AMD not fazed by impending Nvidia 9600 launch

(1 reply) #1 Ficman on 20 Feb 2008 - 16:07

#1.1 Julius Caro on 21 Feb 2008 - 16:11

But if this 9600s have less performance than a 8800GT, then why would they be called 8900? XD

(5 replies) #2 Sazz181 on 20 Feb 2008 - 16:18

And who was it yesterday that said my question of "Will these new cards be faster than the 8800GT?".

This new card is slower than the 8800GT.

#2.1 cykosis on 20 Feb 2008 - 16:33

(Sazz181 said @ #2)

And who was it yesterday that said my question of "Will these new cards be faster than the 8800GT?".

This new card is slower than the 8800GT.

I think that that's fairly obvious from just looking at the model number

#2.2 solardog on 20 Feb 2008 - 16:43

From yesterday:

(Sazz181 said @ #4)

Will this be faster or slower than the 8800 range?

A response to that yesterday:

(MightyJordan said @ #4.3)

Well they're bound to be, aren't they? It's a whole new series. What would be the point of buying a new expensive 9600GT, if it can't outperform an old cheaper 8800?

My response to that response yesterday:

(solardog said @ #4.4)

(MightyJordan said @ #4.3)

Well they're bound to be, aren't they? It's a whole new series. What would be the point of buying a new expensive 9600GT, if it can't outperform an old cheaper 8800?

The article calls it a mid-range and I dont consider $300-$400 for an the current new high end 8800s very cheap...so its a valid question.

...and today we come full circle:

(cykosis said @ #2)

(Sazz181 said @ #2)

And who was it yesterday that said my question of "Will these new cards be faster than the 8800GT?".

This new card is slower than the 8800GT.

I think that that's fairly obvious from just looking at the model number

and round and round we go
Sazz181, your question was completely valid and still today people are looking at the number and coming to the conclusion that the 9600 are more powerfull than the 8800 when they're not...the 9600 are midrange cards and not as powerfull as the current 8800 series.

#2.3 japroach on 21 Feb 2008 - 00:59

(solardog said @ #2.2)

and round and round we go
Sazz181, your question was completely valid and still today people are looking at the number and coming to the conclusion that the 9600 are more powerfull than the 8800 when they're not...the 9600 are midrange cards and not as powerfull as the current 8800 series.

People need to understand, its a new series, its performance is not based off the last series.

#2.4 +Smigit on 21 Feb 2008 - 02:37

(japroach said @ #2.3)

(solardog said @ #2.2)

and round and round we go
Sazz181, your question was completely valid and still today people are looking at the number and coming to the conclusion that the 9600 are more powerfull than the 8800 when they're not...the 9600 are midrange cards and not as powerfull as the current 8800 series.

People need to understand, its a new series, its performance is not based off the last series.

Actually the performance will be based off it since from all I've heard every indication is the new cards are really just an update of the 8XXX architecture. These cards arent a brand new design and I think the push to give them a new name is just a marketing trick and an indication of the move to 65nm design. Besides that, nothing overly special has been seen and withthe top end card being only 30% faster than a single Ultra through the use of SLI, I expect the single card solutions to not be all that much faster than an 8XXX single card at all.

The cards with the "new architecture" are apparently due closer to mid way into the year. I'd honestly say these cards could have gotten away with being called 8900's but I guess the 8XXX range is getting a bit old and they want these to seem new and improved when really it's just a small step up.

#2.5 RAID 0 on 21 Feb 2008 - 08:04

(Smigit said @ #2.4)

(japroach said @ #2.3)

(solardog said @ #2.2)

and round and round we go
Sazz181, your question was completely valid and still today people are looking at the number and coming to the conclusion that the 9600 are more powerfull than the 8800 when they're not...the 9600 are midrange cards and not as powerfull as the current 8800 series.

People need to understand, its a new series, its performance is not based off the last series.

Actually the performance will be based off it since from all I've heard every indication is the new cards are really just an update of the 8XXX architecture. These cards arent a brand new design and I think the push to give them a new name is just a marketing trick and an indication of the move to 65nm design. Besides that, nothing overly special has been seen and withthe top end card being only 30% faster than a single Ultra through the use of SLI, I expect the single card solutions to not be all that much faster than an 8XXX single card at all.

The cards with the "new architecture" are apparently due closer to mid way into the year. I'd honestly say these cards could have gotten away with being called 8900's but I guess the 8XXX range is getting a bit old and they want these to seem new and improved when really it's just a small step up.

Good call.

(1 reply) #3 +majortom1981 on 20 Feb 2008 - 17:00

Can somebody tell me if this card is faster then a 7900gs?

#3.1 toadeater on 21 Feb 2008 - 00:58

(majortom1981 said @ #3)

Can somebody tell me if this card is faster then a 7900gs?

Yes. But you may want to get a 512MB 3870 for slightly better performance with AA enabled and high resolutions, now that prices on them are dropping to ~$200. There are even a few 8800GT's selling for ~$200 after rebate.

Now if only prices on the e8400 would drop...

#4 OblivionStalker on 20 Feb 2008 - 17:26

You should check the specifications at nvidia's website.

#5 rkirby on 20 Feb 2008 - 18:22

Odd. I didn't know the street date for these was the 21st. I work at a very LARGE electronics retailer, and we got them in about a week ago and have been on the shelves since. We have a 9600GT OC by BFG. It's running at $229.99.

#6 rkirby on 20 Feb 2008 - 18:26

For anyone curious about the specs of the one we are carrying. Here is what's listed on the box:

9600GT OC.
512MB DDR3
Core clock: 675mhz
shader clock: 1700mhz
Mem. Data Rate: 1800mhz
Stream Procs: 64
Shader Model: 4.0
Texture fill rate: 21.6 billion/sec
Memory interface: 256 bit
Mem. Bandwidth: 57.6GB/sec
API Support: DX10 and lower. OGL 2.1 and lower.
Connectors: 2 dual-link DVI-I, HDTV+Tv OUT
RAMDACs: Dual 400mhz
HDCP Capable: Yes
HDMI Capable: yes

#7 ShiZZa on 20 Feb 2008 - 20:14

We have been selling them at my Best Buy for about 2 weeks now.

(1 reply) #8 chilliadus on 20 Feb 2008 - 20:19

The cause of all the confusions may be the fact that 8800 series was, say, 30% faster than it should have been. If that was true, we were in the normal circle of Nvidia/ATI taking the lead alternatively, and next generation mid-range card performs close to or better than the old top-line card.

#8.1 solardog on 20 Feb 2008 - 20:56

If the 30% faster is valid, and I think it is with all the factory overclocked versions and whatnot, then that does make sense.

#9 TC17 on 21 Feb 2008 - 01:17

And what these review sites always fail to mention, it benchmarks not much less than the 8800gt also. But they won't mention that because they love to trash ATI.

Neowin.net