmon Brandy lets go for a walk...
  • Anonymous - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link

    #6 if the card does not perform better than the 9700NP why include the Pro
  • CrystalBay - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link

    Naw Anand, that is a perfect solution, as far as cards and suites.
  • Bay - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link

    Anand,

    It was suggested elsewhere that the 9600XT may perform better than the 9700 Pro, so it would be quite interesting to see if this suggestion holds true, so perhaps you could include a 9700 Pro instead of a 9700 in the review (despite the 9700 Pro being more expensive than the 9600XT).

    Personally, I also wouldn't use the 5600 non-Ultra either, as it may be redundant since you already have a 5600 Ultra in the review. Moreover, using a top-performing card such as the 9800XT may also be useful as a benchmark to see how the 9600XT stacks up compared to the "best".
  • Anonymous - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link

    Mr. Lai Shimpi,

    Could you please tell me the three most important hardware components to consider when purchasing a new computer gaming system part by part?

    In my opinion it would be an upgradable motherboard, the processor and upgradable case?

    My max to spend is around 800$ but I want this system to be really fast. So the graphics card ram and the rest I can wait till I find a good deal. Thanks
  • RaynorWolfcastle - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link

    Anand, would it be possible to have an 8500 or 9100 or 9200 in (some of) the tests?
    That would be great as I'm sure many users still have 8500-generation products and will be looking to upgrade to the ATI 9XXX series or nVidia's FX series. It would also be interesting to see how nVidia's Ti series and ATI's 8500 compare in next-gen games.

    BTW, great work on the fall video card round up so far!
  • aNom - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link

    Guess I should add opinion on the cpu.
    Why not use what gamers in this price range use, either a Barton 2500+ or P4 2.4 and then overclock?
  • aNom - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link

    I would like to see the 9500 Pro added into the mix. There are many people out there who are still debating which to buy when their local shop carries both.
  • Anonymous - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link

    #1. Its nice to solicit opinions, but you'll piss the ati fanbois off no matter what you do. :)

    #2 I'd like to see you include one high end card, the 9800Pro or 9800XT just as reference.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now