9600SE vs 9500PRO

Discussion in 'Asus' started by jim fallon, Feb 26, 2004.

  1. jim fallon

    jim fallon Guest

    Just a note to tell anyone NOT to buy a Radeon 9600SE they are crap, get a
    9500PRO if you can find one!!!

    I have just replaced the 9600SE with a 9500PRO my first 3Dmark03 score was
    2855 an increase of 61%!!!!
    (see below for my system details)
    By the way does anyone know how to check whether a card is a 9500 or a
    9500PRO? Windows, 3Dmark reckons its a 9500 not a 9500PRO?
    Thanks

    Jim

    My previous post regarding performance:

    Graphics card: powercolor Radeon 9600SE, 128MB DDR
    Motherboard: asus a7N8x deluxe
    cpu: athlon xp 2000+
    memory: single channel 512MB PC3200 at 166MHZ
    hard disks: 60mb + 80MB both 7200rpm
    Windoze XP Pro SP1

    This is a new board, I replaced an Asus A7133 with 256MB PC133 memory.

    However with the new setup my 3DMark03 score only increased from 1670 to
    1707 an increase of 2%.
    Have I set it up incorrectly?
    I'm considering replacing the 9600SE with an ATI Radeon 9500PRO 128MB, from
    Tom's benmarking this has far higher scores.

    Any ideas?

    I have just replaced the 9600SE with a 9500PRO my first 3Dmark03 score was
    2855 an increase of 61%!!!!
     
    jim fallon, Feb 26, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. jim fallon

    DaveW Guest

    Ah, but the 9500 is Not DX9 capable...
     
    DaveW, Feb 27, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. um .........yah it is.............

     
    Kirby & Christine, Feb 27, 2004
    #3
  4. jim fallon

    Sept1967 Guest

    Ah but the 9500Pro *IS* DX9...and it kicks the crap out of a 9600se
    (Same GPU as the Radeon 9700, but 128bit memory access).

    Try reading about something before you post BS about it...

    http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=Mzk2
     
    Sept1967, Feb 27, 2004
    #4
  5. Or, if you want to stay with a 9600, get a 9600XT. This one has almost
    identical performance to the 9500pro (sometimes slightly faster,
    sometimes slightly slower) and needs a lot less power. The 9500pro is a
    fine card, but might be hard to get nowadays.
    The 9600SE has only *1/3* the memory bandwidth (slow 64bit memory) of
    the 9600pro/xt/9500pro (slow 64bit memory) which really hurts its
    performance.
    (if you need a decent but cheap, possibly passive-cooled DX9 card, the
    9600 (without suffix) is also an option.)

    Roland
     
    Roland Scheidegger, Feb 27, 2004
    #5
  6. jim fallon

    J. Clarke Guest

    Prove it.
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 27, 2004
    #6
  7. Your statement...
    I think you´re doing sth wring here.

    Had 3200 with an 9200 and a Celeron
    PC3200 is 200mhz ( 2x ) isn´t it ? 166mhz is PC2700, I think.
    Crossposted. Hmm...
    To get this somehow ASUS related I´ll give you some reading here:

    ASUS P4B266 ( FSB100 (4x) board ! ), P4 2,8/533 @2960, 512mb PC2700 @376mhz,
    5900XT, 300W PSU at (3D) Vcore 1,458, 12V at 11,477V.
    16479 3D2001marks - 6469 3D2003 marks...

    Do you run the tests with v-synch activated ?

    Greetz
     
    Clock´n Roll, Feb 27, 2004
    #7
  8. jim fallon

    BoB Guest

    For a few bucks more the powercolor 9600 pro(400Mghz)
    with 128meg(600mghz) looks awful good!
     
    BoB, Feb 27, 2004
    #8
  9. jim fallon

    Dark Avenger Guest

    The ati radeon 9500 Pro ( wich I boost in my system by the way ) has 8
    pipelines versus 4 on the 9600SE, and also has a 128bits memory acces
    while the 9600SE only has 64-bits.

    Yes, the biggest problem the 9600SE has is the.. 64-bits memory bus.

    The 9500 Pro, though hard to get indeed is very par with the 9600 XT
    wich is clocked WAY higher.

    So, though its official a "dead mans" card it still, yes..still kicks
    the ass out of many other cards in games. The card is as ATI said..to
    good for it's value! It was sold pretty cheap and those who have the
    card don't need to upgrade not even now yet, yes we as 9500 Pro owners
    might need to ... use a bit lower settings, but games still run very
    fine, that after 2 years of the existance of the GPU.

    I hold on this one untill probably the big upgrade when I replace
    EVERYTHING, or actually just kick this pc into File Server usage...
    and get a new shining pc with 64-bit processor, 2Gb of pure memory,
    hard disk space enough for all the games I like. Ah yes... that over a
    year or 2/1,5 :)
     
    Dark Avenger, Feb 27, 2004
    #9
  10. jim fallon

    Rob Stow Guest

    I know someone who replaced a 9200 Pro with a 9600 SE
    without doing his research first. He took a big hit
    on every benchmark he tried.
     
    Rob Stow, Feb 27, 2004
    #10
  11. jim fallon

    Mike P Guest

    SOunds like a bad driver install or something, the 9200pro is nothing
    special either, the 8500/9100 will kick it's ass.

    Mike
     
    Mike P, Feb 27, 2004
    #11
  12. jim fallon

    yafriend Guest

    WILL YOU SHUT THE **** UP!

    YOUR A FUCKING RETARD IN EVERY FUCKING POST YOU ARE BARELY ABLE TO
    MAKE.

    YOU WASTE OF LIFE.
     
    yafriend, Feb 28, 2004
    #12
  13. jim fallon

    Darthy Guest

    DaveW is the group moron, pretty much every posts he makes is full of
    shit, incorrect or the usual plain stupidity as you've just witness.
     
    Darthy, Feb 28, 2004
    #13
  14. jim fallon

    Darthy Guest


    9000/9200Pros are faster than a 9600se.
     
    Darthy, Feb 28, 2004
    #14
  15. jim fallon

    J. Clarke Guest

    Ordinarily I don't particularly like seeing language such as you used, but
    in the extant case, well said.

    I can't figure out if he's a troll or just stupid.
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 28, 2004
    #15
  16. jim fallon

    Mike P Guest

    Do you have any links indicating this? I'm not in the market for one but
    I'm kind of interested in following this naming mess... I was looking at
    those cards a while back and I know the 9000/pro is a p.o.s. as is the 9200,
    haven't seen much on the 9200pro but I doubt it's much better. I also know
    the 9600se has a cut down bus and is crap as well. I was using the 8500 for
    comparision, a card I had a couple years back. The bottom line is that
    anything below the 8500 is too slow for gaming now imho.

    9600se & 9200 benches:
    http://www.digital-daily.com/video/ati-vga-roundup2003/

    http://firingsquad.com/hardware/call_of_duty_ati/page4.asp

    http://oc3dmark.octeams.com/radeonguide.html

    card specs:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/index.html

    I also remember seeing a link where the 9200 beat the 9600se in a bench (I
    can't remember which one) but I didn't save the link. But again, anything
    sub 8500 is pretty much in the same (not, or barely, sufficient) class.

    Cheers,
    Mike
     
    Mike P, Feb 28, 2004
    #16
  17. jim fallon

    wfs Guest

    Remember when real men used Real computers!?
    the first machine I worked on had 8k of RAM.

    The company I worked for sold the machine & software (payroll, stock
    control etc) for 15,000 pounds (back when you could actually buy something
    for a pound)

    Bill
     
    wfs, Feb 28, 2004
    #17
  18. jim fallon

    Sept1967 Guest

    I guess so (from the posts yelling at him).
    Every village needs it's Idiot...
     
    Sept1967, Feb 29, 2004
    #18
  19. jim fallon

    Gordon Scott Guest

    SE = suckers edition
     
    Gordon Scott, Feb 29, 2004
    #19
  20. jim fallon

    Mike P Guest

    I thought it stood for slow edition.

     
    Mike P, Feb 29, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.