|
|||||||
| AMD Graphics Cards Discuss AMD/ATI Radeon Graphics Cards from the current 6000 Series, upcoming 7000? series right back to the ATI Radeon 9700 Pro and earlier! |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools |
Apr 22, 2003, 12:58 PM
|
#1 |
|
News Guru
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,400
Rep Power: 0  |
Overclocking Showdown: RADEON 9500 PRO vs. 9600 PRO
Just got word Firingsquad's Brandon Bell has posted his RADEON 9500 PRO vs. 9600 PRO Shoot-out! Here's a snip.
As we discussed in our RADEON 9600 PRO review, the RADEON 9600 family was meant to address ATI’s need for a DirectX 9 part that offered RADEON 9500 PRO class performance, but at a lower production cost. In order to accomplish this objective directly, ATI has reduced the number of pixel pipelines from eight in RADEON 9500 PRO, to four in RADEON 9600 PRO, and shifted to a newer manufacturing process. The manufacturing process in particular is one of the most important changes from the overclockers’ perspective. The RADEON 9600 PRO is ATI’s first graphics core to utilize TSMC’s smaller 0.13-micron manufacturing process. Besides lowering manufacturing costs, the smaller process also allows ATI to hit higher clock speeds. At 400MHz, the RADEON 9600 PRO runs at a higher core clock frequency than even the RADEON 9800 PRO! When you couple this with the RADEON 9600 PRO’s dramatically reduced transistor count (roughly half the transistors of 9500 PRO) you’ve got a chip that generates considerably less heat. In fact, ATI borrowed the heatsink design from its older RADEON 8500/7500 family for the RADEON 9600 PRO. This is a dramatic contrast to the RADEON 9500 PRO, whose cooler was reminiscent of the RADEON 9700 series. Overclocking Showdown: RADEON 9500 PRO vs. 9600 PRO |
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2003, 04:29 PM
|
#2 | |
|
DriverHeaven Founder
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 32,480
Rep Power: 179  |
very impressive
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2003, 01:11 AM
|
#3 |
|
BANNED
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 579
Rep Power: 0 |
Impressive? Nah, not a bit. While the 9600 Pro was heavily OCed, the 9500 Pro was only slightly OCed (esp. the memory!), so it doesn't compare too well... yet even so, the R9600 is still behind in most benchmarks.
Also, inclusion of the 9700 Pro, 9500 non-Pro and Ti 4600 is absolutely pointless, since they were not OCed  Either you go all the way and OC all cards, or you only compare stock speeds... but this way, it's only a very half-assed thing 
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2003, 01:42 AM
|
#4 | |
|
unplugged
|
Quote:
--how do you figure the 9500pro was only slightly oc'd? It was oc'd less because it is only capable of that OC- That was the point I believe, the 9600pro OC's more comparatively. The other cards were thrown in as reference. That is what we were whining about a few days ago- they didn't OC the 9500pro and the 9600pro together, now they did and we still aren't happy? I thought it was just what we asked for..............
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2003, 11:12 AM
|
#5 |
|
confutatis maledictis
|
Lol, save your breath BWX
 
__________________
Digitalis 3.3 Athlon 64 3000 // ASUS K8V SE Deluxe // 1024MB PC3200 (2-2-2-10 1T)
ATI All-In-Wonder 9700 Pro // 20" Dell 2005FPW (DVI) M-Audio Revo 7.1 + Philips Acoustic Edge // Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 320/16 Western Digital WD3200KS + 120/8 Seagate 7200.7 NEC ND-3550A 16x DVD±RW + Lite-On 52x24x CD-RW Antec Sonata case // 480W Antec TruePower personal bests || Aq'3: 46796 | 3D'01: 20461 | 3D'03: 6336 | 3D'05: 2677 | PC'04: 4605 | PC'02: 7691,9092,1250 |
|
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2003, 11:48 AM
|
#6 | |
|
unplugged
|
Quote:
......... But I thought it was a good review, we were bitchin about the exact thing last week remember? About hapw they didn't OC the 9500p and the 9600p at the same time in the same review-- then they do just that and I think we should give'm some slack ya know? 
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2003, 11:55 AM
|
#7 | |
|
confutatis maledictis
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2003, 12:06 PM
|
#8 | |
|
unplugged
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
