9600 Pro in old comp...

[wdwrightjr]

I decided to upgrade my video card so I could play some games with a better framerate and overall better graphics. I got a Sapphire Radeon 9600 PRO to replace my GeForce2 GTS. Unfortunately I get the pretty much the sameFPS in games like Madden2006, GTA:SA, DS2 using FRAPs to test, although they do look better. The FPS in madden 2006 is slow about 20-30fps running unless I throw a long ball it will get 40-50fps. But mostly 20-30. In San Andreas its unplayable, 10-20fps, usually around 15, I had hope a new card which allow me to play these games. I can still play madden 2006 but fps sucks. fps doesnt seem to be as important in Madden though. I did a timedemo on quake3 and only get 10 more fps with 9600 PRO compared to my O/C GF2 GTS. 80 vs 90fps. I guess my system is bottlenecking the performance but I read some posts from here and it seemed that the 9600 PRO would have been good for my sytem. Here are the important specs...

1GHz AMD TBird on Asus A7V
384 SDRAM 133mhz

Now that your all done laughing, it gets even worse. ATiTool and System Info from Ati Tray Tool from the Omega Drivers report my default memory speed at 230mhz! It should be 300! My core is at 400 like normal. My card is 128-bit with 4 pipelines and looks exactly the same as pictures of the sapphire radeon 9600 pro which I looked up on the net. I have tried the latest official drivers from ATI now I'm on the Omega. I think its worthless because I believe my system is the bottleneck but I didnt expect pretty much no performance gain! Whats the deal? Should I send this thing back? I know I'm one broke ass mofo and need to build a new comp but I really was expecting more than 10fps increase in q3 lol. Any suggestions to remove the bottleneck? Can anyone explain why my memory core is default at 230mhz?

Thank You,
Dan

P.S. - Sorry for long post

 

[blackdog2]

it could have been one of the crippled 9600s with cheaper memory.
all i can say is upgrade mobo and memory to a 'value' setup and you might see an improvement if your processor is just about the minimum spec of those games

 

[wdwrightjr]

it could have been one of the crippled 9600s with cheaper memory.
all i can say is upgrade mobo and memory to a 'value' setup and you might see an improvement if your processor is just about the minimum spec of those games

Hrmm...could you tell me more about these crippled 9600s? Any links discussing them? I never heard this before. 8O

 

[blackdog2]

it could have been one of the crippled 9600s with cheaper memory.
all i can say is upgrade mobo and memory to a 'value' setup and you might see an improvement if your processor is just about the minimum spec of those games

Hrmm...could you tell me more about these crippled 9600s? Any links discussing them? I never heard this before. 8O

haven't seen it discussed but here is a link to one for sale which sounds like yours
crippled 9600pro (466MHz RAM)

 

[funnyvlad]

My dad has an old computer but still I could play gta san andreas at 25-30 fps(with antialiasing on) on agp2 mode!

his rig is

xp 1600(Palomino)
sdram(133Mhz) 768mb
connect3d radeon 9600xt 128Mb agpx2(an agp8 card that for strange reasons don´t work in agp4 even thoug the motherboard support it)
Matsonic 830EP sis730

If you compare this rig with yours then you see that cpu does the most difference 8)

 

[blackdog2]

but his 9600 would limit your dads computer to about 20FPS so its part cpu part graphics.
still though i would consider a new cpu/board/ram before new card although a new system might be the best bet instead of tyking yourself to agp

 

[Crashman]

You're wrong, that's not crippled, that's OVERCLOCKED!

The problem with 9600 Pro 256MB versions is that the reference speed is DDR400. The 128MB card was DDR600.

 

[Crashman]

It's a 256MB version isn't it? Well then, don't complain, you did this to yourself.

All the experts know that the 128MB card has a reference of 400MHz core and 300MHz (DDR600) RAM, but the 256MB reference is 400MHz core and 200MHz (DDR400) RAM. You actually got a FASTER THAN STANDARD card, so you should be happy! Either that, or you should have bought the faster 128MB version.

 

[blackdog2]

there are plenty of 200 MHz 128 MB pros out there too
link(newegg of course)

 

[Crashman]

Shame isn't it?

Too bad he has the 256MB card and can't complain, at least if he had the 128MB card he'd have reason to complain.

 

[rodney_ws]

I ordered the cheapest 9600 Pro I could find back in the day... and when it arrived it had a "9600 Pro EZ" label on it... those last two letters were an indication I'd bought a crippled card (if I remember correctly I believe the memory was severely underclocked)

 

[Crashman]

The good new is, a bunch of 9600 Pros with 200MHz RAM clock actually shipped with 4ns RAM, making them easy for 250MHz. The bad news is, some came with 5ns RAM.

 

[Rabidpeanut]

I dont know if anyone already said this but: You can flash your card to a 9600xt it will work faster, the reason you are having trouble is A: It is a sapphire.
B: your cpu is too slow.
C: your motherboard is probably also too slow.

Some sapphire cards are faster but ati put a stop to that and i think it only involves the x800 series of cards.

I can run all new games on my computer with a 9600xt, but then again they dont look too good, also my processor is a TAD faster.

 

[unsmart]

Don't try flashing it! theres two cores for the 9600pros rv350/360 the 360 are the xt core. you may have a 360 core but if your ram can't hit 300 your card will fry. Try finding max ram on atitools then move to the core. my 9600 pro hit 462core 324 mem thats with after market cooling [arctic silencer and ran hs]. Your system mem looks like the problem, does your hard drive light come on alot while playing? The sad part is that it's cheaper to get a new mobo and 512 ddr then 512 pc133. Try turning off all programs besides the game and check bios settings see if your agp setting matches the cards. tbirds are socket A right, those mobo run about $30 and 512ddr is around $20. I have the same thing with an old budget build. 384mb of pc133 on xp is just slow. Did you set system properties in control panel[xp] to best performance? It makes a big difference.

 

[Stummpy]

Dude, all you have to do is get a newer CPU, motherboard, and more ram. I'm running a P4 478 (2.8ghz) 800mhzFSB CPU, which at this time you get at newegg.com for $178.00, an ASUS P4P800-E mobo, which I could not find on newegg, but I did find a ASUS P4P800-VM MicroATX board that is pretty close to mine for $92.00, and 2.5ghz Corsair ValueSelect RAM(3 sticks), you can get it for $83.00 a stick at newegg (as you can see I love newegg. IT ROCKS!). I also use a Radeon 9600XT and I can play Battlefield 2 at 1024x768 resolution and everything at medium graphics online with a few hick-ups here and there. So you can spend $353.00+shipping and probably see a much bigger improvement or jsut break down and build I new PC. And on a side note I would buy AMD CPUs from now on. They have slower clock speeds than Intel, but their architecture is much better for gaming and normally outperform Intel in that area.

 

[Rabidpeanut]

I guess i am just lucky that i bought my card second hand, already flashed. I didn't know that your ram could mess with the process.

 

[wdwrightjr]

Wow,

I thought this thread was dead. So many replies, thank you all for your advice/opinion/etc.

Crashman: No, its a 128MB Version, I didn't consider putting a 256mb version into this comp. Thank you for the heads up tho! I thought they all would be clocked at 300mhz for the mem core. Also I don't mean to complain if it came across that way, because really my comp is so outdated I'm glad no one just replied "omg your comp sux ROFFLES" Hehe.

Unsmart: I will try your suggestions ASAP! Thank you.

You all are very nice! I learn alot reading here.

 

[sturm]

Havent seen it mentioned at all yet.
Did you completely clean off the old nvidia drivers before you installed the ati dirvers.
That could definitly make it run slow.

 

[wdwrightjr]

Havent seen it mentioned at all yet.
Did you completely clean off the old nvidia drivers before you installed the ati dirvers.
That could definitly make it run slow.

Yea, I used Driver Cleaner 3 in safe mode and got rid of the extra traces of the nvidia drivers. Still runs the same. My system is definately the bottleneck. Thanks tho.

 

[wdwrightjr]

there are plenty of 200 MHz 128 MB pros out there too
link(newegg of course)

Is NewEgg getting it wrong? Because on the page it says 400MHZ for the memory. How do you the mem is at 200mhz?

 

[wdwrightjr]

The good new is, a bunch of 9600 Pros with 200MHz RAM clock actually shipped with 4ns RAM, making them easy for 250MHz. The bad news is, some came with 5ns RAM.

I thought all 9600 Pro's would have 300mhz Ram, now the regular 9600s do have 200mhz. Mine which is a Pro has 230mhz.

 

[Crashman]

Some manufacturers don't follow ATI's guidelines. ATI's guidelines were 300MHz RAM for the 128MB and 200MHz RAM for the 256MB version of the 9600 Pro. The reason their guidlines include slower RAM on the 256MB version is to keep the price premium over the 128MB version small.

Some manufactuers have ignored ATI's guidelines and put the slow RAM on the 128MB version, or used speeds somewhere between the two.

The 9600 non-pro should come with 300MHz core/200MHz RAM. The Pro gets a 400MHz core.

 

[Stummpy]

The 9600XT is stock 500mhz core/297mhz mem. I overclocked the core 526mhz in ATITool, but the mem wont budge any further without artifacts.

 

[Rabidpeanut]

I can only get mine that far too. The mem can go to 383 or so though. But weirdly enough i actually noticed no performance increase, i think i killed a pipeline.

 

[Stummpy]

Wow, do you have an after market cooler? Because if I try to push my mem any faster than 297mhz the screen starts to go crazy and I don't have an off brand card its an ATI.